2443 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Somehow I get the feeling that NSA internet surveillance is not at the very top of Pakistan's national security problems...
Perhaps they can find a baby to arrest for compromising their network security.
Well, you see, the Russian population on the moon is in danger due to unrest, and it is Russia's option - nay, its duty - to protect her own! How many more lunar Russians will fall to the moon's right wing extremists? No, Russia must act now! It's for justice!
Re: About Time
"they took the missile out anyway"
Nomination for post of the week right here.
"I've got to say two things about this lunacy."
Well, first off, it's obviously not lunacy - presumably it's martiacy or something...
Re: As mad as a box of mad frogs
Wait, they're there to *stall* its discovery? Because if NASA hadn't sent up rovers then somebody else would have, and that somebody would be resource-rich enough to do so but not in the thrall of whatever dark forces manipulate NASA?
You'd think these guys could at least gin up some motives that make sense given that the actual 'evidence' never will...
Re: Being bonkers doesn't make you wrong
"NASA have been incredibly good at ignoring stuff that any normal person would be killing themselves to take a better look at"
That's because when NASA find people to evaluate photos taken with equipment sent through f*cking space to another planet at immense expense, they choose people who know what they're looking at, and who can recognize red herrings when they see them, not random nitwits from the internet who don't realize that there's a difference between there being something *they* don't understand and something that *nobody* understands.
And what, pray tell, is your explanation for NASA's motivation to hush up all the interesting stuff that would undoubtedly lead to orders of magnitude more funding for them? Why the hell would an organization devoted to space exploration spend a billion dollars getting a rover to Mars to look for stuff, and then cover up everything they find - except for releasing a few random tidbits with enough information to make people question them?!
"I know, guys! I've got a great idea! We've devoted our lives to exploring space, but here's what we'll do - when we get there, knowing that our budget is really low, we'll find proof of aliens, but we have to MAKE SURE TO IGNORE IT! I mean obviously we'll release pictures that show definite hints but we'll come up with BS explanations and use a lot of resources in order to avoid explaining it. If we do that, we can make sure that we won't get increases in funding to keep our jobs! Sound awesome?"
"Hell yeah! We're stupid enough to think this is a good idea; it's amazing we can design a robot that can be operated from millions of miles away for years without breaking down, isn't it?"
"I'm curious, what would 'NASA' stand to gain by refusing to investigate a potential sign of extra terrestrial life?"
Indeed. And if they did have something to gain thereby, why for the love of god would they release the photo in the first place?!
Re: I hope they come with programable voices...
As long as they have customizable names.
"Bitch, bring me a beer!"
"Jerk LLC claimed that in 2012 it netted a mere $3,000 in revenues and convinced just 22 people to subscribe to its paid options."
Last time I checked, stuff doesn't stop being bad just because your execution sucked so much you couldn't make any money. Given how easy it is to make a buck if you throw your morals out the window, it doesn't say much for Mr. Fanning that he managed to screw up the former even after doing the latter.
"To hand over your data to someone else with no guarantee that a) someone else isn't sifting through it and b) it is safe and c) that I can access whenever I want to is, in mt view crazy."
To comment on articles you haven't read is, in my view, also crazy. As multiple commenters have pointed out, the storage is local, and local access isn't affected. Only remote access via the WD web interface is broken, and that's presumably something you wouldn't usually have with a hidden wifi RAID backup either. It's called 'myCloud' as a marketing gimmick; nonetheless, YOUR data is still in YOUR home on YOUR disks.
"Never again a WD product."
Much better to switch to an alternative supplier which has not yet had this problem, and is therefore still complacent about it... ;)
Awesome - now I can hit my monthly bandwidth cap in a minute and a half instead of ten minutes!
Re: @David W.
"All right, chum, we get the point: is there really any need for this?"
It's not your country that he and his ilk are trying to destroy. I'm sick of these people getting the last word and going unchallenged, like schoolyard bullies, because people lack the courage to call them out on their actions. From your perspective it's not a big deal, but as an American, this attitude - the scorched-earth, win-by-destruction policy that has overtaken politics since 2008 - is terrifying, and the sheepish, simpering refusal of moderates to acknowledge the poisonousness of this brand of public discourse is even more frightening.
The problem is that the absurd lies are left alone, because they're too ridiculous to rebut - so unreasonable that there's no point; you fight with a pig and you get dirty and the pig likes it, right? - but with every forum post, every chain email, every Facebook share, the lies become more and more normal, and eventually, the 'moderate' position shifts. When the extremist Republicans said, "Austerity is necessary or the country is doomed!", the moderate path was at least reasonable. But now the extremists say, "Defaulting on the debt is good policy!" and the 'moderate' path has become what was unthinkable previously.
What the hell good does it do to fight it out here? I don't know. But this kind of thing isn't trolling; it does its damage simply by existing, by being read and shifting the goal posts that tiny bit each time. And I'm sick of letting these people do whatever the hell they want, so if you're fine with him beating up the skinny kids in your schoolyard, at least let me take a swing back at the fucker. I might not connect, but at least I'm not sitting on my ass doing nothing.
Re: @David W.
"5. I cannot find a doctor for my wife within 150 miles that will treat her since we lost her doctor to ACA. Costs me $250 + prescriptions at the emergency room every 30 days just to *get* her meds Under the Bronze plan which was all I could afford."
Whereas before you had some kind of miraculous insurance plan which was superior to the ACA plan, but was nevertheless phased out because it filed to meet the ACA's minimum requirements for coverage?
You might want to get a dental plan while you're at it - your teeth must have a lot of holes after all the lies that have gone through them. Are you proud of what you do? Do you seriously feel better about yourself after you stomp out yet another load of misinformation and bile, whose only purpose is *literally to make your own country worse so you can claim the 'other guy' did it*?
Yeah. You're a real fucking patriot. I'd sooner break bread in hell with Osama Bin Laden than with the likes of you - at least he had an ideology to fight for, twisted and horrible as it was; you and those like you only fight to make the other guy lose. Bin Laden was at least evil, but you - you're just a hole in the air.
Re: @404 El Presidente
'State plan'? Are you as stupid as you type, or just a troll?
That "six million" number, for the benefit of people who aren't used to the overwhelming propensity of tea party lunatics to play fast and loose with anything resembling the truth, is meaningless, as it includes people whose plans were swapped for ones with more benefits (and often lower prices) by their insurers. By Mr. Giles's logic, if your car insurance company calls you up and says, "Hey, you had plan X with a $500 deductible but we switched it for plan Y with a $400 deductible instead, and it'll cost you $100/month less", you'd have been "screwed out of your car insurance for a government plan".
Which is the second bit: There is no government plan. If you have don't have insurance, you can get it *through one of the exchanges* - which, incidentally, Republican governors have been deliberately sabotaging, meaning they've been actively preventing their own citizens from getting better (or any) insurance just so they can claim that Obamacare is a failure - but the providers are all private insurance companies.
And even if what Mr. Giles said had even the slightest grain of truth to it, it wouldn't make any sense at all in the context of this discussion, given that it's difficult to imagine how any of this personally benefits Obama. Though I'm sure you could just invent something out of thin air...
In summary, Giles isn't just full of shit, he's a container full of shit which is itself comprised of solidified shit, with a shit stopper on top. He's among the vanguard of the brave new world of American political discourse, which seeks to defeat "the enemy" at all costs, and has absolutely no compunctions about using blatant, bald-faced lies and slander to achieve its ends. The divisiveness and anger that this strategy is sowing in the US is probably the greatest danger the country has faced since the second world war, perhaps since the civil war. He and those like him are deliberately turning Americans against one another and demonizing their fellow citizens and country as a whole, just so they can win at any cost. The American right wing is like a patient in the hospital who thinks his doctor is incompetent, and, when he realizes he's getting better, jumps off the balcony in order to prove the doctor wrong.
I'm not sure that anything can be done about this kind of psychotic self-hatred, but I at least hope people come to see it for what it is.
If you've got a problem with poor people having access to healthcare, fine. Say it. Argue your case. But don't lie and scheme and destroy your own nation out of anger and spite because most people disagree with you.
Right. The government of the United States is mad because it missed an opportunity to license a selfie of a ballplayer. Its one shot at the big time, lost forever!
Re: @David W.
Well, aside from the fact that it's not an issue of 'pro/anti copyright', the reason you can't put your finger on it is that I was specifically avoiding taking a position on it in order to make it clear that my problem was with the manner in which the article's author was stating his position. It doesn't matter whether you want 'information to be free' or to 'keep scum off the streets'; dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as a clueless idiot is a lousy way to make your point.
Unfortunately, the Reg mods felt that my original, much-shorter version of that post was unacceptable, and the only way I could find to stay within the hazy border of acceptability was to be circumspect, which for rather obvious reasons took the shine off my rhetoric.
So, this is my third attempt to post a comment about this article. The first one was, as far as I'm aware, not terribly out of line; while not complimentary, it was calm and reasoned. It was rejected, and -all- of my posts are now being sent to pre-moderation, something which the Reg FAQ describes as recourse for someone whose posts are 'persistently abusive'.
When I resubmitted my post - which the FAQ says is welcome - I removed the bits of it which I thought might have triggered the ire of the moderators. I personally don't believe they were any worse than the language in the article itself - I believe that "antagonizing" was among the harshest language I resorted to - but so be it: it's not my ball field. Fair enough.
That post was rejected too.
The odd bit is that my argument didn't even pass judgement on the position taken in the article: My point was that I felt that a less abrasive approach would be more likely to convince readers than would taking the attitude that those who disagree are worthy of contempt (Given the propensity for Reg articles on the subject to refer to anyone opposing the point in question as a 'freetard' I don't think I'm out of line there).
I recognize that the Reg explicitly says that 'attacking an author' will get your posts nuked regardless of other content. Again, fair enough; it's your forum. Reg is perfectly within its rights to toast any comments it sees fit.
But that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to do so when its own guidelines haven't been violated. My posts can only be considered attacks if disagreement itself is considered an attack. And even if my original post was beyond the pale, I find it hard to justify categorizing a single, curse-free, insult-free post as 'persistent abuse'. And since my second try eliminated even those hints of displeasure, I am left to conclude that it was rejected not because of the original content, but because it discussed having already been rejected.
And that suggests that whoever moderated it wanted not just to avoid criticism of the article, but to avoid its becoming known that they wanted to avoid such criticism.
That's perfectly within El Reg's rights, too, of course. But I would be extremely disappointed if my suspicions turned out to be correct. I wouldn't keep reading the site and racking up comments if I didn't broadly respect Reg's journalism and attitudes. But if the response to reasoned criticism is to crack down on the poster in a manner far exceeding the stated rules, followed by suppression of discussion of the event itself, I'm not sure I'll want to be part of the community anymore.
So here's the question - will this comment be rejected just because it calmly discusses the issue, or will it be accepted, proving my fears unfounded? Hopefully it will be the latter.
"the translators had taken the rather unusual step of changing the entire plot-line and dialogue so that the English translation lip-synced with the actors speaking in Chinese."
Uh... wasn't that a Woody Allen flick that was done that way specifically as a satire? Not that I'd put it past them to ignore the original movie, but that's a hell of a lot more work than doing it the usual way, and I find it difficult to believe that anybody whose job it was to finance the dubbing said, "I don't care if it costs five times as much; I want the lips to match!"
"After wrestling with it for the best part of a day, I gave up and cracked it."
Hah! So you ARE a cracker, then!
"...a narrower face with a thinner chin and a larger prolonged nose characterizes the predicted stereotype of high-intelligence, while a rather oval and broader face with a massive chin and a smallish nose characterizes the prediction of low-intelligence..."
This explains the friction between Conan O'Brien and Jay Leno, then.
Any word on the possibility that stone throwing played a role in this outcome?
Not only late but in the wrong building; I'm not aware of any Microsoft DVRs or routers existing, let alone being mentioned in the article...
Indeed. If you're going to mock people for not knowing what it takes to mine bitcoins, it's probably a good idea to know what it takes to mine bitcoins yourself...
I presume, then, that since your argument has nothing to do with gay people being gay, but is only due to your belief that marriage is "for children", you favor a ban on marriage between a man and woman should one of them be infertile, injured, or otherwise unable to contribute to the creation of offspring?
Obviously marriage should also be prohibited between straight couples when the woman is post-menopausal as well; after all, marriage isn't about just fulfilling their sexual desires, right?
I look forward to your brave clarification of this issue, particularly as I have not yet seen anyone who has been able to resolve the inconsistency or accept the consequences of his own argument.
"because this guy was against homosexual marriage that he is also against homosexual relationships and believes that they should be against the law? That is quite a stance to apply to someone based on a single political donation."
The odds of someone who was even slightly moderate when it comes to this issue - say, supporting 'civil unions' but not marriage for gays - donating $1000 to the prop8 campaign are astronomically low.
Basically, prop8 was masterminded by the same ignorant, fundamentalist nutjobs who think the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a trick from the devil; they're a step up from the Taliban but not a big one. You don't throw your lot in with those guys if you're just kinda ambivalent about the whole thing.
The irony is that Reg readers absolutely love to bash Americans for being intolerant, stupid, religious nut bigots - but as soon as gay rights are mentioned, the lot of you are rushing to the defense of a guy who gave those same people a thousand bucks in an effort to promote a bill which specifically denied rights to a segment of the population - which, incidentally, is something that quite a few readers here fail to understand.
So much for all the psychotic puritans having come over here...
Re: Land of the free?
Are you seriously as stupid as you sound? I mean, really - do you just hit the keyboard with your head a few times and post whatever comes out? Or do you actively work at the level of phenomenal ignorance you've achieved? I'm genuinely curious.
Re: M Gale
"I dislike FB because it's based on abuse. Abuse of innocence of users, who do not see what they give away using FB."
That's fine, and it's a reasonable point - but my statement wasn't aimed at you specifically (particularly as I have no idea who you are :P); it was an attempt to explain the sheer level of antipathy I see, which suggests that while a core of people *are* knowledgeable about the issues, a great number of others have jumped on the bandwagon not because they're informed but because it's trendy to... well... not be trendy.
Re: Interesting take on the 2 ways to solve a problem.
"it took me at least 10 seconds to realise OR meant Oculus Rift and NOT OR."
OR is Oculus rift AND NOT OR? You're MAKING ME CRAZY!!!!!! IR && ! || }}!@?
Re: M Gale
" I have yet to find anyone who assumes any benign motives for the purchase.."
Trust me, buddy - there are no benign motives for *any* purchase. There weren't benign motives for Andreesen's investment in Oculus a few months ago (IIRC) either - do you really think that the most recent round of VC weren't considering their exit strategy when they pumped the last $75m in? Do you think it didn't occur to any of them that some large technology company might come along and dump a bunch of money on the company when the right doorbells were rung? These guys aren't doing this as a form of charity.
Now, that's not to say I'm blasting Andreesen as a harbinger of evil - though I don't necessarily think it's a coincidence that "VC" can mean both "Venture Capitalist" and "Viet Cong". But suggesting either that Oculus' previous set of investors (as opposed to Luckey and Carmack, say) were somehow vastly more interested than Facebook in the purity of Oculus' mission is misguided to say the least. And to slate Palmer Luckey for "selling out" - though I haven't seen anyone do this directly I wouldn't be surprised if people have - is equally unreasonable, given that once you're on the go-fast investment treadmill, you don't just tell the guys who bought 80% of your company to roll it up tight when they suggest an acquisition that octuples their money. Because they will fire you and have your badge demagnetized before you can say, "I started this company, and -". There's a reason that Zuckerberg manipulated his IPO to retain voting control and sway over the board - that's where the actual power is, and he didn't want to get shown the door the first time a bad quarter spooked nervous hedge fund managers. Hell, the fact that he had the foresight and skill to pull that off in the midst of what must have been a veritable sharkskin-suit feeding frenzy is one of the things about him that gives me hope for the future.
At any rate, no, of course you can't assume that Zuck has benign motives. But writing the product off instantly without any actual evidence that the thing is going to be anything but a display device is a bit like crowing that you'll refuse to buy, say, some masterful and inexpensive breakthrough in bighuge TVs by Sony (look, play along here, OK?) because they have a reputation for using proprietary data formats. Until you really know what's going to happen, why bother screaming your self-denial to the world until you know whether it's warranted? And why, even if you distrust Zuckerberg, would you assume that Palmer Luckey is powerless to shape the future of his company, when Zuck managed an equally improbable feat in retaining control of his?
Like I said - the reason to me seems to be one of a hipsterish arms-race to disavow association with Facebook at all costs. And more than a part of me suspects that Facebook could have exactly the same evil intent and privacy-gobbling goals but not be nearly as loathed among the techie set if it wasn't as popular among the non techie set, which, coming from a category of people who ought to know better than to judge things by their popularity, is particularly disappointing.
Re: M Gale
"Steam, I'm looking at you now that Zuckie has borged the Occulus option..."
I love how people are completely ruling out any possibility of getting a Rift just because FB owns the stock instead of Andreesen and a few others. I mean, if the thing comes out and you have to log in to FB to use it and it records which direction you tend to look to try to sell you stuff, then fine, but throwing the whole thing out instantly without a second thought based only on a stock purchase? I can't help but suspect that there's a degree of, "appear smart to other people by avowing the most violent hatred for Facebook!" involved in some of the blowback on this...
Interesting. I wonder if they can tell me my five-year-old son's political beliefs and sexual preferences? That ought to be an interesting read.
Re: This is still a thing?
Would a 'collapsing in despondency' shot suit you better?
Re: Years ago
"or someone or other doing this - with actual album sleeves - in the 70's."
Yeah, but good luck trying it with some "coverflow" mp3 interface, buddy. And here we thought there was no reason for smartphones to get even bigger.
The fact that this whole argument began with someone asserting the pointlessness of something *else* is ironic almost to the point of physical discomfort.
I'm still not sure why 'pirate sites' would get great clickthroughs to begin with. I mean, who the hell goes looking for a NOCD patch for some game they got in 1998, and then says to himself, "Hey - I wanted to play some Unreal, but all of these hot girls are like living *right next to me*! I'm gonna get me some of THAT action! *click*"?
On the bright side, the more damage that the affair does to bitcoin's reputation, the lower the losses get...
Re: If you think that placebos for humans are bad enough
"The placebo effect does work on animals"
I can't imagine it would work on cats. I'm pretty certain that mine never believes anything I tell him.
I've always rather liked the idea of suggesting to homeopaths that as a solution to the energy crisis, they try homeopathic gasoline...
Re: Of course, for Formula 1...
For Formula 1, they'd have required the implant to be the same as everyone else's to reduce costs, so the doctor would have to buy hundreds of them to find one which fit best due to tolerance errors introduced by the sole supplier. ;)
I could understand someone being pretty apprehensive about this kind of surgery, but it looks like she kept an open mind...
Re: Problem lies elsewhere
"The apparent paradox goes away when you realise that it is wrong to give corporations personal rights, as if they were people."
Be that as it may, the implication then is that it should essentially be illegal for any corporation to exercise editorial control over contributions from outside. Your company has a forum and someone's trolling? Free speech! A newspaper doesn't print your crazed political rant? Censorship! How can you demand 'free speech' from entities when their entire business is deciding what and what not to publish?
""The court has laid out a perfect paradox: That it will allow the suppression of free speech, in the name of free speech," he told Reuters."
You know, I'm not surprised when Guy On The Internet doesn't recognize the difference between the government suppressing speech and a private entity exercising control over its own output, but I have to say it's somewhat bizarre that an actual lawyery person managed to confuse the two...
Re: I was on anti-depressants
An antidepressant whose side effects cause you to involuntarily twitch yourself into the path of an oncoming train... now there's irony for you!
Mr. Molyneux appears to have had a fairly mild run-in with whatever provoked his opinion of antidepressants, because in my experience, they're not happy pills so much as pills which give your brain enough rational capacity to tolerate continued existence - a bit like your being stuck naked in some hellish, howling blizzard, with shards of ice raking your body and the wind tearing the breath from your lungs, and then being given access to an unheated tin shack with a curtain for a door. There's no escape, no prospect of change, and in every moment your ears are full of the pounding din outside as it shrieks around your shelter, constantly reminding you that it could all collapse in an instant.
Occasionally, a friend who is completely unaware of the storm will stroll in and suggest that yoga and herbal tea really helped -him- out, become indignant at your lack of enthusiasm, and slam your curtain on the way out.
So yeah, working at Microsoft may not be all that, but if prozac can make you feel warm and fuzzy and lazy, all I can say is that you better count your lucky freakin' stars.
Re: Required reading
"the team made an effort to re-examine the actual game-play of first-person shooters to remove the tedious parts of the genre..."
...and then accidentally shipped the stuff they removed.
Re: @David W.
"Learn to suck out the juice and spit out the pips."
That's well and good, but if the guy who's putting the pips in has a comment section in which one is invited to discuss the arti... the juice... then it doesn't seem unreasonable to raise the point when pip-spitting is outdoing juice sucking per unit time.
And I'm pretty sure that's as far as that analogy should ever be taken.
Re: @David W.
I'm fine with calling out Jobs on his actual flaws, but drowning an article in snarky jibes about fruit is infantile, not informative.
As an American, this puts me in the somewhat bizarre position of actually being thankful for the DMCA.
- Analysis Oh no, Joe: WinPhone users already griping over 8.1 mega-update
- Opportunity selfie: Martian winds have given the spunky ol' rover a spring cleaning
- OK, we get the message, Microsoft: Windows Defender splats 1000s of WinXP, Server 2k3 PCs
- Spanish village called 'Kill the Jews' mulls rebranding exercise
- NASA finds first Earth-sized planet in a habitable zone around star