297 posts • joined 12 Aug 2009
Re: So fork, then
Personally I have never liked sysv init much with its huge pile of little shell scripts sequenced by a funny naming rule. The systemd can hardly be worse. Haven't used it much yet, but it appears to be well-documented, and brings up my personal OpenSuse spin snappily.
Ah, you've fallen into the same trap as Debian did. You've mistaken systemd for a sysvinit replacement. It's not. It's a replacement for just about the entire operating system stack (the clue is in the name). Where currently the argument is about "GNU/Linux", it may soon be better phrased "systemd/Linux".
The fear is that once you adopt systemd, it will be unreasonably difficult to replace it with anything better in the future, thanks to its all-encompassing nature, and the encouragement of *explicit* dependencies by user-facing software. There's no reason why the Gnome DE should strictly require one particular init system, but it does.
Re: Ok.. I'll get behind this...
In 30 days, the UN might just about have gotten around to scheduling the first pre-pre-planning meeting, for deciding how to decide who should be involved in the pre-planning meeting.
If you're afraid of rapid change, the UN is not your enemy.
Sometimes I can't tell whether something in a headline is about "US" the country, or "US" the emphasised collective of El Reg readership.
"GIANT FLAMING BADGERS are out to get US!"
Re: Hooray for Apache!
Good luck with your bumper Patch Tuesday tomorrow, Anonymous Coward.
I wonder if Nadalla's answer to the question might have something to do with Microsoft's (past?) culture of stack ranking? As I understand it, under MS' stack ranking system, your bonuses and pay raises are tied to your performance in the ranking. The idea being that, if you deserve a raise then "the system" will work that out automatically based on how well you do your job (or, more realistically, how well you can game the stack-ranking system).
So Nadalla might be correct when it comes to large companies which have "a system" in place, but being such a long-time Microsoft person, he may not have realised that most of the rest of the world isn't so algorithmically organised.
Re: Other search engines?
Does anybody knows if this "right to be forgotten" thing applies to all search engines even future ones?
It's the law, so it's not specific to one particular company, no. If a search engine provides results pertaining to an individual, then they have some responsibility to keep those results accurate and relevant.
I know, shocking isn't it? Search engines returning useful results? Socialism gone mad, I tell you!
He'll have violated the policy which says you can't threaten clients.
Perhaps, but based on what evidence? Comcast appear to be adamant that there is no recorded evidence of any threats made by anyone. So if that were the reason, PWC would be doing Comcast's bidding without any evidence of wrongdoing - which could be grounds for a wrongful dismissal lawsuit against PWC.
Personally, I think it's more likely that PWC have enormously byzantine ethics rules, and they found some minor infraction (like using the wrong kind of smiley face in an old email, or such) they could use to justify hanging the guy out to dry.
Alexander urged the security faithful to unite, even calling for banks to operate out of a united facility to harden the nations' financial capabilities.
Having everyone's financial data stored in a single place? How very... convenient.
What is this? A chart for ants?
If you're going to put charts into articles, please make them a link to a full-size version. You know, one where the legend is actually legible.
And they'll show your middle finger a "contempt of court" ruling.
Companies should either obey the law, or get out of the region.
The only law is US law
When Google comply with a US DMCA request, do they only remove the entry from their .us search results?
The govt is mother, the govt is father, trust the govt
> But we are a law-based state operating very tightly within a legal framework and a cultural environment and that is where your protection must lie.
So our protection must lie in the following (non-exhaustive) list of groups all being entirely trustworthy and reliable (eg. not leaving documents on trains):
* This government, and every future government.
* Every judge who will ever authorise warrants.
* Every person who currently, or at any future time, works for the government.
* Every employee of the police service, present and future.
* Every security service agent, present and future.
Yeah, nah. I'd rather trust the mathematics.
I'll never forget this historical epic, either:
Re: @Eddy Ito
> Outside the Linux realm, sh(1) is not bash(1), not even with bash in Posix mode.
Even Debian (and by extension Ubuntu, etc.) has /bin/sh linked to dash (Debian Almquist Shell), and not bash.
And I let them talk me into using CentOS for our servers. Shame on me.
Re: More patches....
> Also keep in mind that 90% of what you read casually omits the fact that this is only an issue for servers, not for desktops (unless I got this wrong, happy to be corrected).
Unfortunately, you are indeed mistaken. It turns out that, at the very least, DHCP - the service which likely assigns you your IP address on a network - is often implemented on a *nix client using calls out to a shell. So a malicious DHCP server on your network could exploit this flaw on any machine (or router, storage device, thermostat, lightbulb, etc.) which uses Bash - completely without user intervention!
Of course, getting that rogue DHCP server on your network is another matter, so this is mostly a concern when using open WiFi networks.
> Yes: http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.cz/
Ta for that. Though maybe it's just my own biases, but I'm highly sceptical of any "scientific" argument (or rebuttal, for that matter) made via sales of a book. Especially if its (sub)title refers to "the left" or "the right" as if that means anything.
> Further, I'm discussing something, globalisation, that has different effects on the two things. It increase the incomes of the absolutely poor. It also increases inequality within the rich countries.
This is my other point of contention. Is this necessarily the case? Are the two really inextricably entwined? Are there not governmental mechanisms which can be used to reduce national inequality, without lowering the demand for international trade?
I would guess that the money/trade going from the wealthy nations to the growing ones is generated from goods and services in demand by the general public, moreso than those just the very wealthy demand. So would it not be logical that more wealthy-nation people with more money to spend (via closer income/wealth equality) would increase the demand for such goods, thus increasing global trade, and reducing global inequality further?
I'm also idly curious as to how global inequality is affected by clamp-downs on grey-market imports (an anti-globalisation policy, AFAICT), but that's an aside.
> Yeah, but you did notice the bit in the piece where I say I think the Spirit Level is hokum?
Yeah. but do you have any actual evidence or reasoning behind that belief?
Re: I respawn my case
> sports people SELL their image through their agents so that they can get revenue from product endorsements etc.
> if you are/were a public figure ... then you pretty much give up your right for your image to be used in material
If they'd "pretty much given up their right to their image", why would *anyone* pay them for something that they didn't have any power to restrict the use of? The athletes would be unable to SELL their image for endorsements, etc. because there would be nobody willing to buy - because nobody would need permission to use their image in the first place.
Re: I respawn my case
> Ugh no, if you are/were a public figure (being a despot counts) then you pretty much give up your right for your image to be used in material. That is the price of public office and/or being a celebrity.
In that case, why do EA pay real money to use the likenesses of professional sports-people they depict in their games? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
I respawn my case
So it seems Activision/Giuliani have two defences; "free speech", and "ad hominem". And they seem to prefer to use the latter.
AFAIK, outside of specifically defined use-cases (journalism, education, parody, etc.), nobody has a right to use someone's likeness without their permission, even if that person has been a bad man.
> where does musk find the time ?
In his wallet. Time is plentiful when you can simply pay other people to do all the real work.
Engage smug mode
Smug mode engaged
> One reason iOS is more secure than Android has been Apple’s Walled Garden approach – quite simply, the less access developers have to the inner workings of the technology, the less opportunity there is for potential attackers to discover vulnerabilities.
What? Unless I'm mistaken, this guy appears to have no idea what "walled garden" means.
Apple has a "walled garden" because the end user can only install things ("apps") from a single, Apple-approved, location (the Apple app-store). This likely does indeed reduce the malware prevalence on iOS as compared to Android (AFAIK practically all of the Android malware comes from installing apps from non-Google-approved sources; because Android makes it relatively easy to do so).
Giving developers "less access ... to the inner workings of the technology" isn't called a "walled garden", it's called "intentionally limiting functionality". (And yes, that will also probably reduce the prevalence, or at least the potency, of most malware)
I expect it was because they didn't want to continue doing business with (allegedly) contract-breaching thieves.
This isn't the public sector, you know.
> Could they put an automatic weighing machine under the passengers queuing for that security check?
Rather than the error-prone process of getting ignorant passengers to cooperate with ignorant airport staff and poorly-designed/maintained boarding equipment, I would have thought that some kind of sensor on the front landing gear's suspension would quite easily be able to determine whether the plane was overly front-heavy/light?
> Well you'll have to write a native app first :)
Except the entire point of the article, if I understood correctly, is that an attacker doesn't need a native app of their own, they only need a website, and users to access said site with a non-Safari app which uses a web view (I imagine a lot of "native" wrapped-HTML5 apps do this).
> Why are these clowns deciding what to block and why do they even have the power to do it.
It seems to me that having such a group deciding the what and the why is a necessary requirement to enforce the law. However, what such technically ignorant groups absolutely should not be doing is deciding the how.
All of this has happened before.
As far as I can see, there is nothing specific to the Internet about this.
Kickstarter is not an investment platform. It's a speculative pre-order platform. Pre-ordering products has existed for a long time before Kickstarter was a thing.
Or how about freelance and contract workers not getting a cut of the sale value when the business they work for is bought? This is new to the "sharing economy" is it?
> In short, you’ve been a mug.
AFAICT the ultimate argument seems to be that anyone who isn't a shareholder, or an employee of a cooperative (ie. where all employees have part ownership in the company), is a mug.
I'm inclined to agree, tbh. We need more cooperative enterprises.
> Mother of Murphy, would *you* enjoy suddenly being made responsible for making sure *everything on the Internet* is correct?!
And by "everything on the internet" you of course mean the product Google are supplying to their users. This isn't about them cleaning up the internet, this is about them cleaning up their own search indexes, and making them more relevant.
It's not like they have to do this pre-emptively either (like they do with spam, linkfarms, and certain illegal content); they get a tip-off, and then decide to either tweak their product in response, or not.
> If you get the original website to remove the page containing "kryptonaut fondles goats" then google will forget all about it.
And if you can't get the original website to remove the page? What then? Contact the Kerplekistan constabulary, asking them to raid the hosting provider?
> The point is that the data IS NOT ERRONEOUS. That's what we're talking about, that's the whole core of the controversy - the data is not wrong or inaccurate in any way.
Okay, mister reading-comprehension, apparently I was slightly too ambiguous for you: "erroneous and/or irrelevant". Better now? Or do you like having irrelevant information in your search results?
> Surely a 'right to be forgotten' ought to entail removing the information at source.
1. That is not always possible (good luck getting something removed from a seedy .ru).
2. Even if you could get the "source" removed, wouldn't you also want to remove the large "kryptonaut fondles goats! Read more at siteoflies.ru!" billboard on the public highway?
3. The original source is entirely irrelevant to the issue in question.
In the context of this brouhaha, AIUI the court decided that a list of search results about a person (not just the sites they linked to - the result list itself) constituted personal information about that person. Hence, in this case, Google *is* the "source" of the personal information.
Because of data protection legislation, Google are therefore responsible for keeping that personal information accurate and up to date - which includes removing erroneous and irrelevant information, once notified of it.
But given the hissy-fit Google seem to have been throwing about this, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that Google want to provide erroneous and irrelevant search results.
Re: The USCO say what?
> Just wondering what relevance the US Copyright Office have here as the photographer is not a US citizen and the photograph in question was not taken in the US...
The story arose to public attention because the photographer came into conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a US-based organisation.
> I would say in response to @Joylon above though that this means your meat tripod DOES own the copyright.
Yes, and I believe there was a link posted last time around about a case in which that question came up (and was resolved that the person taking the photo owned copyright). In that case though, I suspect that any court would likely find that there was at least an implicit license grant made to the requester of the photo. Or maybe it could be classed as work-for-hire, in which case the copyright would be assigned to the requester, rather than the photographer.
> That's how news photographers work. They take a lot of shots and hope that one will be a winner.
No, news photographers generally take the pictures themselves, while the camera is in their possession and under their control; not farm off the job to a bunch of monkeys.
Oh wait, "citizen journalism", never mind.
> IANAL has to be the single worst acronym I've ever come across.
Have you not come across the wonderful derivation "IANALBIPOOTI" before then?
I generally prefer to go with IANAIPLBIPOOTI though, since that's my arm-chair specialty.
Oh well, I'm sure I can find the images on a more friendly news site.
Re: Slater doesn't "Own" the photo, because he doesn't and the monkey doesn't
> that you can somehow say the monkey is legally responsible for taking the image and thus Slater has surrendered his rights to it, whilst at the same time asserting that the monkey has no rights.
No, I believe that the argument is that Slater never had any rights to the image in the first place, because he was not the creator of the work.
A painting tutor may buy, transport, and set up the easels, canvas, paints, and brushes, but without an previously agreed contract, they have no rights to the works their students create. Should it be any different if some of the "students" happen to be apes, elephants, or robots?
Re: No tax breaks without representation
> Once you start shooting messengers, messengers learn that the only safe option is just to stop delivering the news.
That's the thing though; Google aren't just a simple messenger. They already pick and choose what messages to deliver to which people, every time anyone enters any search term - that's the entire point of having a search algorithm.
I've said it before: The point of this order is that Google remove information which is no longer relevant. Google should be happy to now have another source of relevance data which they can apply to their search algorithm. If the information was indeed irrelevant (and by Google's removal rate, they seems to agree in many cases), then that means their search results are now even more useful!
> If they were to stop doing business in the EU (ie, start forcing advertisers to do business in the US, in dollars), they'd be pretty much untouchable in a European court.
Indeed, but as I hinted at, they'd have to forgo the "tax efficiency" provided by certain EU nations. They don't funnel all their profits through their Irish headquarters for the craic, you know.
No tax breaks without representation
> If Google does remove a link to misleading data, the action will only be performed for searches via its European country-specific top level domains - google.be, google.de, google.fr, etc.
That may play well into the narrative Google want people to believe, but that is a solution for when a country doesn't want to see certain content (ie. censorship). The problem they actually need to solve is to remove other peoples' property from their systems when requested to do so.
As best I understand it, this whole thing was propagated from two decisions:
1) "Data subjects" (that's you and me) are the owners of data regarding themselves.
2) Google's search index/results for a person is considered to be data regarding that person.
This means that, under European data-protection laws, Google is a "data controller", and has the responsibility to delete such data at the subject's request, if it is no longer relevant.
Note: delete. Not "hide from the data subject", nor "hide from a particular region", nor even "hide from everyone". They are required to delete that data.
Or they could always pull all of their business out of the European markets. Like the Irish market, and the Dutch market, and the Irish market again.
What of the media outlets that carelessly spread the fraudulent information? Are they also being held to account for their negligence in the matter?
Anyone who knows anything about verifying sources, knows that you don't use contact information provided by the source you're trying to verify. If "the police" call you, you get a name and call the police station yourself, using a number from the phone book (or equivalent). If "the bank" (or any business) contacts you about something - especially by email - you go to their website (no, not the one linked in the email) and use the contact information there.
> But the Internet provider charges a flat rate whether you push 500 KB a month or 500 GB, simply because it's always been that way. The "solution" to this problem, unfortunately, may turn out to be metered pricing (and no, I'm not looking forward to it either.)
Except "bits" aren't in limited supply, nor are the accumulated use of such what is causing congestion on the tubes. The problem is concurrent bandwidth use exceeding the ISP's capacity, which metered-by-the-bit internet caps do not remedy. For example, if everyone burns through their allotment of bits in the first week, when that new Netflix show comes on, there's still going to be congestion, even though all the customers are well within their limit of bits.
Hence the only logical method of such tiered pricing is using bandwidth bands (10Mb/s, 30Mb/s, etc.) as is currently done by most ISPs already.
The fundamental issue is that ISPs - all of them - grossly oversell their available bandwidth/throughput. It's the reason ISPs sell "up to xMb/s broadband", and historically this was generally good enough for most people. Then internet video streaming came along, and customers started demanding ISPs make good on the inflated numbers they've been spouting for years.
> If information is out of date, then it is the out of date information that should be removed, not the links to it. The links will disappear if the information is removed.
That's the ideal, but good luck getting any information removed from some anonymous website based out of Kerplakistan.
It seems to me that this is a taste of the problems the copyright lobby have been complaining about and fighting for years.
Re: Why the UN?
> The analogy doesn't work because, on Earth, someone will own or live in the forest. There is no analogy for what we're seeing here.
People are only capable of "owning" a forest due to the laws of man. Beside the relative difficulty in access, the only reason asteroids are treated differently are because of the laws of man (the outer space treaty).
> And if you can't get in to space, why should you have ANY say in what US companies under US jurisdiction do with resources they exploit out there?
Just because you can't go somewhere, does not mean that activities in that place do not affect you. I personally can't fly up into LEO, but I'm certainly affected by what might go on up there (hello, GPS).
What about someone going out into the middle of the Atlantic (international waters), and dumping a thousand tonnes of highly radioactive waste? Should Switzerland, a land-locked nation, not have a right to complain about such activity? They may not have an Atlantic coastline, but I'm sure they have dealings involving the Atlantic (importing fish, for example).
> Notably they don't mind a visit from the T-X.
I don't know what you're talking about. There was never a T-X in either of the two Terminator movies.
AIUI these nay-saying companies seem to be saying "we'll just stuff our existing software products on top of these new kinds of hardware", without realising that introducing something like memristors could transform the computer architecture in a way which defies the fundamental assumptions on which current-day operating systems are built.
If HP do their Machine OS properly (rather than proprietarily), then it shouldn't matter so much whether it's memristors; battery-backed-up conventional RAM, crystal-lattice quantum dots; inverse-tachyon ion fields; or anything else that "wins" the hardware battle, so long as the basic assumptions of the OS hold true.
Re: @Don Jefe
> The loneliest person in the world is a Board member who had his seat purchased as a shareholder tactic. Everybody hates that guy because he's not there for the company, or even himself, he's there for someone else.
Unless I misunderstand; by "someone else" you mean "shareholders with voting rights"? Also known as owners of the company? Whom the board is meant to represent the interests of?
Besides which, ol' Zucky-boy personally holds a majority stake in the company IIRC, so the point is moot in this case. Without Zuckerberg's ear, the only way any other shareholder could get such a change enforced would be via the courts.
The Revolution will be Firefoxed
I used to use a ZTE Open. It was my first smartphone, and it was okay.
I now use a Revolution with Firefox OS (technically Boot2Gecko/B2G, likely for some licensing reason). Compared to the ZTE Open it's dreamy-smooth (which is not saying much, admittedly), and certainly a better platform for seeing what Firefox OS is capable of (or not).
Hardware-wise, I'd say it was... quirky. The power button is on the top, but on the left side - which is the opposite to what I remember from all other phones I've seen. Having the microUSB slot on the left side (about 1/4 of the way down) is just weird. And, on my unit at least, the volume-down button seems somewhat mis-aligned, in that it is difficult to activate and has no "clunk". However, the volume-up part is fine.
And in case anyone is wondering; it uses a micro-SIM, not a nano-SIM as some early (p)reviews reported.
OS-wise, it shows that Firefox OS, while very functional for the basics, is still a WIP - in terms of both feature-set and the presence of minor bugs and irritations. The new wallpapers in 1.3, featuring the fire-fox itself, are great though.
So the Revolution is certainly not a bad phone, but personally, if I were looking to get a new Firefox OS phone and didn't absolutely need one this week, I'd wait and see how the Flame (the upcoming official developer phone) stacks up.
Re: it sux if...
> I can't see why you'd need any additional "services" to implement that, any more than you'd need an additional service to use IRC or FTP.
Indeed, it's likely similarly analogous, in that neither IRC nor FTP are peer-to-peer protocols, and so require a (usually third-party) server(/"service") to mediate at least the initial connection (and more if you want group communication). Have you ever heard of firewalls and NAT?
From what I can tell, TokBox is a provider of such intermediate servers, so I assume Mozilla will be using their service as a back-end. Unless Mozilla have some sort of agreement that they host their own back-end infrastructure for it (and even then), this move concerns me with regard to long-term sustainability.
Not to mention that I'd much rather Mozilla concentrate on implementing the standards required to do this, and leave such applications to third parties. I have been very impressed by Jitsi Meet recently, but unfortunately it doesn't work on Firefox, due to Mozilla having not yet implemented everything it needs.
Re: Get your tin-foil hats here -- at these prices I'm cutting my own throat
Trawling = using a big net
Trolling = using a baited line
"Hundens balla" looks more like Swedish to me.
Granted, I'm no expert at Norwegian idioms or the intricacies of the language, but in Norwegian it could be "Hundens baller/boller". "Baller" means balls, as in sport, and "boller" can mean anything round-ish. That phrase could also be used to refer to tennis balls or such which belongs to the dog, and which dogs often love, so could be appropriate in meaning too.
Or you could use "Hundens egg" (egg is the same in singular or plural).
Although for some reason I quite prefer "Hundens plommer" (the dog's plums).
But knowing Norwegians' tendencies with English idioms, they'd probably just use the phrase in English.
Re: Cryptocurrency: How does it even work?
Indeed, as the TopOnePercent says; essentially, what would be stored in the backups are the keys used to authorize transactions on behalf of users. If the dogecoin has already been transferred away from the ownership of Dogevault's users, then all they'll regain is the ability to transfer a zero balance.
- YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
- Pics Whisper tracks its users. So we tracked down its LA office. This is what happened next
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
- Apple flings iOS 8.1 at world+dog: Our AMAZEBALLS 9-step installation guide