3241 posts • joined 16 Nov 2009
Out of interest, do you use Google Docs?
I don't really get the "personal" thing. A "personal" sub would appear likely to be a sole trader of some definition or other, possibly somebody who writes for a living and that user would be far better served using either the Business versions (where they can license themselves as a single user really cheaply) or something else entirely.
The "home" kind of makes sense, in the same way that the "business" versions make sense. Count in "Office to go" and they're basically outsourcing the productivity suite and associated storage. If the subs cost less than doing the whole thing in-house including support... that's what business will go for.
The "home" benefit is presumably the mixed platforms and multiple licenses; again handy if your family prefers its platforms mixed up and messed up. And if you hate support work as much as I do, I suppose.
But "Personal"? No, that one's weird.
> ISO ballot stuffing over OOXML
Name a company that doesn't lobby for their interests. Google lobbied for ODF but both are published and independently maintained standards. Just because one has become an article of religious fiath for the F/OSS crowd doesn't mean the other isn't open.
> Patent threats against Android.
Assume that all those companies pay up not because they're scared of the big bad Beast of Redmond ( I very much doubt that Samsung are scared, for example) but rather because the patents hold up. If that's the case, would you rather MS just gave their work away? Do you think their shareholders would like that?
> Windows tax (refunds no longer possible).
That's more about OEMs than MS and you know it.
> ODF FUD
Office supports ODF as detailed above.
> Secure Boot (MS made sure the implementation was fecked and that they control the keys)
Now this is FUD. MS use a part of the UEFI standard and in order to gain certification, OEMs must enable the user to turn off secure boot in UEFI. Either you have no idea what you're ranting about or... well, you already know the "or".
So basically, your objections are religious, then?
Do MS HATE YOUR FREEDOM AC? Like Saddam?
Sarcasm aside, I'd like to see what you mean by "anti-competitive" though. Browser ballots, open sourcing their frameworks, pushing their office suite onto all platforms, linux hosting on Azure, Oracle interop, supporting Xamarin...
Hard to see how they could possibly be called anti-competitive these days. Compared to whom?
You can certainly pay less or even nothing with Libre Office.
However, MS Office does in fact support open standards. The very first question it asks is whether you want ODF or OOXML set as default. Even if not default, it'll still open and save save ODF if specified.
So, I mean, no doubt, you can pay less. Why not concentrate on that rather than FUD the proceedings?
Re: I've had my fair share of delusions, but this was not one of them.
Most developers I know regard it as just a job. They go home and play XBox or cycle or go to the pub.
I'm one of the rare ones who still wants to code his own stuff but childcare pretty much kills all ambitions in that direction. Shame. The good ideas keep coming but the time is simply not available.
Isn't the WSJ a Murdoch mouthpiece these days?
If so, we could just ask them what voicemails the Android team were leaving.
Re: @Will Godfrey"
> But a UK independent from the EU could store as much data on its citizens as it liked.
Not if it was still a party to the ECHR, an institution which is not a part of the EU and which was interestingly co-founded by the UK after WWII.
I see the flaw here
It lies in this telling phrase - "competent authorities",
I don't think there are any of those, except perhaps the Fire Brigade and Air Traffic Control.
Re: Developers, developers, developers
Beancounters, beancounters, beancounters.
Since when did any major framework change happen without cockups?
HP spreads FUD about competitor.
Film at eleven.
Re: Mmmmm the back....
Or "tan". Or "aqua", whatever those are.
Now you've made me think of Douglas Adams again - "sumptuously unpleasant things, lavishly tooled in naff brown plastic".
Maybe it has a spellcheck that can catch abominations like "definately".
If so, you should definitely get one.
Re: Render unto Apple what is Apple's
I think Jeff Bezos is out to kill iTunes. Most of Amazon's digital content moves since the creation of the Kindle Fire support this view, if you think about it.
I don't think he cares much about iThings or flogging shiny underspecced PCs to hipsters, pseuds and video editors but that content delivery and payment processing... in JB's mind, those belong to Amazon by right and will be retaken, whatever happens.
Statement of (lack of) interest - the Mrs is deep into Apple's walled garden, I own a 2nd gen Kindle and like ebooks. Beyond that, I have no horse in this race.
I just think Jeff Bezos is one scary motherfucker and if anyone could do it, he could.
Are they? They've only just been launched, as far as I know...
Re: I wonder if all those warehouse people think about this in middle of August?
> That is an extremely odd policy. Why would a company want to lose its most loyal and experienced workers?
Reduces the liability for long-term employee benefits and potential redundancy costs?
Everyone. It wasn't ever thought of as a possibility back when the iPhone was Shazam and fart-apps.
are you retarded?
Office for iPad has obviously been in development for a long ol' time. This is not a two-week rush job.
In order for the funding to be in place for this, Ballmer must have approved it this time last year at the very latest.
Oh wait. AC on the Register. Never mind.
Re: What next?
Because they're Microsoft obviously, so if they do a thing then it must be evil and wrong and bad and shitty and useless and made for the NSA.
All at once.
Welcome to the Register, even though I know for a fact you're nothing like new here.
There are absolutely mandatory sentences for benefit fraud, if proven. Judges, however, can and do opt to suspend those sentences if they feel that's in the public interest.
> As far as I'm concerned you've come up with some piff-paff distractions rather than address the point that your mooted renationalisations would raise no worthwhile income and have a fair few downsides.
Granted. Absolutely granted. They would raise no worthwhile income over what's generated now and would indeed have several downsides but I think they'd also have plenty of upsides. First is the national asset-balance and even the possibility of public bond ownership. Thatcher basically kept the country alive on oil revenue and flogging off assets while claiming an economic miracle, if you recall. Not sustainable in the long term.
Second is the restoration of public trust, and that's a form of credit that's been absolutely despoiled.
Then I'd have all the lobbyists rounded up and publicly pelted with stones. Maybe not, but certainly lobbying and SPADS would be driven out and anyone caught taking the banks' dirty money would never work in public service again.
And then we move along to further activities like scrapping the ludicrous "50% of all children must get a degree" drivel Blair introduced and Brown and Cameron maintained was a good idea. The leaving of the EU as a "whole thing" and (re)joining of EFTA. The encouragement of Scottish independence, and also Welsh and Northern Irish independence while we're about it. The proposition of not just regional devolution but regional legal and tax powers - so for example, the North East needs investment and can offer inducements to that effect whereas the South West needs to be able to stop people owning second, third, fourth houses there so that their population stops getting priced out of their own homes. The regional economies vary and pretending Westminster can rule them all is a lie.
Further, I'd want small regional government and miniscule national government. It's easier to control your cheating, scheming, bought-and-sold political servants when they're not hiding away somewhere. For that reason, I'd also end all police (and other) protection on politicians.
Then I'd restore your right to protest and introduce rights of recall so if I suck, you can sack me without waiting for an election. Just do it. Then I'd hobble Terrorism powers and cut GCHQ's funding by about 80% because fuck them, they spied on the people they were supposed to be working for.
Then I'd do something about pension ages. When the state pension was introduced, you were lucky if you got three years of it before you died. Now people live 25 years longer. Time for the pension age to reflect that, and all associated freebie benefits.
And well, public service. It's meant to be about public service. That's what's gone. That's what needs to return.
> Why are socialists so economically illiterate?
I don't know, but then I'm not a socialist. I certainly wouldn't restore the monopoly positions.
Why do people who have a political leaning in one of the traditional directions always assume everyone else has the opposite leaning?
Further, you talk about taxes on nationalized industries -
Well. Why do government employees pay tax? Why aren't their salaries just paid at "less tax" rates and save all the paperwork? To take it to the actual level of absurdity, how much does HMRC spend on collecting tax from HMRC?
Politicians always talk about cutting waste but they always see waste as "stuff we spend on the population" rather than "bullshit we use to keep civil servants in jobs".
Re: It's our fault.
> child benefit, winter fuel payments, free bus passes, free tv licenses etc.
All but one of these have something important in common.
> The reality that they took the money out of your wallet in the first place, process it and then give it back to you as some kind of special favor seems to pass everyone by.
However, the recipients of all but one of those bribes no longer work or pay tax. But they do vote - they vote for the biggest bribes where the rest of us have pretty much given up in despair.
Yes, 'cos major cities absolutely don't already benefit from FTTC or cable TV networks or 4G mobile networks.
More urban-centric bollocks from the already-privileged, eh?
Actually, I think I'd be perfect because I absolutely don't want to do it (but somebody has to).
Me. I should be PM.
First thing I'd do is end prohibition on drugs, saving the country 65% of all court and police costs and utterly destroying organized crime.
Then I'd use the money to renationalize BT and the Post Office and re-merge them. Then I'd use the colossal wealth this can generate to renationalize the railways and rather subsidize wankers to give us a shit hugely expensive "service" with more cancellations than trains, I'd make passenger trains free. The figures support it - we'd spend no more than we now spend on subsidizing shitty rail companies and we'd save all the ticketing and profit-protection expense.
There's a whole lot of other stuff too but I reckon just a manifesto with that stuff (backed up by the figures) would get me elected by everyone except criminals, corrupt businessmen and the police (because we'd need so many fewer of them).
The fundamental tax reform that would follow would probably get me assassinated, though.
> We need someone that will stand up to those that sponsor hacking on broadband networks.
I don't understand this reference. What has Claire Perry ever done except shout "THINK OF THE CHILDREN"?
Re: It's coming Tories/Labour/Lib Dems...............................
> 2) Dive into the EU head first so they can protect us...
Because swapping one bunch of corrupt bastards for a bigger bunch of corrupt bastards always works.
Here's an interesting one from Private Eye -
Percentage of Buy-To-Let property owners in the UK - 2%
Percentage of Buy-To-Let property owners in the House of Commons - 25%
And look at all the tax-breaks that particular wheeze keeps getting! Remarkable.
We already know the answer to that one is "no". The first step is a removal of all benefits while the case is "reviewed".
Assuming the perpetrator does not die from starvation and/or hypothermia in the meantime, a criminal trial will follow with mandatory jail time for a guilty verdict.
Re: @ Peter Spicer - You know they have reached market saturation
> the iFaithful aren't *that* faithful.
Yeah, they are.
Re: @The BigYin - What has the EU been smoking?
> The poor dont have to buy cars
You live in a big city with public transport, then. That's nice for you.
My best mate is a farm worker. He earns £8.68 per hour and has two small children to support. In order to afford the rent, he has to live in a small town 8 miles from his job. Rich people from cities bought up all the farm workers' cottages for holiday homes. Are you suggesting he get on his bike?
Easy to rant when it's not you, isn't it Mr Anonymous Fuckwad? Or shall we just call you Norman Tebbit?
Re: What has the EU been smoking?
> Only that last one would hit the poor who can't afford efficient hybrids.
And who tend to drive cheap old cars inefficient cars which cost more money, all of which is liable for VAT.
If you buy a brand new car, you don't even need an MOT for three years. Your fuel bills could reasonably be expected to be lower.
If you buy a car for £2K, you can expect to spend at least £200 every year on getting the bloody thing through an MOT (plus forty quid for the certificate itself) and the emissions are likely to be higher meaning they'll hit you for more road tax.
Basically, rich people spend less.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” - Terry Pratchett
Re: Administration knightmare
> But the point of VAT is the selling company is collecting it on behalf of the government, and then passes the VAT collected on
Correct. The point of VAT is to turn business into unpaid tax farmers.
Re: Administration knightmare
> It'll just be easier for all the countries to have the same VAT rules.
21%, according to the EU agreement.
Re: What has the EU been smoking?
Because there's a limit on how much you can (physically) spend.
Let's take an example, just to see how this works.
I need to buy a new towel. I buy a new towel. For the sake of argument, it costs me £10.
Assume I am on minimum wage, that towel just cost me nearly two hours work. (And half an hour of that went to the government who graciously allow me the freedom to dry myself provided I do not offend them while doing so).
Now let's say Alan Sugar needs a new towel. He buys a new towel. It might be a bit more expensive than my towel but not much because a towel is a fucking towel.
The odds on it costing him more than seconds of his time are so small that I can't even begin to calculate them.
Being rich doesn't mean you buy more. Somebody on a comfortable income might buy £100 worth of ebooks per month. Somebody on an obscene income is unlikely to read more than that or to watch more films (regardless of how expensive their telly is) or even drink more beer.
As a proportion of income, the poor pay many times in VAT what the rich do, which is exactly how the rich like it.
Re: What has the EU been smoking?
They're still hammering everyone with VAT though. You read it - 15% is the lowest national VAT rate permitted by the EU. 21% is the agreed target rate.
Well, because VAT is regressive and hits poor people higher than rich people, obviously. EU commissioners make way too much money to be bothered by VAT but they'd notice if progressive income-based taxation were more prevalent.
It'd be okay if there was anywhere in the developed world where the 1% weren't making all the rules to suit themselves and fuck everyone else over but alas, there is no such place.
If MS sell a Nokia X phone, they don't need to license it. They own their own patents and you can bet your balls that any patented drivers/codeblocks will not be GPL.
Re: re. " ... Singapore’s context ..."
I miss Singapore.
Amazing food, nice people, sticky climate but who cares, tall buildings, crazy jungle and work 14 hours days six days per week.
Better than being in the UK, having childcare to do after work, a commute via First Great Western Fuck You We Already Got Your Money, Bitch and this shitty weather.
Switch to linux
It's remarkable how often we see all this stuff advocating that (according to stats) 90.75 of all desktops are just plain wrong and should be immediately and irrevocably switched to reflect the preferences of users of The Register's comment boards with their clearly far superior 1.49% of all desktop installs worldwide.
I mean, that just makes absolute sense.
Everyone knows that the majority system is always wrong, except in phones where it is always right (except if it's one you don't like, such as Symbian).
I would very much like to see a breakdown of user-agents published by the Register of all browsers and devices used to read this site.
Because it strikes me that given the stats above and the probabilities involved, most of these loyal partisan forum warriors are lying like marketing.
Thanks, dude. I don't know how we could have survived without that vital information.
Re: One friggin small universe I'm sure.
> it's just that he will have to pay to upload the software to the App Store and then buy it from the App Store before being able to run it.
Well, no. You can side-load your own code. You can also make your app free (in which case MS get 30% of jack shit). But yeah, I think a dev license currently costs something like $19 for a year, or as I like to think of it "one medium sized pizza".
Re: Universally SHIT
u mad bro?
The rebels because Assad's in Putin's pocket.
Which, to be fair, is a pretty safe place to be.
Or any old telly with an XBone and Kinect, if you wanted to dump the iPhone/iPad requirement.
But that's silly - what self-respecting buyer of an iTelly wouldn't already own an iPhone and iPad?
Re: Another reason to not like Titanfall in particular
> Sony DRM
How do you work that out? It's not available on Sony platforms and not made by Sony....
Re: Recursive Acronym
Yeah, and the NHS is not being privatized.
Re: @dogged LinkedIn are dangerous amateurs
1. How bullshitable are they? That is, how strong is their validation that your identity is real and unique?
Given a disposable email address, you could get far enough to log in and you only need to be logged in to use this vulnerability. So, pretty bullshittable.
2. What's the difference between when another member should and shouldn't be able to see this information on the page anyway? (Or are you specifying that the registration email address can differ from that listed for limited publication in one's profile, and that if so it's the former that's being spaffed? That would indeed be extremely bad.)
A "connection" - somebody you've given access to your details - could just send you an on-site message which LinkedIn would spam you with anyway but they couldn't see your email address. They actually sell the addresses to employment agencies as a paid service, which I find ironic.
And yes, it's the registration address that's in the source.
3. Anecdotally, do you reckon there are many source-botherers on there? Clearly you are, but it always struck me more as a managers' playground. Just wondering if it has that many denizens who'd even consider viewing the source (not that this would mitigate the vuln really but...)
Put it this way - unless there's somebody you specifically wanted to connect with (I did) then if you're the kind to wrangle source code at the 'raw bits' level, you have no real reason to be on LinkedIn because it's only useful for getting you a job or finding somebody you used to work with. However, there an awful lot of developers of the type who struggle to find work on there, if you understand me.
Probably some of those get bored. Me, I just wanted to know what the plugin did so I installed it and looked at what it was really up to.
Re: LinkedIn are dangerous amateurs
> You are not the only one to be Clueless though, the oft quoted Clueley concluded that "I really don’t feel as if [linked in] have handled this situation badly at all"...
I really don't feel that Graham Clueley has any fucking idea how insecure LinkedIn actually are.
This kind of comment on the basis of no analysis whatsoever is exactly what's wrong with current journalism and what the grauniad still insists on calling the "blogosphere".
Re: LinkedIn are dangerous amateurs
I'm not trolling. Did you log in?
This is pretty much what the plugin does.
- Analysis Windows 10: One for the suits, right Microsoft? Or so one THOUGHT
- Vid+Pics Microsoft WINDOWS 10: Seven ATE Nine. Or Eight did really
- Xbox hackers snared US ARMY APACHE GUNSHIP ware - Feds
- You dirty RAT! Hong Kong protesters infected by iOS, Android spyware
- Ice, ice maybe: Evidence of 'Grand Canyon' glacier FOUND ON MARS