961 posts • joined Tuesday 22nd May 2007 08:09 GMT
@ Matt Bryant
Although you do have a couple of good points within your post, I find the views one-sided and rather authoritarian.
Let us start with this:
QUOTE: ".....Independent party - With our FPTP voting system? Please....." Yes, it's called democracy, also known as the will of the majority. If your ideas are such hokum that you cannot raise even a percent of the populance to support you then it should be a very indicator to you that you are talking male bovine manure.
The point is that even if your ideas can raise a percent of votes within the UK populace, you will not gain a seat in parliament. 1% equates to about 6 seats, but you will be unlikely to gain even one, unless all your support is concentrated in a few constituencies. This is the reason for the unfairness of the FPTP system, and is the reason smaller parties, though having a fair amount of support from the voters, have no say in parliament. So what is the point of starting your own party?
By the way, this would probably not change even under the AV system. We would need a real PR system to redress this.
QUOTE: "......There's a reason there's a long history of direct action protest." There's also a long list of minority groups that tried to force their views on the majority by direct action, such as the Animal Liberation Front and CND, and they usually fail. We still have hamburgers and Trident. It's that democracy thing - no matter how much you think your idea is The Unvarnished Truth, unless you can convince a large portion of the electorate to your beliefs then you're wasting your time. Should you get upset at the lack of support and go for "direct action" and commit a criminal act, all you will do is portray yourself to that majority as criminals and further erode any support. The Anonyputzs should have stuck to themes that had support amongst many, such as their attacks on the Scientologists, but now they just look like petulant skiddies being led by the nose by the self-serving Assange.
While I agree that some groups go too far, any member of the public should have the right to protest against that which he feels is unjust, whether a large group with thousands of people's support, or just you on your own.
All protests, even peaceful protests, cause some form of damage. If a group of protesters congregates outside a supermarket, protesting their use of battery-farmed chickens, it causes damage to:
* The supermarket, in lost custom, damaged reputation etc
* The UK Government, in the form of policing costs
* Nearby businesses, once again from lost custom
* Other citizens trying to use the area, who will at least be impeded in trying to access the supermarket.
Yet this is an accepted form of protest.
A DDoS could be thought of in the same way. Yes, there will be collateral damage, but the main aim is to prevent access to a particular server. It may cause problems for other sites, but it should not cause permanent damage (on it's own), and can be seen in the same light. (N.B., I am not saying I agree, just that it could be seen in this light)
However, back to a specific point you made:
"unless you can convince a large portion of the electorate to your beliefs then you're wasting your time"
Whether or not this is true could be debated, but the fact is it shouldn't be the case.
Most people do not care either way about anything which does not directly affect them, or at least not enough to do anything about it. But if 1 person in the entire country supports an idea, and nobody opposes it, then why should that person's view be ignored? That person's idea is as valid as anyone else's, and without opposition should be viewed as a strong case (100% of people with an opinion about it are in favour).
Peacefull protest is a legitimate way to publicise your idea, and should be allowed. Without it, it would be very easy for governments to hide opposition to their ideas, and present a face of country wide support for a widely unpopular idea.
Oh, one last thing:
"The Anonyputzs should have stuck to themes that had support amongst many, such as their attacks on the Scientologists, but now they just look like petulant skiddies being led by the nose by the self-serving Assange."
Not only is this a very authoritarian (or even fascist) point of view in my oppinion, but the way you have worded it does not portray you in a very good light. When a debate deteriorates to name-calling and personal attacks, it has lost it's way. I am not saying you are wrong, but you damage your own side of the argument with comments such as these.
RE: Just like Tesco
When I was in 6th form, I worked at the local Asda. We were always told to take a customer to the product if they asked where it was, rather than just point it out.
One day on elderly gentleman asked me where he could find the Calgon. It was accross the other side of the store, so on the way, I enquired why he wanted a water softener when he lived in a soft water area. He had just seen the adverts, and wanted his washer to last longer.
After a brief explanation, he agreed that he didn't need them, and carried on with his shopping.
Later that day, my boss collared me. The gentleman in question had stopped him and praised my efforts, something which would normally have earned me a pat on the back. Instead it earned me a bollocking for stopping a customer spending money.
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits
"When asked how they felt about the teaching materials, and if they'd be happy to use them again, the pupils showed no preference for the clearer fonts."
This could be modified for any given situation.
"When asked how they felt about the <INSERT SUBJECT>, and if they'd be happy to use them again, the pupils showed no preference for the <INSERT ONE OF THE CHOICES>."
I missed that
"Maybe I should just have a personal e-mail and use that for work purposes as well, and then this becomes pointless?"
I'm fairly sure this would be against "company" policy in most cases.
I don't have it to hand, but our own policy basically says all company comms must go through company channels. So using your personal email for sending/receiving work emails is not allowed.
"In fact I would say that democracy requires transparency to be really effective."
Who said we were living in a democracy?
RE: Available does not mean usable
"I had the chance of playing with Windows on Power at some point in the 90-es. Average uptime - 2h. This probably says it all."
Sounds pretty good for Windows!
You beat me to it! Erm...
You got in there first... No, not much better
I can't think of a phrase without innuendo!
"Register management, having witnessed the disasters befalling other online organisations which have angered Anonymous, would like to point out that Lewis Page is an unimportant, low-paid employee who is in no way representative of the Reg as a whole. Only a certain misguided sympathy for his cripplingly expensive alcoholism and many other personal problems has led to his continued employment, and they would ask that this charitable impulse not be punished too harshly."
You owe me a new keyboard
My brother is a mechanic and used to work at a VW dealership. They often had cop cars in for work doing. I don't know whether it was ALL work on the car, or what sort of deal the cops got on it, but I do remember my bro telling me how much fun it was cause of all the "extras" he could play with on it :)
"Oracle - despite its talk of community and of moving on - will be seen as pushing a roadmap that serves Oracle's interests more than those of anybody else"
Oracle is a large corporate entity.
Large corporate entities want to create shareholder value (in fact it is their obligation).
Shareholder value does not come from being nice, but by putting their own interests before anyone else's.
I really don't understand why anyone is surprised at this.
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
"Unfortunately, this logic will fall on deaf ears for all those people who don't look further than the time since the last election. Shame, 'cos it might mean we're doomed to be stuck on this merry-go-round forever."
This is one of the strongest arguments for Proportional Representation (and NO, the AV system is NOT PR).
It slows the swings in power, stopping the radical shifts in policy seen under a FPTP system.
No, it doesn't produce "strong governments" in the way this country is used to. The majority of the time it results in coalition governments, as this one, where parties are forced to compromise and work together.
But it stops the horrible Labour-Tory swings that happen in this country, which end up with Labour overspending but helping the country to grow, and then the Tories cleaning up the mess they left behind but stifling growth. It presents more stable governments, as shifts from one ideology to another happen gradually, and this allows the government to take a longer-term view of the situation.
Of course, it also lets the public feel they have more influence, as their votes all count, unlike the current system where many feel there is no point voting for their chosen candidate, as one or two parties have such strong support in their area that a vote for anyone different will make no difference.
Wouldn't it be...
She's not a queen yet, but I think she'll a Princess when she marries Bill.
Sir, I nominate you for Quote of the Day (if not year)!
<- At least, that is, when you buy me a new keyboard...
That's a nice, well balanced opinion piece there. Highly unusual these days. No propaganda, fearmongering etc, just your interpretation of the facts. Thank you.
My own personal opinion is that there is a good chance the govt's plans will work. It will be shit for a few years, but we will come out of it stronger. My opinion of the Labour plan is that it would also have a good chance of working, and the conditions would be slightly better for those few years, but the shit would last for longer. I would prefer the former, and I hope it does work...
I know it makes no difference to what we do now, but when it comes to blame, I lay the majority at the door of the previous govt. They treated the boom they were living in as normal conditions, didn't save the extra money they were bringing in, and left us in the situation where, once the recession kicked in, we didn't have the money to continue. Pure good sense says you save in the good times so you have money for a rainy day, but the storm's came, and the piggy bank was empty.
Just my opinion. I can't name sources (cause I can't remember where it all came from), but I have read enough info about this (from both sides as well as "impartial" sources) to be relatively informed.
I use a lot of data on giffgaff, for a phone user anyway. Say, 2GB/month at the top end. I have never had so much as a warning.
One thing I know people have been kicked off for is tethering, which is against the T&Cs. They do look for unusual usage patterns. I don't really see how you could do more than 2GB/mo on a phone without tethering.
I must say...
... the main thing I would be upset about would be if I had "sold" giffgaff to a friend on the back of the £30 goodybag.
I have recently switched to giffgaff, and I never really thought it was run by us. They save costs by having the community provide support and sales/advertising, and they do canvas opinion on the forums, but ultimately they will make the decisions.
I am perfectly happy with them. They save me a lot of money, and just a small amount of time spent helping people in the forums can make you a fair amount of money in "payback". And, as it's pay as you go, there's no contract. If you find a better deal, you can switch at any time.
I must add that, AFAIK, the free data you are refering to which will end soon is free for everyone, and isn't unlimited. They will still be including free unlimitted data in "goodybags" (bundles) over £10. (This is what I have been told. If I'm wrong, I'll be jumping ship when it does... my Android phone gobbles data, unless you disable it... but whats the point of a Droid phone without data connection?)
Having only just finished reading Deception Point last night, I find the appearance of this article today rather a coincidence...
(by the way, fantastic book, well worth the read)
I may be wrong, and it may be due to rounding errors, but you state that the number of people able to access the info would be 25% higher than originally stated. However, the numbers are 300k and 400k which, if exact, would give a 33% increase.
Any chance of a clarification?
MS realised that the Wii controller was a step change in how people can control games.
The Kinect will be used for other games, eventually, including "big lad's" games. Imagine playing a FPS with it, it'll be a big change to get used to but will be a lot of fun. I can also imagine it just being a step down the road, although I can't yet imagine what the next step will be...
As for the article: Good news about the search for a hack. It could be VERY useful in grown-up scenarios. Even something as simple as controlling your HTPC with a few gestures. This tech is wasted on a games console!
This is just like the PS3: an incredibly powerful piece of kit... just for playing games? Nah, lets buy a ****-load of them and make a supercomputer!
Dunno, but I can guess...
I guess it's like the PS3: They subsidise it, and make their money back in the games. If it's hacked to work on the PC, they won't make their money back, so they make a loss on each one sold for a purpose other than intended.
That said: Tough shit Microsoft (and Sony)
Where are they going?
They seem to have got lost in San Martin de Whateveritis, turned round, then decided to go for a joy ride, completely forgetting where they are aiming for. By my reckoning they should have turned left about 3 miles ago.
They been at the celebratory vino a little early? Or just as good at navigating as my mother (who often mixes up left and right, and has thrown the map out of the car window on the motorway before)?
Looks like she's down
RE: Stealth: Intent to Avoid Being Detected
Actually, AFAIK "intent" in this case is "They intended to do something", and that something was against the law.
This does not mean they "intended to break the law".
Ignorance of the law is no defence. It can be used in mitigation at sentencing, to reduce the sentence if they were unaware something was illegal.
The facts of the case: They DID break the law. They did not think they were breaking the law (having received home office guidance saying it was OK), but that doesn't change the fact that they broke it.
DISCLAIMER: IANAL, so I may be wrong, but I believe what I have said is correct.
Religious intolerance and misinterpretation.
'Is this the same chap who actually wrote ... to "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"'
I am not a Muslim (nor a follower of any religion), but it is taking passages such as this in ALL religious texts out of context which has cause so much war and death throughout the world. I do not have time to research this fully, but I hope someone who actually knows the Qu'ran comes on here to explain the context.
Take a passage from the King James version of the Bible, for instance.
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
This appears to be advocating killing women and male children, and raping little girls. Does the bible really say this is OK? No, when taken as a whole, the Bible, and most other religious texts prohibit murder and rape.
Yes, there are some in EVERY religion who use it as an excuse to be dicks to each other, but that does not make the religion bad. It makes people bad, and we know this already.
So sod off with your intolerant, ill-informed view of the Islamic faith! It is people like you who take things to extremes and perpetuate wars, hatred, persecution and misery throughout the centuries!
"Tax avoidance is just tax evasion that hasn't been found out yet."
Tax avoidance is using legal loopholes to pay less tax. Most of these loopholes are known by the govt. Therefore they have already been found out, but what they are doing is perfectly legal.
Tax evasion is, basically, just not paying the taxes you owe. This is NOT legal.
I am not saying it is right, moral or just. I am saying there is a distinct difference. If the govt wants to, they can introduce legislation to close the loophole. They (effectively) endorse tax avoidance (glad I proof read this, I initially wrote 'evasion' here) by not closing the loopholes.
Many people avoid tax by legal means, for example setting up a limited company, taking minimum wage for them and their spouse, and then taking the rest in dividends avoiding national insurance and higher rate income tax. If you found a way to pay less tax on your wage, would you not do so?
The DS110j is a single bay device, the myDitto dual.
I know that different users have different requirements, but to do a comparison you would need to choose the DS210j, which puts it much closer (you could buy the 500gb of the myDitto and whack a 2TB drive in for about the same price as a DS210j and a 2TB drive)
The 2TB version looks rather over priced to me. £150 extra over the 500GB! Your 'avin' a giraffe inchya? Even if you are putting 2x1TB in, £100 easily covers it, even at retail prices.
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
I like it down here at the "random-USE-of-CAPITALS end of tabloid journalism".
The articles make more sense than anything I ever read in the Guardian, and generally contain a more balanced view... as well as putting a smile on my face
Great game. The main bugs mentioned haven't bothered me yet.
It looks spectacular, even on a mid-range gaming PC like mine (Athlon X3 @ 3GHz, Radeon 5750 @ c.1600x1050 full detail no problems).
One thing I think is missing is telemetry, at least in practise sessions. All you have to go on is your lap times. I haven't even found a way to see sector times (although I've only played for a few hours). This makes deciding on your setup rather challenging, a matter of trying a few and seeing which 'feels' best.
Apart from that, this is my favourite racing game since NFS Underground, where you had so much control over your cars setup you could spend a few hours tuning it for a particular race. I do like this game very much, and can see myself not doing much other than playing it once I get a wheel for the PC (playing w the keyboard is marginally better than a game controller, but still not great). And it should look awesome on the projector in the living room :D
If an airline sells more seats than it has available, then tells someone they can't get on the flight, they must wait for the next one, there would be uproar.
If I get (as I do) a 24Mbit/s unlimited internet connection, I expect to be able to use it whenever I want. If my use involves me saturating that constantly for a year, that should be my prerogative.
If the connection is NOT unlimited, it should not be sold as such. If a fair use policy is in effect, with a bandwidth cap, the product is NOT unlimited, and should not be sold as such.
Luckily I am with Be and I have, in the past, used my 24Mbit/s download and 2.5MBit/s (I think) upload constantly for weeks on end. There is an FUP, I have never had it affect me, nor has anyone else. There is no 'cap' (I think the wording is to do with affecting other users, not a specific amount).
'the word "Wookiee" has been changed to "hair challenged animal" and that the entire cast has been digitally replaced by Ewoks'
Also, The China Probrem:
'They're just taking Indiana Jones and they're... they're raping him!'
'Why would Spielberg and Lucas do this?!'
While I will admit that the re-master of the original trilogy had some good developments, it was completely unnecessary and spoiled the feel of the film. The move to 3D will likely be similar, a few good bits (I'm thinking Luke bombing the death star will look pretty cool) but overall spoiling the film.
And starting with Phantom Menace? I don't know many people (unfortunately my mother is one) who enjoyed that film. It should be removed from the history books. Ep 2 wasn't much better. And, although Ep 3 wasn't bad, I was really dissapointed. It could have been so much darker, instead they pandered to the majority again and produced a mediocre film. I won't bother going to see any of that trillogy, and doubt I will go to see the "original" trillogy in 3D either.
"Privacy International said on Monday that it plans to sue ACS:Law for violating the privacy of internet users over the security breach"
A fantastic twist to the tail (yes, deliberately used the "wrong" spelling).
RE: Renewable energy
Yes, battery powered vehicles can run on renewables, if there is capacity.
Currently there is not.
I am not arguing that EVs are the future, but based on current technology and infrastructure, the most green car tech currently practical is a light, efficient, ICE powered vehicle.
To take over, EVs need:
a) better energy storage technology (e.g. batteries)
b) more "renewables" (e.g. renewable electricity generation)
I do not say this to discourage the development of these techs, in fact quite the opposite. But at this point in time the technology is not ready to replace the trusty ICE.
"When they could have used none by going w other techs in the spirit of the competition"
Yeah, because the battery-'powered' vehicles would not use any fossil fuels, would they?
Coz they just charge the batteries from an electrical outlet... Oh, wait... That's mostly generated by burning fossil fuels.
They looked at the competition, and the rules of it, and did what real engineers do: Find the best solution to the problem posed. Currently, their solution was the best available. In future, when the majority of the world's power no longer comes from burning fosil fuels, there will be greener technologies available, but until then they are right on the money. Well done for thinking outside the box!
Scaling and latency
Surely this will also affect the memory latency too on a core-by-core basis. If I have understood correctly, it is a unidirectional ring. So take a 2-core simplified example:
Assuming a clockwise direction here, latency to core 2 will always be 1 clock more than to core 1. This difference will increase by number of 'stops' on the ring, so you would end up needing to design programs to use a particular core if they were memory latency constrained.
"I guess one problem is that sometimes, in any vehicle, the best preemptive action is actually to speed up rather than slow down"
It is one technique I use fairly frequently, on motorways especially. If I am using the outside lane to overtake, but the vehicle in front is only moving a tiny amount faster than the car being overtaken, The best option I have found is to hang back where the driver of the vehical being overtaken can see me, then accelerate past him once there is space. The last place you want to be is in a drivers blind spot for an extended period of time, as you cannot count on them to check.
But to the driver of the vehicle I am overtaking, all he often sees is a bike fly past him, then decelerate. They may see it as a dangerous maneouver, thinking I was just doing that speed all the way, then decelerating at the "last minute".
The same goes for moving around in the lane, something my instructor told me to do as it increases the likelihood of being seen. But to some, it is seen as a biker weaving around dangerously.
And another one!
"Don't bitch at drivers, it's your choice.
"Bitch at your local representative that the police aren't interested in nabbing people for driving without due care and attention."
So you are saying that we shouldn't complain about people driving about due care and attention?! We shouldn't complain about people who drive too close to the vehicle in front, use their mobile phone while driving, don't look where they are going and generally assume that they own the roads?!?!
Yes, the police should nab drivers (and motorcyclists, cyclists, etc for that matter) who put other road users in danger, but I saw one of my mates doing so, I would complain to him too. If a driver pulls out on me, nearly causing me to crash trying to avoid him, and I see him stopped at the next traffic lights or pull into a car park, I will follow him and give him a piece of my mind. Everyone has a right to complain about someone putting their life in danger. When I am on a bike, I take a calculated risk, true. But it is when people, through idiocy, complacency or whatever, put me in direct danger that I get angry.
"Bascally, STFU unless you're going to do something about it."
Or you can STFU for being a selfish prick, obviously not caring about the safety of anyone who's recreational or transport choices you disagree with!
"( I've lost count of reports in the local paper, or seeing the road closed again, because of 40 something riders killing themselves on the roads round here, grow up you wankers)"
And I've lost track of the number of car accidents which have closed the M62, making me late for work (often a 40-something business exec who is driving like a dick because he thinks 5 minutes of his time is worth more than other peoples safety). Time for YOU to grow up, I think, and realise that there are bad examples of any group.
RE: shoddy excuses
"I believe it's typical biker behaviour because every single one, without exception, does this"
"Ive [sic] never seen anything but motorbikes treat chevrons as a special lane in all the years Ive [sic] been driving."
Seems you have:
a) Seen very few bad drivers and a lot of bad motorcyclists,
b) Have a coloured opinion of motorcyclists, or for some other reason only remember bad examples of motorcyclists, or
c) are not as observant as you would like to think, and therefore have not noticed good examples of motorcyclists.
Before you start, I would like to point out that I have no opinion either way, those are the options I can see.
But I know that, for myself, I saw several examples of good, bad, and "apparently bad" motorcyclists before I started riding ("apparently bad" is not good wording, I just mean things which looked bad to me, but which I have since discovered are perfectly acceptable). I know that most bikers are observant and respectful of other road users (until the prat in the car puts your life in danger of course!)
"Actually the Highway Code says "Take care and keep your speed low". Which is odd, because apparently bikers read this sentance as "Do it at 30mph regardless of oncoming traffic"."
Personally I limit filtering to 20mph, and merge back into traffic if it exceeds this. However, there are some conditions where 30mph is perfectly safe. Once again, you appear to only have seen the bad.
Might I ask how long you have been driving, and also where you are from? If things are as bad as you think there, it's not somewhere I would like to go. I would also expect there is a higher rate of motorcycle accidents there if they are riding as badly as you suggest.
I would prefer my surgeon was good at making split-second decisions. After all, if they hit a problem (not everything goes smooothly, no matter how skilled the surgeon or how well planned the operation), I would prefer they immediately fixed it rather than I die on the operating table...
"Admitting you drive a motorbike automatically excludes you from complaining about other peoples driving, pal."
Actually most studies done have indicated that Motorcyclists make much better drivers, cause fewer accidents, and that most accidents involving motorcyclists are actually caused by another vehicle. Let us break this down:
"follows the car in front at a distance of no more than 6 inches from the nearside rear bumper"
Stopping distance for a bike is generally shorter than a car. Add to this a motorcyclist is generally higher than their car driving counterpart, giving a better view of traffic ahead. Hence they do not need to leave as great a stopping distance between them and the car in front.
Even ignoring that, there are plenty of motorcyclists, like myself, who actually leave more room in front than the average car driver due to the consequences if they are in an accident. Also, I seen plenty of cars driving right up the vehicle in front's exhaust pipe. You get bad road users in all classes of vehicle.
"the belief that its ok for you to overtake stationary traffic at a junction"
Actually this IS OK. It is mentioned in the highway code, and is known as filtering. So long as it is done at a sensible speed, with the awareness that other road users may not expect you to be there, there is no problem. See http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069854 (88)
I have of course seen motorcyclists filtering at what I would consider unsafe speeds on the motorway, but then again I have seen cars weaving in and out of traffic on the motorway at unsafe speeds, so once again it cuts both ways.
"the belief that ... the dividing chevrons on a dual carriageway are in fact an overtaking lane for motorcycles"
I agree that this is not a good idea, and is actually illegal if the lines surrounding it are solid, but once again I have seen cars do the same when circumstances allow, so you can not use it as a specific argument against the driving skills of motorcyclists.
Bottom line, Adam: Do not make sweeping generalisations about a group of people without having the facts. There are many good motorcyclists, and a few bad ones who give the rest of us a bad name. Many car drivers also see typical motorcyclist behaviour as dangerous purely because they do not know, having never ridden themselves. Of course there are many dickhead bikers out there, but there are also dickhead car/bus/lorry drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.
But then again so are most integrated graphics. But it is likely that (eventually at least) the graphics core will ba able to be used to boost performance alongside a 'proper' graphics card.
Add to that the fact that most mainstream users will be more than happy with the performance of the Sandy Bridge GPU, as all they will be doing is a bit of surfing, watching mindless funny clips on YouTube and such. They don't need the latest greatest nVidia/ATI multi-card setup for that.