"We are insignificant. We are small."
Well you certainly are.
And although your posts and articles prove this, it's obvious that you don't really believe it. In reality you seem to think that the world revolves around you.
1897 posts • joined 23 Jan 2010
"We are insignificant. We are small."
Well you certainly are.
And although your posts and articles prove this, it's obvious that you don't really believe it. In reality you seem to think that the world revolves around you.
"Sceptor (Scalable Convergent Electric Propulsion Technology and Operations Research) "
Sceptre (Scalable Convergent Electric Propulsion Technology and Operations Research)
"Operations" can really be omitted entirely.
"Amazing how many USians confuse the USA with the entire world."
Only you can do that?
"And that 'all men are created equal' was extremely contentious political issue in a country that used slaves for much of its cotton (and other plantation-grown production), which was so important in the world economy that England was very, very close to giving diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy."
Incidentally, perhaps you can explain why England never outlawed slavery in the colonies when they had the authority to do so. Or, in consideration of your "holier than thou" attitude, why it took until 1807 for England to outlaw the slave trade.
Or maybe you could just kinda actually learn something about the history of slavery, instead of simply looking at it from your narrow, ahistorical, bourgeois-moralist point of view.
Isn't there some way to support free internet for India's poorest, while not turning them into fodder for the Facebook and Google machines?
"That bus driver must have had some serious demerits then..."
Don't we all...
"I would have raided that building with a drugs squad, because they're obviously smoking something seriously strong."
Yes. In fact that was exactly what was stated in the article, by Assange himself: "Today that detention has been found by the highest organisation in the UN that has the jurisdiction for considering the rights of detained person, as unlawful,"
Kids, don't be like the WGAD: get high on life, not drugs.
"I think the point is that although the lobbyists have significant links with the Democrats, presumably in order to buy reduced regulation help formulate the best policy, the Republicans are ideologically in favour of no/minimal regulation, and damn the costs."
"Minimal regulation" is very, very different from "bought-and-paid-for regulation" - to confuse them is naive, to say the least: there's no reason to think that grossly-distorted laws and regulations implemented thanks to corruption are any better in any way than minimal laws and regulations and there's good reason to think that they're much worse.
Incidentally, the "lobbyists" or corrupt actors could also want, along or separately from decreased regulation for themselves, increased regulation - for their competitors.
Corruption is corruption. And that's all there is to it. That you want to whitewash the Democrats is irrelevant. That you think that there is some benefit, relative, comparative, or otherwise, to having wealthy entities completely bypass the political process of law-making by purchasing political influence and government actin is delusional.
And for as Pig And Cow, Inc they are the embodiment of "corrupt politicians lining their pockets in exchange for government action". And there's NO benefit for anyone except them and their paying clientele.
'"And here is one area where Europe and the US usefully have a similar stance (at least until the next Republican administration is voted buys its way into office). So Google can't leverage their advantage because they'll get called out."
Do you have ANY idea how many ex-Googlers have been recruited and employed by Obama's administration? (And just to remind you because you probably don't know, Obama is a Democrat.)
Or how often Google lobbyists visit the White House? Or how much money they spend on lobbying? Apparently you know nothing about this stuff.
And here's one reason why the Department of Justice has not started any lawsuits against Google for their abuse of their monopoly: the government official whose decision it is on whether to okay such lawsuits is... an ex-Google employee!
Do you remember Andrew McLaughlin?
And as for "the next Republican administration buying its way into office": remind me why Hillary Cow is getting money from Wall St, would you? Or the money that's being funneled to her and her husband via their foundation, "Cow And Pig, Inc".. ooops, I meant to say The Clinton Foundation. Where'd that US$2bn come from, and why? Or tell me about George Soros, you know, the guy who owns the Democratic party.
You've got to be pretty damn myopic and hypocritical to think that the Republicans are any more guilty of attempting to "buy" an election than the Democrats.
"Google employs some of the best brains in the world in this cat and mouse game"
This is a pathetic and trivial occupation for the "best brains in the world". And one of the reasons why the world is like it is.
"Only in the UN would a 5-person committee require 3 chairs!"
It shows how little importance the members of the committee are expected to attach to their work.
Apparently they think it is very possible if not actually likely that the Chairman and 1st Vice Chairman will have better things to do than come to the meetings on a regular, but that maybe with three people - 60% of the five committee members - with the authority to chair their meetings, they have a better chance at having at least one authorized chairman at every meeting.
(Nota bene: This is not meant to be humorous explanation.)
"The fact that Eric Snowden releases exposed the far reach of the NSA, such as spying on Merkel for years or smuggling weapons from Benghazi to Syria, gives us pretty clear understanding that Assange wasn't just paranoid. The treatment of Bradley/Courtney Manning, including debasing 24 hour strip confinement & punitive "suicide" watch only strengthens the argument.
A setup over an exploding condom should have been enough Monty Python for Islanders to appreciate. Sadly you blokes seem to trust government much more than you did in the 70's punk era - guess that's how you ended up carrying Bush's luggage on the way into Iraq. Pretty flat learning curve here.
Assange reasonably assumed these bastards were out to get him, setting him up with groupies and bogus charges, which of course is classic takedown - could have set him up with kiddie porn or if Russian put radioactive tabs in his coffee - makes little difference - discredited is defanged, and the US didn't want any more videos of soldiers killing civilians - My Lai & Abu Ghraib got way too much TV time. But at this point, Assange is as forgotten as Michael "Dude, where's my country" Moore - score another 1 for the military complex."
You're also an anti-vaxxer, 9-11 Truther, and chemtrails investigator too, right?
"Yahoo! is reporting a $4.43bn goodwill impairment (read: write-off) on the value of its US, Canada, Latin America, Europe and Tumblr business units."
Implying that there was $4.43bn of goodwill to begin with. Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of the notional value of imaginary merchandise! Who the fuck has any goodwill towards Yahoo, except maybe Mrs Marissa Mayer's Mom, for giving her daughter a truckload of money to drive Yahoo into the ground.
"So it's interesting, seeing as to how I'm in the US, and there's NO coverage of this whatsoever. It's never been mentioned on Reuters, UPI, AP, CNN, Fox, or anywhere else that there was a flaky SS agent involved in the bust."
On http://www.reuters.com/search/news?blob=%22Shaun+Bridges%22 we find that Reuters has published 13 news stories about Shaun Bridges.
I assume that your statements about the other news organizations are just as accurate as your statement about Reuters. I just couldn't be bothered to look any further.
"It is a tactic to waste time and delay trial also"
How does that work in this case?
Facebook has already complied with the government's demand and the court proceedings here are to get the government orders overturned. One would think that Facebook, no matter how strong or weak their legal arguments are*, would want to go to trial as soon as possible because without a trial there is no way to get the government orders annulled.
So in what way does wasting time and delaying trial help Facebook?
* The article states that "this is not Facebook's only legal argument to the court order. It also claims that Belgian law doesn't apply since it processes all its data in Ireland." but does not actually say that these two arguments are their only arguments.
"the fact that it makes them a laughing stock internationally will cost them hard..."
If it ever costs them anything in any tangible way, you be sure to let us know immediately. 'Cos it won't. And note that your, or anyone else's, bad or worsened opinion of Facebook is a "cost" negligible to the point of being meaningless.
"...and demonstrates that a $B245 company can behave like twats despite it being bleeding obvious that approach is stupid."
This is not news.
"Whittingdale [...] scrapped the consultation, and has started it all over again."
Because some people never learn.
"Tim Cook thinks, hey, $80bn is still $80bn"
He's not really wrong.
"Even adjusting for inflation, Apple makes the 'robber barons' (rail and oil) of old look like amateurs when it comes to profit."
Wrong. (And the only way your statement could be true is if you DIDN'T "adjust for inflation". Do you even know what the term means?)
Apparently you've heard the term "robber baron" but have never bothered to find out what it means or the facts about the historical phenomenon it represents. It's not merely making vast sums of money. A far as their wealth goes, the robber barons personally owned, as individuals, wealth that amounted to a very substantial fraction of the wealth of the entire country. This had political ramifications that no tech company has yet to approach.
You can read this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller . Apple does not come close in any respect whatsoever.
The idea that "Apple makes the 'robber barons' (rail and oil) of old look like amateurs when it comes to profit" has nothing to do with reality.
"'[... they aren't going to change their minds, and you aren't change their minds for them.] So why do you bother?' Everybody needs a hobby."
That's a shitty excuse. It's scarcely better than having gone to see Wesley Willis perform, or going to a David Icke lecture. And you end up being... not too different from them.
Find a better way to reinforce your self-esteem.
"He'll be someone who thinks he's a musician too."
Do rappers consider themselves to be musicians? I'm not sure but they might not, based on a statement, if I correctly recall it, from Public Enemy, "we're not musicians and we don't respect musicians."
"Who the hell cares?"
That is an excellent question.
Although a few of these comments are genuinely funny, when some of these people see someone with Down's Syndrome, for example, do they then go home and point out to their friends and family how much smarter they are?
Mainmonides (1135-1204) pointed out the the spherical shape of the earth is deducible from the curvature of the horizon. He was not necessarily the first to make this deduction.
"Beginning in the Nineteenth Century, a historical myth arose which held that the predominant cosmological doctrine during the Middle Ages was that the Earth was flat." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth generally.
"The thing to do with these kooks... I like to use them as ammo for arguments with other kooks"
Whether flat-earthers or 9-11 Truthers, creationists or "alternative-medicine" enthusiasts, they aren't going to change their minds, and you aren't change their minds for them. So why do you bother?
"Any sufficiently large organisation eventually morphs to resemble a corrupt corporation."
In the given context, what exactly do you mean by "corrupt"?
"A dictionary is descriptive"
I clearly remember being taught in grade school - and this is one of the very few specific bits of knowledge which I recall learning in grade school - that some dictionaries are descriptive, and others are prescriptive. I presume, possibly mistakenly, that this distinction still holds.
Whether those prescriptive dictionaries are actually successful in causing people to use the language "properly" is a different matter entirely.
"Google pleaded with the court to remove the financial information from the hearing's transcripts, and place the numbers under seal."
Too fukken late. *I* know it now, and I ain't gonna un-know it, no way, no how.
"it just mentions how thing were different at times in the past when the overall climate was warmer for different reasons, and how we may have delayed the next glaciation."
The article very clearly says, in the very first sentence, that this year is the warmest on record. In fact, just to refresh your memory, here it is again, copy-pasted from the article and so verbatim: "It’s official: 2015 was the warmest year on record." Did you skip that part?
Obviously you don't understand how this works.
Someone wrote a paper. Evidence was gathered and inferences were drawn, upon which conclusions were made. The writers of the paper certainly agree with their own conclusions and think that they are well-founded and correct.
That doesn't mean that they are. That's a point that you - and others here - don't seem to grasp.
A related point which you also miss is that criticism of scientific arguments and its evidence, and the conclusions based on them, are at least as importance as the arguments, evidence, and conclusions themselves.
And I didn't see any criticism in the article. On the other hand, if Lewis Page wrote the article, there would have been.
Many demerits to The New Register for this.
"'AGW will become true. By magic, apparently.' It's called "science" - you know, that thing that keeps the lights on and the heating working, and makes it possible to do cool things like take photos of Pluto. You should try learning something about it - especially the part where being noisy and opinionated doesn't excuse you from being dead wrong."
That the lights are on and it is possible to take photos of Pluto does not even begin to mean that AGW is true. Not even a little. And to attempt to make any sort of connect between these things shows a great ability to reason in bizarre and ignorant ways.
It seems that you are blissfully unaware that scientists have been wrong many, many times.
Perhaps you ought to consider attempting to learn something about both science and scientists, insofar as the sum total of your understanding seems to approach zero.
Extreme skepticism about the impending and imminent end of the world and life as we know it is always in order.
"'m glad to see that The Reg has started publishing proper science articles on this subject instead."
Yeah, because if you can suppress dissent thoroughly enough, AGW will become true. By magic, apparently.
So thanks to the Register deciding to "improve" the site, instead of Lewis Page's very healthy skepticism, we get this alarmist bullshit.
Thanks for this article - the slime under the rock of Wikipedia's public image needs to be exposed. It's a source of some consternation to me that there are regular readers of this site for whom the contents of the article will be news.
And of course some of those readers will refuse to take off their blinders.
"'Protecting customer information is critically important to Hyatt, and we will soon begin to take the security of customer data very seriously,' Hyatt global president of operations Chuck Floyd said in announcing the 250 compromised locations."
Oh I just bet you will.
Your post brought to mind the phrase "There is none so blind as he who will not see."
The internet seems to corrupt everything it touches. And although I know that that's not literally true, it's true so often, that you'd not be far wrong assuming that it's true all the time. And the more altruistic something seems to be on the surface, the more likely that it's been co-opted by venal and pecuniary interests and actors in bad faith.
As the comedienne Lily Tomlin said, "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up."
It's not really very funny, though.
"Californian Refugees? Can we send them to Syria?"
That's just another piece of evidence serving to show us the truth in the observation that the most brilliant ideas seem so obvious in hindsight.
"That's why the storage facility is in the middle of nowhere. (....or, at least, *was* in the middle of nowhere)."
I believe that this happened at Bhopal too: the chemical plant was built well away from living areas, which subsequently encroached on the plant's very immediate surroundings.
Something somewhat similar happened at Love Canal, where local officials, in spite of knowing that a certain tract of land was in use as a toxic chemical dump, and in spite of the strong protestations from the company that owned and used the site as a toxic chemical dump, decided to build housing and a school on the site. And, by the way, the site was a toxic chemical dump. The company that owned the toxic chemical dump, being threatened with the use of eminent domain to confiscate the toxic chemical dump in order to use it for housing development, decided to sell it to the city, so as to be able to put, in the contracts, warnings about the toxic chemicals buried there, at the toxic chemical dump. Although it would have been very appropriate, none of the officials responsible for this were ever executed.
In fact, the law did not, and even today would still not, recognize such actions as a capital offense.
"if you don't consult people beforehand you have removed any assumption that a discussion afterwards would make a difference"
Although certainly not always true, that's actually a very insightful observation. (Additionally, it is almost always easier to forestall a planned action or prevent it from being implemented than it is to have that decision rescinded after it's been implemented, as "backing down" usually involves a humiliating loss of face.)
"the management said the boxes were there to monitor building heating systems and agreed to remove them.;'
Ah! Gonna use the employees for medical experiments! The management wants to see how well the hirelings fulfill their duties in spite of potentially lethal environmental conditions and, secondarily, how long they remain conscious and capable of physical movement, when the temperature is comparable to Death Valley.
"While beloved of accountants, hot desks are usually very unpopular with staff, who face the breakup of team structures and an extra layer of uncertainty when coming in to work in the morning."
Apparently they want to make their long-term employees feel like temp help. That's how I'd run a business too... if I wanted it to fail.
I was struck by the same paragraph as you: Both sides cringingly came together when Windows 98’s launch was soundtracked with "Heroes". Still, we’ll all be playing "Heroes" today. Will anyone wheel out dusty Win98 CDs when Gates and Ballmer cash in their chips?
That's some outstanding cluelessness right there. I mean, I understand that the writer was probably a Bowie fan and all that, but he needs to have maybe just a little bit of sense.
Bill Gates during his Microsoft days and now with his philanthropic efforts has and continues to change the world in a variety of ways, some of which are profound.
David Bowie, on the other hand, made some recordings that some people enjoyed. Apparently some people think that his records are more significant than Bill Gates' record of achievements. If you compare the two - an imbecilic idea in the first place - then anyone with even a vague understanding of how the world works will immediately see how trivial the Bowie record is, not only when compared to Gates' but on its own "merits". (Nota bene: I will be gladdened and amused to read any comments bashing Gates, Ballmer, Microsoft, and Windows, while not bashing Bowie for letting them use "Heroes" to sell Win98.)
Let me put this another way: Still, we’ll all be playing "Heroes" today. Will anyone wheel out dusty Win98 CDs when Gates and Ballmer cash in their chips? Literally billions of people use Windows not just today, but today and every day. The significance of what people will do when using Windows, just today and only today (and not this week, month, or year, or the course of their entire lives), so far outstrips the significance of however many people listening to Bowie's records today, that the comparison can only serve to denigrate Bowie's memory.
Here's my favorite - and I use the word ironically - quote from David Bowie. "This isn't rock and roll, it's genocide". Probably tells us more about him and his outlook, his superficiality and shallowness, his self-absorption, and his need to generate attention-seeking gimmicks (very well-developed!) than anything else that he's ever said or done.
It's unfortunate to have to bash the dead like this. But then again, eulogies when sufficiently preposterous only serve to ridicule the memory of the deceased.
PS: The "techie" claims in the article are laughably weak.
"Imation sells off the family jewels: Memorex brand goes for $9.4m."
Although I've tried several times, I am pretty sure that I have never successfully burned a DVD using Memorex media. So in my estimation, whoever bought the Memorex brand for $9.4m overpaid by, in round numbers, $9.4m.
"Bootnote: Take a bow, anonymous El Reg commentard from September 2015, who predicted that catalytic converters will be needed."
Richard Chirgwin should also take a bow for going back and reading the comments and so finding the catalytic converter prediction.
"...tediously engendered humans."
You're doing it wrong.
"how can a US Attorney escalate this local fuck up countrywide"
Maybe you should do a little research on the US legal system because your understanding of it is grossly defective.
Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. What exactly is this mysterious "self-interest" that is impelling members of congress to investigate the OPM data breach?
They are in exactly the same boat as millions of other government employees.
The data has already been stolen. Do you understand that? So how members of congress would find themselves in a position different than any other government employee in regard to this is a riddle. You need to try to learn how the world works.
Be certain that the amount of publicly-available information on members of congress far exceeds anything that the OPM had in its files. And since the OPM data was self-submitted, it doesn't include anything that anyone would really want to hide. Any foreign power - or local political opponent, for that matter - would have the incentive and the ability to easily gather more data, and more sensitive data, and potentially far more damaging data, than what members of congress voluntarily submit to the OPM. They live with that every day.
So the situation of member of congress, consequential to the OPM breach, remains... completely unchanged.
It's all the other government employees that find themselves in a, shall we say, new situation, with their data being available to and pored over by heaven only knows whom, and for what purpose. Member of congress are probably very accustomed to living with threats like this; your average government employee, probably not.
Even leaving aside the data that is publicly available, via the courts, or credit bureaus, or similar, for both congressmen and other government employees, the amount of illegally-obtained data seems to be so vast that one has to wonder how much of effect the OPM breach actually had on them.
Members of congress have to expect to be the subjects of inquiry and investigation, both legal and covert, from all sorts of quarters and entities - foreign, local, political, journalistic, etc etc etc, and would probably be grateful if the stolen OPM data was the worst threat that they had to contend with. But it's not. And members of congress probably have less to worry about the OPM data breach than almost anyone else.
Learn to think about things.
"The owner of the drone, neighbor David Boggs, was unsurprisingly not happy about the situation and confronted Merideth, who then threatened him with a handgun."
The original story as published here on The Register was that Boggs along with three friends went to confront Meredith. If four people came to my house confront me, I'd also have had my firearms handy and prominently displayed (if I actually had such - which I don't.)
"not all GOG games are DRM-free"
I'm pretty sure that this is wrong. But if you have a link to a DRM'ed game on GOG, I'd be interested in knowing.
"It kept popular title Dragon Age: Inquisition uncracked for about a month."
That's pretty good, but the most recent versions of Steinberg's digital audio workstation apps Cubase and Nuendo to have been cracked was v4 of each program, in 2008 - seven years ago. Of course, those apps use a usb dongle so it's not quite the same. (On all my systems the dongles have always worked completely transparently, even with three of them plugged in simultaneously. But that's a very large sum of money embodied in those little thumb-drive pieces of plastic.)
I recall one of the Steinberg forum mods saying that if the protection lasted a month it was considered a success, as that seemed to be long enough for significant numbers of "early adopters" to get frustrated and actually pay for the apps instead of waiting for a cracked version.
On the other hand, if a game can't be cracked, then one's ability to play the game would seem to be congruent with the life of the company that published the game: if the publisher goes under, you could be left without a means of installing and playing it. And with what AAA titles cost, that's a meaningful loss for a lot of people.
"...hedge fund SpringOwl Asset Management, [...] sent a 99-page letter to the company's CEO Marissa Mayer arguing for her to be ousted"
If I understand this correctly, SpringOwl Ass. Man. sent a letter to... Marissa Mayer, urging her to fire... Marissa Mayer?
Good luck with that.
But if they did send such a letter, then SpringOwl Ass. Man. would seem to be exactly the kind of people that you'd have expected to invest in Yahoo in the first place.