Feeds

* Posts by NumptyScrub

481 posts • joined 18 Mar 2010

Page:

GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Unhappy

Re: Why it could or couldn't

quote: "Next up is the law around the intended use of the photographs. If it is reasonable to believe that the photographs might be of use to someone committing acts of terrorism, the photograph is illegal. It doesn't matter whether the photographer is a terrorist or whether the photographer knows any terrorists, it is enough that the photographer intends to publish the useful photos on a website where terrorists might be able to find them, for example posted on a website visible to the general public."

That sounds like it potentially covers every photograph on Facebook, Instagram, and Flickr that shows a location inside the UK. Is there a government department that I can send every single photograph I take inside UK borders to, so they can pre-check and vet each one and let me know which ones won't be useful to terrorists and thus won't open me up to prosecution for terrorism?

Obviously photos inside/of Tube stations are going to be illegal (Tube bombers can use those to plan more Tube bombings), as are photos taken inside/of airports, and I'd probably include schools, shopping centres, High Streets, and any places where enough members of the public gather and are thus potential bomb targets. Also, some people I know may or may not be important enough that they could be considered targets for kidnapping, so I'd need guidance on those even if they are taken inside my own house.

Man, it sounds like I need to just stop taking photos, because if any found their way onto the internet I could be in some pretty hot water :'(

1
0

BBC: We're going to slip CODING into kids' TV

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Oh crap.

Small children have been happily destroying important and/or expensive things since the invention of small children. I was an utter nightmare once I worked out what screwdrivers did ^^;

The only winning move is to put everything important out of reach (high shelves, or preferably locked up in a verboten area like the "study") until some semblance of "adherence to rules" (aka trustworthiness) emerges as they get older. This varies by child, so you'll have to make your own judgement call there.

17mo is definitely too young to be trusted with kit that isn't at least IP57 certified, drool gets everywhere ;)

6
0

LOHAN wrapped in vinyl as Kickstarter campaign hits £18,000!

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Happy

Re: But...but...aww s'not fair!!!

quote: "All the tankards have gone before we even got to see a picture to see if we even wanted one!!! {sulks!} You could have left the books closed on that one until the sample pictures were published!"

as of this typing:

£70 = tankard plus tshirt (36 of 50 left)

£120 = tankard plus the chance to hurl abuse at Lester in person and/or buy him a pint (20 of 25 left)

Much more expensiver than £40 for just the tankard, but still available if you have the funds :)

0
0

Top beak: UK privacy law may be reconsidered because of social media

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: He wha?

quote: "You deliberately mischaracterise the remarks, and it has nothing to do with celebrity or politicians.The point is , is that recording devices are so ubiquitous and social media makes it very easy for ANYBODY to be a "journalist"."

So, the remark I am mischaracterising:

"If I want to do or say something which I am only prepared to do or say privately, then it is an interference with my freedom of expression if I cannot do it or say it because it will be reported in a newspaper"

Implying that a voluntary refusal to act, because of a perceived chance of it being reported, is the form of the alleged interference with freedom of expression. You are actually still free to do or say it, but it is fear of the consequences of people finding out that restrains you.

This statement is not referencing things that have already been said or done coming to light, it is referencing things that do not get said or done because they could come to light, and equating that to a violation of freedom of expression. "I cannot express myself, because I do not wish for other people to learn how I expressed myself."

The vast majority of laws are prohibitive in nature, and the fear of the consequences of acts which contravene those laws is supposed to be how we keep society in check. It seems strange that Lord Neuberger is comfortable with "fear of the law" as a valid deterrent to action, but believes "fear of publication" is a violation of his basic rights.

Or am I the only one that put a crime in as his "do or say something" to see how the statement read, and immediately saw it as untenable? "If I want to fiddle kids, which I am only prepared to do privately, then it is an interference with my freedom of expression if I cannot fiddle kids because it will be reported in a newspaper" just doesn't work, does it?

0
1
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: He wha?

Came here to make that same point. If you are "only prepared to do or say (it) privately" then don't do or say it in front of journalists. If you are prepared to do or say it in front of people who may be (or may forward that information to) journalists, then it is not being done or said "in private".

0
9

TROLL SLAYER Google grabs $1.3 MEEELLION in patent counter-suit

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Legal term?

Muphrys Law proves itself to be a universal constant again, I see :)

0
0

'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: So basically...

"I do not want to get into the specifics of any particular policy. Nonetheless, it’s worth restating that I believe Robert Mugabe is a tremendous partner. As a member of the board I am completely aligned with that view."

Sometimes you just feel compelled to bite :)

2
1

Raspberry Pi B+: PHWOAR, get a load of those pins

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: ElReg on the pulse as normal

Let me guess, was it on the 22nd July? :D

(doesn't work with American date formats thought)

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: XBMC & Media Hubs

quote: "At first I thought of the Pi as a solution looking for a problem. It's clearly found a niche for low power (both electrical and processing) projects, though I'm still not convinced it's the best option for the task it was originally marketed for - the revival of the bedroom coder and getting school kids into programming. A significantly more powerful version (quad core, more memory) would open up a whole load more opportunities."

A significantly more powerful unit would also incur a significant increase in base cost. The Pi was designed as a sub-£30 computer, primarily because that price point struck a good balance between kit capability and ease of finding the funds.

You can get some extremely capable miniPCs (e.g. the Zotac range or the Intel NUC range) but they are an order of magnitude more expensive than the Pi. If, as a parent, you can spare £300+ then get a miniPC for them to play with. If you can't, then £30 for a basic unit that they can still learn to use, and is a full general purpose computer to boot, is a bargain.

I used to bedroom code on a single core 1MHz machine with 64kB of RAM, and moved on to an 8MHz single core with 512kB RAM. Compared to those the Pi is a monster of a machine ;)

13
0

Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: The title is too long

I don't have any Apple devices and haven't purchased anything in iTunes, should I buy an iWatch?

I think the review nails it; a friend has the Glass (academic discounts FTW) and it's a nice piece of kit with a tiny, specialist use case. I cannot justify buying one myself because I'm also not invested in the Google ecosystem (never mind the current asking price), but they jumped at the chance.

It is cool to play with for one for 5 minutes or so though :)

1
0

Finally, a practical use for 3D printing: Helping surgeons rehearse

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Goth friends

quote: "And your brain casing replaced with a 3D printed copy?"

Titanium, for preference, since I don't think we've found any veins of adamantium yet. Although crystalline Carbon would also provide improved tensile strength over the original, I'm also pretty sure we can't 3D print it (yet), whereas we can with Titanium. :)

Some extra chiselling of the jaw for the replacement wouldn't go amiss, either ^^;

0
0

HUGE iPAD? Maybe. HUGE ADVERTS? That's for SURE

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

"We'll never make a 7" tablet" - Steve Jobs

iPad Mini with Retina Display

Anything is possible :)

1
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Backlash

quote: "I'd hope that even the most coke-addled advertising execs would understand that the last thing anyone wants is full-screen ads."

You're thinking like the product, not the customer. The first thing the customer wants is full screen, unskippable ads which you cannot mute, and which preferentially force the product to interact with them to ensure the message is received. The product should not be given the choice to avoid them, it defeats the object of advertising at them. Especially when you've gone to the trouble of datamining them to select advertising that they will find interesting.

Just look at the amount of websites that deliberately fail to work until you allow Javascript from multiple sites to run (so they can track you while they advertise at you), or services that require you to accept draconian surveillance of your activities to use them (so you can look at cat videos or your friend's baby pictures). The public are the last people that advertising execs pay any attention to.

12
0

The police are WRONG: Watching YouTube videos is NOT illegal

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Also there is apparently no law against

Wait, so if the curtains don't match the carpet that's now attempted rape?

I have been the victim of a serial rapist, and I didn't even realise it :'(

0
0

US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Jurisdiction?

The claim was raised by a UK citizen. This is a UK citizen claiming copyright of a work which was created in Indonesia, and is being published in the UK (via the internet) by the Wikimedia Foundation.

I'm not sure jurisdiction is as clear cut as you think it is in this case.

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

quote: "Are we really arguing about who owns the copyright on a picture of a monkey, taken by the monkey?

As if that's an important area of law that we need to nail down?"

If that photo of a monkey has earned you personally $10k in advertising revenue on a commercial site, and the photographer is claiming that you have stolen his work for gain, then yes, this is definitely an area of law that needs nailing down.

Interesting to see how this article reports he claims the photo was a selfie by the macaque. The other article, where I quite vocally supported him, was one which claimed he had framed and set up the shot, prior to giving the macaque the remote shutter release.

It can't be both, so which one is it?

0
0

True fact: 1 in 4 Brits are now TERRORISTS

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: ISIS

quote: "2. Terrorist are not bound by it and the playing field could be levelled somewhat."

Yes, because committing atrocities in the name of stopping atrocities has always worked out well, hasn't it? Not to mention that it's a perfectly stable moral platform to claim "well they did it first!" when asked why you've broken several international conventions on the humane treatment of people.

We have 2 choices here:

a) take the moral high ground, and show by example why we are right and they are not, i.e. not stooping to their level, and not giving in regardless of whatever atrocities are committed.

b) go full retard (as defined in Tropic Thunder) and decide that genocide of all Muslims is the only way to "stop terrorism", and carpet nuke the entire Middle East region into glass whilst sending all local Muslims to concentration camps (which were invented by the British, so it's not out of character for us to use them again). This will not stop terrorism, by the way, it will simply foster more radical hatred amongst the inevitable survivors, and push them to more horrific atrocities.

3 guesses which one I would prefer...

40
2

Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: corestore

quote: "So you have the barbaric and totally unjustified beheading of a reporter by an Islamist, simply because the reporter was a Yank, in a propaganda video that the Islamists want to have distributed as widely as possible, and your immediate response is to criticise the government's efforts to block their propaganda? You are seriously in need of a reality check."

Show me where in law it is an actual offense to watch that video, and I shall immediately shut up.

Letting people know about propaganda is one thing (although Streisand Effect, right?) but an official statement implying that simply viewing it makes you a terrorist is incomprehendably stupid. Nobody that far divorced from either reality or common sense should be in such a position of power in the first place.

They may as well have said that "making a cheese sandwich may constitute an offense under Terrorism legislation". It's as patently ridiculous and just as unenforcable, IMO, whilst also being exactly as true (for any given value of "may"). It's also just as damning of both the apparent vagueness of the existing Terrorism legislation, and the Service's apparent (lack of) understanding of it.

I'm going to make myself some cheese sandwiches for lunch tomorrow as a deliberate act of sedition.

You'll note that at no point have I condoned the actions perpetrated in this video. I completely disagree with the act and with the message it apparently portrays, and idiots like that have my utmost contempt. What also has my contempt, though, is the way that at least some people in the Service think that anything they don't like the sound of is automatically illegal, without any reference to actual legislation (and a complete inability to quote legislation to back up their previous statements). That, sir, is a fucking diabolical state of affairs (pun intended).

8
1
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

quote: "A very slippery slope to go down. No government has any right whatsoever to decide on what is acceptable for an individual should watch."

Child porn.

That's how effective the "think of the children" argument is. I'm conflicted myself; I agree that the passive act of viewing something should not be, of itself, an offense, but I suspect I would still be comfortable agreeing with a guilty verdict for someone who was found simply watching child porn, as long as it was beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to watch that content.

I categorically cannot agree that watching a video is terrorism though. The act has to be violent to be terrorism, and watching a video is not a violent act.

5
1
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Happy

quote: "It wasn't meant to be a cliché factory either....

New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."

Watching a video is not an act of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of violence directed against the state.

The word the Met officer wanted is sedition, which is an act of promoting or fostering discontent with the state in a non-violent manner (using violence makes it terrorism).

Watching a video is not sedition either though. You would need to promote or distribute the video for it to be an act of sedition.

For simply watching a video to be considered a crime under existing terrorism legislation, that legislation would have to be so very broad you could argue it was deliberately ignoring what terrorism actually is. What is the betting shouting "Allah won't like you doing that" at someone in the street "may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation" in the UK?

67
0

The agony and ecstasy of SteamOS: WHERE ARE MY GAMES?

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Some suggestions

A lot of my recent purchases have (or will have) Linux ports, and the day is slowly approaching that I'll not need to factor a Windows license in to the cost of the next big upgrade.

Having said that, an awful lot of the Linux games on Steam are the indie devs (not necessarily a bad thing) and a lot less of the major publishers. I should probably fire up Steam on the Mint box again and see how much is now available, hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised :)

(Note: I've got no need of Civ5 because Destiny is due to be my next major time sink)

1
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Some suggestions

My main gripe is that of my 280+ title Steam library, maybe 35 are available on *nix. That's an even worse percentage than the 55->18 quoted in the article.

To be fair the 35 was a year or so back, when I only had 250ish games and installed Steam on my Mint miniPC just to try it out. But it shows that I am, currently, still stuck with needing at least one Windows box if I want to play the vast majority of titles I've already bought. :(

4
0

'Leccy racer whacks petrols in Oz race

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Trollface

Re: That's nice.

quote: "Can one of it's siblings get me, the wife & a couple of whippets, towing a three-horse-slant trailer (empty on the way out, full on the way back), from Sonoma to Solvang California and back in under half a day?"

It also wouldn't be able to replace my network of freight locomotives, and I couldn't use it in place of my hovercraft fleet either. When will people realise that electric racecars just aren't useful outside of a racetrack?

6
0

Cops baffled by riddle of CHICKEN who crossed ROAD

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Dogs

quote: "My father taught me to never swerve for dogs because doing so you are likely to kill yourself or someone else in another vehicle."

In the UK you are required by law to stop and give details if you hit a dog, so I would need to stop anyway. May as well attempt avoidance if you believe you can do so safely.

I would however agree that there is no cause to unnecessarily endanger yourself or your passengers, if you do not believe you can perform an avoidance manoeuvre safely.

2
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Unhappy

Re: What?!

quote: "Try hitting one on a motorcycle, then... Not to be recommended."

I ducked behind the touring screen, so just got spattered with bits rather than taking one to the head. Front of the bike also held up fine, but it did take some time to clean the bits off though, given they had plenty of time to dry up on the remainder of the journey :(

0
0

The internet just BROKE under its own weight – we explain how

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: NAT is a kludge

quote: "On the privacy front, I can agree with you. Baking the device's MAC address into the IPv6 address isn't good for privacy."

As I understand it:

That is only true for link-local IPv6 (the equivalent of 169.254.0.0/16 in IPv4, not internet routable), and is merely a suggestion.

The MAC address is already broadcast by any device that sends a DHCP Discover packet.

The MAC address is already present in Layer 2 headers like the Ethernet frame.

Given the above, I'm not sure how having the MAC address as part of a link-local IPv6 address provides any information that other local devices would not already have trivial access to...

2
0

Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4: 4G Android tablet is easy to swallow

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Storage costs aren't always commutable

quote from the article: "Decent 128GB cards can be had for under £80 these days, proving that Apple is really taking the proverbial with its storage costs."

In-device flash storage is normally vastly overprovisioned compared to removable memory cards, so I would not be comfortable saying that a 16GB MicroSD would be identical to the 16GB internal memory on the Tab, or that a 128GB MicroSD is identical to the internal memory on a top of the range iDevice.

Having said that, I'd always prefer to have removable (i.e. replaceable) storage for high churn data like storing music or video, because changing the MicroSD when it finally dies is both easy and cost-effective, and they are also easily transferable between devices. Nice to see Samsung keeping MicroSD support as a differentiator from their competitors (including the Nexus range, not just Apple).

Oh, and the way to tell Apple is taking the mickey with internal storage costs is by spotting that they have the same surcharge to double the memory, regardless of the actual increment; 16 to 32GB costs the same as 64 to 128GB (+£80 for the iPad), so the £160 it costs to go from 16 to 64GB (+48GB) doesn't add up to the £80 it costs to add another 64GB to it.

1
0

TracBeam sues Apple over location

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Mac OS?

quote: "I can understand a device equipped with 2G/3G or 4G Phone interfaces but a laptop/desktop OS?"

Desktops are unlikely to be able to leverage it, unless someone is using a 3G dongle on one. Some laptops models have 3G hardware built-in, and are more likely to have a 3G dongle plugged in (or be tethered to a phone) for data access on the move.

Probably the plaintiffs just targeted everything that might infringe and are relying on Apple to prove that it actually doesn't, I believe that's SOP for patent trolling cases.

Given the amount of patent trolling Apple inflict on their mobile competitors (especially Samsung), I'm finding it hard to muster any sympathy for them in this case. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as it were; sometimes it comes back to bite you on the ass.

0
1

Simian selfie stupidity: Macaque snap sparks Wikipedia copyright row

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Really tiring arm-chair lawyering here...

True, however if the courts can ask for $9250 per song from someone found guilty of violating the copyright of others, then I don't think asking £10k total off of multiple defendants is actually much of an ask :)

Not arguing the rights or wrongs, simply pointing out the precedents for (inflated) damages in copyright cases.

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Technically it is the monkeys

quote: "Oh, and even attempting to claim that mere ownership of the means implies automatic copyright in whatever they produce without one's significant creative involvement is simply so ludicrous it beggars belief - don't bother..." (emphasis mine)

For the 5th? time this thread, quoted from Mr. Slater himself:

"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."

Sounds like significant creative involvement to me.

quote: "There were two parties involved in producing this photograph:

1) The photographer, who created the situation, set up and adjusted the camera and allowed the ape to play with it, in full knowledge of the likely outcome.

2) The ape, who pressed the button without any concept of what it was doing other than copying the previously observed physical actions of the photographer."

As has also been said 5? times already this thread, the Macaque is not legally recognised as a party, the same way a snail would not be legally recognised as a party. Thus there was one party involved in producing this photograph, namely Mr. Slater. In cases where only one party is involved in creating a work, is that party not automatically accredited with copyright in that work?

I do not think Wikipedia's argument holds any legal water, at least not under UK or EU copyright legislation, and I suspect not under US legislation either (they tend to take quite a dim view of IP infringement over there as well).

Note: both these arguments are not mine, I have shamelessly ripped off people far more erudite than I. I am simply (re)presenting them in the hopes of elucidating others.

2
1
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Whatever the legal arguments

As has been mentioned by several people, the Macaque in question is not a legally recognised entity, therefore it cannot be recognised as the creator of the work. As was also mentioned by several people (and shamelessly stolen by me for repeating), the BBC article specifically mentions that Mr. Slater deliberately and with significant effort set the shot up.

"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."

He deliberately set up the camera, deliberately framed the shot, deliberately handed the Macaque the remote shutter release button, and then waited. As the only legally recognised entity involved in the creation of that photograph, he has taken it himself.

Whether you feel that intelligent species that aren't homo sapiens should be legally recognised is a completely different issue, but as the law stands it is copyrightly patently obvious to me who owns the copyright in that specific photograph.

2
1
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Slater doesn't "Own" the photo, because he doesn't and the monkey doesn't

quote: "Exactly. The EC copyright directive (2001/29/EG) does not define who the creator is. But in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the preamble, it says the the protection is granted in order to allow authors or performers to continue their creative and artistic work (not quoted verbatim). I read this to be a requirement that the creation is the result of a wilful and intentional act (or ommission) to create a result."

And since the simian cannot be the author or performer (it is not recognised legally) then the only recognised actor in the creation of the work is Mr. Slater. Who, according to the BBC article, actually expended quite a bit of specific effort to get the picture:

"I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me... so I thought they could take their own photograph.

"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture." (emphasis mine)

The only legally recognised entity that put specific work in to take that photograph is Mr. Slater, who gets copyright automatically attributed under EU/UK copyright legislation.

All the talk about the monkey is a red herring ;)

8
1

Microsoft OneDrive tip-off leads to arrest over child abuse images

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Google copying

quote: "Yes because Microsoft were absolutely the first people in all the world to do continuous scroll and that proves Google copied them.

Or, you know, maybe, fashion?"

Yes because Apple were absolutely the first to make rounded corner touchscreen devices and that proves Samsung copied them.

Or, you know, maybe fashion? Oh wait, Samsung were found guilty of copying in a court of law. Shit, maybe that does mean Google are also guilty... ^^;

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Dunno what you can say except...

quote: "What more are they supposed to do?"

Ensure there is no feature creep. It is all too easy to argue that if you are comfortable with automated scanning to catch <vile criminal behaviour X>, then you should be ok with automated scanning to catch <criminal behaviour Y>.

You've already seen the feature creep of "anti-terrorist" surveillance legislation over the last few years being extended "because paedo", don't be too surprised to see it extended again because <insert less vile but still criminal act here, like drunk driving>, and then again ad nauseum. The endpoint is never going to be anything less than automated surveillance to catch all criminal behaviours, "because criminal".

I side with Thomas Jefferson:

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

It seems worrying that the country he was a president of seems more in love with surveillance than the (constitutional) Monarchy I live in...

16
0

CIA infosec guru: US govt must buy all zero-days and set them free

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Happy

Re: this will end computing as we know it

quote: "How about the army of bedroom coders who release their software for free, but don't want to make it open source? There's quite a few of them around, and applying the same legal liabilities for something given away for free would most likely make them think "sod it", especially if they don't feel (for whatever reason) that they want to make the source available."

If those bedroom coders have performed rigorous security testing, and write code taking basic security principles into account, then there is no issue. If they are unaware or unwilling to, then I think I'd rather they do say "sod it I won't bother", as it cleans up the install base for those functions to software that is either open source (and vetted) or proprietary and properly tested.

Just as some bedroom coders are exceedingly skilled and conscientious, some are writing their first Hello World app and then vanity publishing it, without even considering input validation, ASLR or other techniques that help mitigate potential exploits. Discouraging insecure development is a pre-requisite of making computing a more secure place, and any bedroom coder worth the name won't begrudge putting the extra effort in to learn how to do it properly, IMO ;)

1
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Go

Re: Nice One, Dan's the Man. Filthy Lucre doing what it does best and is ignorantly designed for

Fancy inferring that the CIA might have an ulterior motive for suggesting that the US government run a global bug bounty offering huge money for information on product flaws.

Honestly, Dan Greer is obviously just thinking of the children / out to punish terrorists and paedos / <insert boogeyman of the day here>, and this information most emphatically would not be used for (industrial) espionage purposes.

Pfft, perish the thought...

1
1

Vulture 2 strapped to speeding van before delicate brain surgery

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: It's completely PANTS

quote: "Pixhawk Avoidance of Nearby Tree System"

This is LOHAN, so I'd suggest

Navigationally Obligatory: Pixhawk Avoidance of Nearby Tree System

NO:PANTS

4
0

Brit kids match 45-year-old fogies' tech skill level by the age of 6

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

You're confusing the skills of techies (i.e. us) vs. the skills of the average layperson in that age group. The average person that actually takes the time to fill out an Ofcom survey, instead of ignoring it because there's a server to rebuild and I want to get home some time tonight, thanks.

My cousin's kids do appear to be slightly more technologically capable than my cousin, in my experience, so this finding is not outside the bounds of possibility. It's unlikely to be true for most reader of the Reg though ;)

1
0

OK Google: Gobble chat app Emu. OK Google, now shut down Emu

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Members of the Emu team posted Wednesday...

There was a post on Wednesday, by members of the Emu team, containing the information that "they had been gobbled".

Not the best way of putting it, but certainly capable of parsing.

0
0

True fact: Hubble telescope spots ZOMBIES in SPACE

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Go

Type Ia, type Ia, Cthulu fhtagn.

:D

3
0

Watch this Aussie infosec bod open car doors from afar

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Safety?

quote: "It's always been possible to steal many cars relatively easily, and while a nuisance, it doesn't affect public safety."

I'm guessing you're not familiar with the phrase "drive it like you stole it" then?

Cars stolen for resale are generally driven carefully so as not to damage them and reduce the value. Cars stolen for joyrides may injure or kill one or more people prior to becoming a burnt out wreck, and definitely do affect public safety.

The responsibility is on the idiot behind the wheel, but making it more difficult to steal in the first place helps reduce the number of idiots that manage to get behind the wheel.

1
0

Apple wins patent on charging iThings THROUGH THIN AIR

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Inefficiency is irrelevant

quote: "If you really want to pay £150 for a keyboard and mouse then yes.

People aren't prepared to spend money on such things."

I'm sure you'll find that actually, for many Apple customers, they ARE prepared to do so

Not just Apple customers. Have a look at some of the keyboards and mice promoted as "high-end gaming" equipment, and you can spend £150 on the keyboard and another ton on the mouse.

And they don't currently feature wireless charging for that price, either :)

I'll take the 5th regarding how I am aware of such costly equipment aimed at gamers... ^^;

2
0

African samba queen: Don't cut off pirates' net connections – cut off their FINGERS

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Let's make it a little more advanced

What's the penalty for being convicted of nautical piracy in Nigeria? Amputation of the sealegs?

1
0

HUMAN RACE PERIL: Not nukes, it'll be AI that kills us off, warns Musk

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: What is not obvious to troops and staff, but crystal clear to corrupt executive officers?

I prefer PICNIC to PEBKAC myself, it scans easier ;)

0
0

Senate introduces USA FREEDOM Act to curb NSA spying excesses

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Trollface

Re: Acronym wanted: must be inscrutable

Unashamedly Stating America is Reimagining Agency Processes Expected to Fix Allied Concerns Eventually

Expect the USA RAPEFACE Act to partner FREEDOM in the coming months :)

2
0

Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid: The plug-in for plutocrats

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: kmpl? WTF?

quote: "Since it's volume/distance - the sensible way to measure fuel consumption would be in mm^2 or sq. in."

But mpg is distance over volume, making it a square root of distance. Neither is a directly useful measure even if they are both mathematically correct; is 0.01cm2 better or worse than 228.39in-2?

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

quote: "To be fair, if I'd spent close on 7 years training, I'd expect a decent salary."

The ongoing training required to stay abreast of hardware and software changes over time, means I've been "training" for this job for over 2 decades and I'm still learning now. How much should I be asking for? ;)

6
0

Stick a 4K in them: Super high-res TVs are DONE

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

quote: "But on a 4k set it glistens more realistically, and you can see every hair on the flies' legs."

HDTV channels like Sky are broadcast at 720p, so unless you actually have a 4k source you really won't see a difference between a 1080p set and a 4k set. That's why nobody is buying 4k sets, there is literally no need because none of the source tech (Sky boxes, BluRays etc.) is set up for more than 1080p.

I'd consider buying a 4k display for my computer (games would look good in 2160p, although I'd probably need to go SLI to keep a decent framerate), but as a TV set it just isn't necessary yet.

5
2

The seven nations where SIM CARDS outnumber PEOPLE

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Not just people

Or directors who just had to have a company phone, plus 3G tablet, plus 3G card for the laptop, not counting any personal devices. I guess though that at those heady heights there is no need seen to spend your own money on devices, when you can just bully the IT department into purchasing them for you at company expense. So maybe 3 SIMs per person is probably a fair maximum ^^;

Bitter, me? Perish the thought.

2
0

'Unsolicited texts' outrage: Man fined £4k for DPA breach

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Trollface

Re: Actually

quote: "If they weren't so f*****g stupid the goons that (pay to) send it wouldn't make any money."

Ah, blaming the victim, the past-time of champions.

0
1

Page: