Feeds

* Posts by NumptyScrub

498 posts • joined 18 Mar 2010

Page:

It's official: LOHAN's arboreal avoidance algorithm is PANTS

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Pint

Re: Blimey!

Standing upon the shoulders of giants, and all that :D

1
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: I'm glad that LOHAN has PANTS

Now we just need to make sure they stay up for the whole flight ^^;

5
0

iPhone 6: Advanced features? Pah! Nexus 4 had most of them in 2012

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

NFC gives me the same feeling as Wifi Protected Setup; my phone had it disabled within 5 minutes of turning it on the first time, like my router got WPS disabled just after I changed the admin password. There is without doubt a use case for the technology, and there is without doubt the potential for exploitation to gain access to the device; indeed my phone model was one specifically mentioned for an NFC exploit 2 years ago. In the fight between convenience and security, personally I normally choose security. If Apple succeed in making NFC far more ubiquitous, then expect far more people attempting to exploit NFC for personal gain :(

What surprised me far more was Apple deciding that the smallest model was going to expand to 4.7", IMO it would have been far more sensible to keep it at iPhone 5 size. Many Apple using friends liked the fact that their 3 / 4 was the size it was and did not like the idea of my jumbo 5" phone, and I now have to wonder what their next phone is actually going to be if their only Apple choices are now that size or larger.

4
0

What the BLOCK? Microsoft to gobble Minecraft-maker 'for $2bn'

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Absolute stark raving, swivel-eyed, dog fingering insanity

quote: "TWO BILLION? Two billion US dollars? Are you sure it's not two billion Zimbabwean dollars or something?

Nadella must be off his chump."

Ask Zuckerberg how much he paid for WhatsApp, on the back of less profit per year.

Either big companies are staffed with utter fuckwits (possible) or some purchases have other reasons than simple profit seeking (also possible).

Personally, I reckon MS have looked at it, and decided what Minecraft really needs is in-app purchases, and that they are just the people to wring every last cent out of it. I will now go observe a 2-minutes silence for platform-independent, independent games development :(

5
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Headmaster

Re: It was fun while it lasted.

quote: "I'm pretty sure you could use a nail as a lethal weapon, would that not be a death nail?"

Nope, that would probably be better referred to as a killing nail (like a "killing blow"). Although I've not heard the term before, I'd suggest a "death nail" might be a nail (toe or finger) removed from a dead person, potentially for commemorative purposes. Similar to a death mask being a cast of the dead persons face, used as an aid to commemoration.

Searching "Death nail quote" leads to an extensive list of pages using it (incorrectly) as a substitute for death knell. The one link I saw which correctly surmised it should be death knell then used "for all intensive purposes", (should be "all intents and purposes") so I am now officially a sad panda, dis langwij iz fuked innit :(

5
0

'4chan may be just a sysadmin who knows his way around', claims so-called expert

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Miley

I'm not saying her misdirection wasn't obvious, I was mainly taking the opportunity to point out that your statement context was implying "drug use" and "controlled substance use" were interchangeable. From a medical and scientific perspective, they should not be, or I'd have to put every person in this company into rehab for their caffeine habit, myself included ;)

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Miley

"Drug use" is such a perjorative term when it shouldn't be. I know so many people who regularly take drugs it's not even funny.

I used to use nicotine daily, although I gave that up a decade ago. I only take ethanol a few times a week (I can give up any time I like), although I will admit I am a heavy user of caffeine several times a day. It is practically impossible to live on this planet without taking something which classifies as a drug, especially given the availability of aspirin, ibuprofen and paracetamol over the counter.

If someone says they don't take drugs I usually just laugh at them, and when they look at me funny I point out that I'm a language pedant, and what they meant to say was "I don't take controlled substances". The vast majority of drugs are not controlled substances, and many are taken daily by people who vehemently "wouldn't do drugs".

2
0

Heavy VPN users are probably pirates, says BBC

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: BBC Worldwide

quote: "Drink-driving isn't a "criminal act of theft" either, does that mean it's OK?

The pointless argument about whether making an illegal copy is theft, or some other offence, is irrelevant. It's against the law, until and unless you get the law changed. Live with it and stop making specious anonymous excuses."

Actually the point being made, is that anyone who owns a car and is seen to be making frequent trips to the pub, should be considered a potential drink driver, and that there should be "mechanisms in place" to automatically determine if they were actually sober when making the journey. If those mechanisms cannot determine if the driver was definitely sober, then they should be assumed to be a drink-driver and the appropriate measures taken.

Guilty until proven innocent is just one part of this erosion of public rights, the other being the automatic, warrantless inspection and data gathering of all the driving public as a whole.

Presumption of guilt automatically makes it "to be avoided" in my opinion. Any system based upon a presumption of guilt inevitably ends up as Judge Death or some facsimile thereof.

9
1

Applelutely fappulous: Fashionistas bow down before the JESUS PHONE

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

quote: "I would say if you have people queuing outside your shops for weeks to buy the stuff you make, before you have even shown the world what that stuff is, it's a pretty good sign you're the cool kid already."

Food Aid vans. People will walk for days just to queue up for the chance of getting whatever random item is handed to them from the van.

Apple products are apparently less cool than bags of rice, using that metric. You heard it here first :)

3
1

California blue whale numbers soar to historical levels, say boffins

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

quote: "I appreciate that you can't just go around telling other sovereign nations what to do but some practices have global impact."

Of course you can, what do you think we start embargoing nations for if it's not failing to do what they are bloody well told?

If we can walk into a sovereign nation and uninstall their current government because we don't like it (invisible WMDs notwithstanding), then a show of force regarding whaling is small fry.

0
1

Alien Ninja Fembot Pirates vs the Jedi SAS Chuck Norris startroopers: RUMBLE

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Special Circumstances?

GSV Sleeper Service in the configuration from Excession.

That stunned quite a few ROUs into silence ^^;

0
0

Huawei 'beats' Apple to bag sapphire smartie bragging rights

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Obligatory link to the Macdailynews story covering LG's issue with the original iPhone design. As long as Huawei have got the ok from LG for making a phone that is mostly screen, with rounded corners, they'll be fine :)

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: How tough is it in real life?

Some people report sapphire "glass" on watches remaining blemish free for decades under robust use, although others have also had them scratch within years. The Mohs scale has corundum (sapphire and ruby) second only to diamond for hardness, so I'd be comfortable stating it should outperform any type of silicon oxide glass for "toughness" when used as a device screen covering, although some people do appear to have a knack for scratching pretty much anything.

1
0

Vote NOW for LOHAN's arboreal avoidance algorithm acronym

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Hang on

My original reply was simply an attempt to align his excellent suggestion closer to the known LOHAN parameters regarding undergarments. I'm giving him full credit on that one :)

2
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Hang on

I blatantly plagiarised Sir Sham Cad for mine, if it gets any votes then add them to his total to work out if he should get the stickers :)

4
0

Jimbo tells Wikipedians: You CAN'T vote to disable 'key software features'

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: salaried employees

quote: "Back when I was on Windows, this is years back, I reinstalled my workstation - no domain bs for me thank you ... same username & password on the local workstation than on the domain, never had a problem."

So you replaced a centrally managed domain, with a locally managed domain. I can see several drawbacks and practically no advantages to that approach. The fact you never had issues with domain password expiry (aka "security best practise") regularly causing you to have to change your domain password on a colleagues machine, and then update your local domain account to the same password, suggests that a lack of understanding of Windows domains may have extended to that company's support staff as well.

If I came across a similar situation professionally the result would not have been the same. Potentially it could have ended up with you getting the config and tools you need to do your job, assuming you raised your concerns early (before wiping your machine) and corporate policy was flexible enough to allow me to address your concerns (e.g. providing you with a *nix install instead). As presented, it would probably have ended in a disciplinary, because thinking that you are more important than corporate security policy rarely ends well, in my experience.

5
0

Not even CRIMINALS want your tablets, Blighty - but if that's an iPhone you're waving...

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Meh

Re: Stating the obvious

quote: "c) iphones are very popular amongst the kind of demographic in the UK that would do daft things like leave their mobile unattended in a bar

I don't think that last one is even theft, it is wealth redistribution by lack of intelligence."

Taking something that belongs to another person (whether by force, deception, or opportunity), that you do not have their permission to take, is still theft.

Just because most of us would expect it to happen, doesn't make it any less a crime.

1
0

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
1

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 ;)

9
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 ;)

15
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?

68
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

Page: