123 posts • joined 24 Mar 2010
Of course it is a free speech issue.
It is so the great and the good can hide from us that they are neither as great nor as good as they pretend.
If in doubt, it isn't for your benefit.
Debugging experience is better in IE
Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won
"To me, this speaks volumes not only of how you view the world, but how you treat others and the level to which you are capable of dehumanizing others."
Um, yes. Because I view people as being capable of making up their own minds having listened to different opinions and decided who to believe, I am dehumanising them and I am a sociopath.
"This almost always works, when the craft is employed by a skilled practitioner. This is because our species is exceptionally vulnerable to emotional and instinctual manipulation. Rational thought and logic are still relatively new evolutionary adaptations and they can be easily overridden by emotion."
You don't trust people to decide what to allow into their own heads. So you want to try to control the process. That's what dehumanising looks like.
I think as a discussion this has gone as far as it can go without degenerating into those long usenet discussions where we each respond to each counter-point with two counterpoints, and post-lengths blow up exponentially until each reply takes a whole day and we both forget where we got to. Happy days, many an hour spent etc...
But this: If we are all being manipulated so our beliefs come from omnipotent/omniscient evil social scientists we need to be protected from, then where did you get your belief that that is the case?
"I checked out the studies". Did you? Did you check the press release matched the abstract? That it matched the conclusions? That they matched the data? "Of course!" Liar. Check one out, any one (I'll wait) and you'll find that at each stage you dig down from press release to the conclusions and find the effect is only 20% (p> 0.97, sample size 23), and brush aside a tear, then dig down further as the evidence gets weaker at every stage, and when you hit the bedrock of actual data and find it is composed of compressed college students average age 21 will you ask yourself "I wonder if this generalises to 48 y/o slaughterhouse workers in the Midwest?". You will not.
People can't be trusted to make their own decisions because the media manipulates them. You know this because the media told you. "But not Murdoch media" So that's OK right? MC Escher calls. He's ready for your close up.
Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won
"everyone, from politicians to advertising companies uses decades of research into psychology, psychiatry and social dynamics to ensure that they control how people vote, even when people are aware of the means employed to manipulate them"
So while most people are too stupid to see through this, nevertheless you are immune and your own support for curtailing free speech through the use of oppressive campaign laws cannot possibly be the product of the same types of forces? If you really take your own assertion seriously you should right now be disappearing "through the looking glass"-style into an MC Escher engraving depicting the Cretan Liar paradox.
Why do I think it is a left-right issue? Because you seem to want to use that (dubious, exaggerated, hyperbolic) assertion as an excuse to make people you disagree with shut up, by preventing them using money to reach an audience. Which is typically a left-wing preoccupation. "The poor still don't all vote for us, in spite of the welfare state! They must be indoctrinated by the Fox. Let's do something about it". No, they hate you. "But we keep offering them more and more money for doing nothing!". That's why they hate you.
* "Manipulate" is just a pejorative term for "persuade". Hyperbole.
* it isn't decades - it's millennia - the earliest extant academic work on the subject is 2400 years old. But pretend it is a new problem and you can pretend new measures are needed.
* control is an exaggeration. They attempt to persuade them to vote in particular ways.
* Commercial advertising however distasteful is trying to sell stuff not control the vote. Conflating two things only related by their methods not their objectives to make the problem look bigger. Hyperbole.
"Everyone uses what they know of human nature to persuade others to do what they want, and have done since time immemorial. Advertisers try to get you to buy stuff. Politicians try to get you to vote for them. Kids try to get out of doing their homework/get you to lend them twenty to go to the cinema. This sometimes works, even though people know that is what they are doing - and they do since they do it themselves."
Not much left after the nits are picked, is there?
Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won
First, I suggest you get a tissue to wipe the foam flecks from your screen. You are basically saying:
* Candidates can tailor the message and might be lying
* And people are too stupid to make simple judgements and need to be protected from deceptive messages
I agree with the first, which reinforces my point - if they lying or tailoring the message it is because they know people won't vote for a message they hate. So it in no way contradicts what I said. I never said it would be an honest message.
But if politicians are lying who is going to point that out when everyone outside the system is effectively silenced by campaign finance rules? When the FEC and IRS investigates genuine grass roots campaigns, with the connivance of BOTH big parties, to shut them down/shut them up?
But of course they are the campaigns of Conservatives (= free as in freedom = liberal from the latin Libre) whereas I guess you are a Liberal ( = free as in beer = socialist, from the latin socius or comrade). So that's alright. Free speech is only for Liberals! No Platform!
But clearly I am an uninformed rube.
(Is this a change in comments policy? Does this mean I get to call you names too?)
Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won
The unions are doing it. In the US, the Dems get masses of money from the education unions, police unions, and lawyers.
If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won
This will all pay for TV ads, leaflets, and annoying robo-calls to get your message across, but if the voters don't like your message no amount of repetition will win you the election.
What is wrong with CTR mode?
CTR mode effectively converts a block cipher into a stream cipher, eliminating the need for padding.
CTR is the only mode you need.
Sealing wax hasn't been used for computer systems since the late 70's.
Chewing gum is what is used now - usually Nicorette these days due to the smoking ban.
Re: OK here is what you need to do
"As a small shop I don't have that sort of time to waste, but if I ever get rich, I'll sue the f*cking shirt off every single one of them who does this."
That's like renting a shop in a bad neighbourhood, and complaining that people don't come to your shop because they don't want to be mugged.
So you are going to sue the people who told them it was a bad neighbourhood.
Change neighbourhood - get a new ISP.
OK here is what you need to do
0. Most important. Fix the problem. It is no good trying to get de-listed if their own logs tell them you are still emitting spam. You may need to be able to tell people what happened and what you have done to fix it.
1. It is no good asking them why you are blocked, unless you have definitively determined that it is a specific decision taken by them in your case (even automatically). More likely, you are blocked because they use a reputation service.
2. So you need to check your status on ALL commonly used reputation services.
3. What is a reputation service? It is someone's opinion, based on their published policies, that your IP address or email domain meets the criteria to be listed on that service - usually the criteria can be determined automatically, but sometimes the lists are curated manually. In other words, it is an expression of opinion, not an instruction to anyone to block you. Mail operators may choose to use such lists to block outright, or as part of a scoring system, and usually in combination with a whitelist/blacklist of their own. (For example you would usually whitelist your bigger customers - you don't want to lose an order for a million widgets just because an over-enthusiastic salesperson got your customer listed on one of these lists).
4. So find out who has listed you.
Check both your IP address and email addresses against all blacklists. Robtex is a service which can do this for you:
So for example if your email domain is theregister.co.uk and your mail server is aspmx.l.google.com, then bung the IP address 188.8.131.52 into the box at the top, then hit the "blacklists" link and it will tell you if you are listed by any blacklists.
Do the same with the domain.
5. Then you need to jump through the relevant hoops with each and every blacklist which has listed you. In most cases you can get de-listed (once) by asking. But not in all cases. Some will only de-list you after a month - but these are little-used.
Generally, if you can get off all the lists, you will find you can get mail delivered again. But that's the first thing you need to do.
An alternative would be to actually move your mail domain to Google, or Outlook.com. They already do all the rate-limiting, outbound filtering of spam and other defence-in-depth measures you will need, and have developed relationships with all the other large mail providers to report abusive users.
Join the Mail Operators List, and ask there.
Salt should be cryptographically random.
"""A follow-on thought: If tape density can more than double every 30 months then it could well outpace disk density improvements and cement its role as the archive medium."""
* Tape storage halves in price per GB every 30 months
* HDD storage halves in price per GB every 18 months.
* Flash SSD storage halves in price per GB every 12 months.
So at what point will HDD take over from tape?
At what point will SSD take over from HDD?
At what point will SSD take over from tape? (Possibly never to this one. Currently, high capacity SSD needs to be powered up every few months).
"Gun Deaths" include self defence. Self defence is good. Murder is bad, even if no gun is used.
As a result, Japan has some of the lowest rates of gun death in the world, with around 0.06 firearms fatalities per 100,000 people. Here in the Land of the Free, where pretty much anyone can own a gun with minimal oversight or training, that figure is 10.2 deaths per 100,000 people.
"Gun Deaths" is a false category. What is wrong with it? It focusses on the method instead of culpability.
Firstly it combines culpable homicide, self-defence, and suicide, as if they were morally equally problematic. Secondly it suggests that gun homicides make up a category of murders which would not otherwise exist. Neither of these rhetorical devices is legitimate, but both are necessary to make out that guns are a real problem.
* Suicide rates are similar in most countries, but in the USA the gun is often the method of choice. Take the guns away and there are plenty of bridges. There is no reason to think the overall level of suicide will change, since suicide is a deliberate act.
* "Domestic Gun Homicide" is much higher in the USA as the anti-gun campaigners will tell you. It is also much higher in US states with high levels of gun ownership in the home. However in this statistic "homicide" conflates self-defence and murder. And "Gun Homicide" excludes fatal stabbing and beatings. If you add back the non-gun domestic homicides, there is little difference in overall "domestic homicide" rates. But if you then separate out those into murder and self defence an interesting picture emerges. States with low levels of gun ownership have 90% murder, 10% self defence, 90% female fatalities, mostly non-gun deaths. States with high levels of gun ownership have 50% murder, 50% self defence, 50% female fatalities, 50% gun deaths. In other words the high levels of "Domestic Gun Homicide" is almost entirely accounted for by **women defending themselves**.
The USA does have a high level of murder, but if you exclude drug and gang turf wars, that vanishes too. If you are not yourself a criminal, your risk of murder is no higher in the USA than the UK.
* Wide is more important than Zoom.
* Aperture is more important than megapixels
* Speed-to-shot is also very important.
Looks great, shoots fast, big sensor, big lens, wide angles, fast shutter, waterproof and shockproof:
You've seen this, right?
BND is as close to NSA as GCHQ is...
"Lavaboom was founded by Felix Müller-Irion in Germany, so presumably it stands a reasonably good chance of staying as NSA proof as possible."
Germany's spy body BND has excellent links with the Americans and British. As you would expect given the number of American and British troops in Germany, and the history of the cold war, when of course the partition between east and west was the front line. Rumour has it they are particularly good at tapping fibre-optic lines.
If you want to be proof against the NSA, set up in China. Of course you will then have the Chinese authorities to deal with, so it's not like you will be better off...
Only 6 years after C#...
It's not just a better Java.
It's a much better Java.
Why does a "feed the hungry" charity need to have a position on the Israel/Palestine question?
Why do they need a position on Global Warming? Or Social Justice?
I would have plenty of time for them if they stuck to feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.
But that's not glamorous enough, it seems.
Made me laugh... :-)
"""My personal preference is UTF-8 done with a plain text editor """
So bold and italic are out? Hyperlinks are out? Photographs, illustrations, and embedded graphs are out? In all official documents?
Come on! Join the 1990s already.
Learn to use your tools, workman.
Edit->Paste Special-> Unformatted Text
Keyboard: Alt+E, S, U
Or in the new version,
Home->Paste Menu -> Special-> Unformatted Text
Keyboard: Alt+H, V, S, U
Learn to use your tools, workman, instead of blaming them.
No, get a dictionary
The "liberals" abandoned freedom in favour of progressivism enforced by the state - trading free-as-in-freedom for free-as-in-beer.
The "neoliberals" are those who decided that actually freedom was not only more effective at achieving social goals, but just maybe, more important than those goals.
Freedom is worth risking our lives for. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be robbed of it on the pretext that at least that way we won't starve.
After all, if the people are prepared to fight and die for freedom, it is bizarre and wrong to take away their freedom in the name of preserving their lives.
We just need to man up (and woman up)
"""In short, we’ve become our own policemen. Zuckerberg's great empowering hides that he’s helped usher in an age of conformity. One we’ve really created for ourselves. """
Maybe we just need to all grow a pair, and just say what we think. The illusion of unanimity would soon fall away, and with it the pressure to conform.
What from? What to?
You cannot plan the migration until you know what you will be migrating from, and what to.
You should refuse to give any estimates until you know the destination platform. If they insist, say "between N weeks and 6 months depending on what the destination platform is".
Meantime if you actually want advice at least tell us what you are migrating from. Presumably you know that much, right?
Nesta had ***four*** grandiose ambitions
Ambition zero was the most important:
0. Provide a way to funnel money and/or power to parasitical government hangers-on - friends, relatives, lovers, minders and fixers, those who've done favours and those from whom you expect favours.
That's the real job most quangos do.
The real lesson is don't expect anything from the government. Sell your house. Find an investor. Find an investor who will sell his house. But don't go near the zombie hand of government "assistance".
Essentially the same as this story here:
Don't use work computers for personal use, people!
Also, don't use personal computers for work use.
Re: They only do it because they legally have to.
It's commendable that Google are obeying the law without actually having an injunction against them?
That's a pretty low bar for "commendable".
Re: They only do it because they legally have to.
Write a letter to their service address, including a cheque for £10. Await a CD in the post.
They only do it because they legally have to.
The "Data Liberation Front" stuff is just posturing - "Look we let you export your data because we are so open and friendly and definitely not evil. (And also we don't want a multi-billion pound fine)".
They have to allow users to obtain data about themselves under Data Protection Act for a maximum fee of £10.
Technically not all of it would be required because not all of it is "about" the user. But working out which bits are exempt would be a manual job which there is no way they want to do, and in any case cannot be done for £10. (The fact that you sent an email is information about you. The contents may or may not be about you. But to determine that someone would have to read it. Easier just to say "it is your data, download it if you want").
So in fact they have a legal obligation to allow export of a subset, which subset could only be determined at great cost. Therefore, in practice, they have no option whatsoever but to provide an "export everything" function.
So with a billion users, what else can they do but form a team and say "provide a self-managed export-everything function".
And also because, morally, it is the user's property. An increasingly rare example of law doing its proper job of being the enforceable legal embodiment of a moral right.
Linux wasn't using RDRAND directly
Linux never used RDRAND directly, it used its own random number generator then XOR'd the result with RDRAND output. The effect of this is that if EITHER the Linux algorithm output is good, OR the RDRAND output is good, THEN the final output is good.
He knows what he is talking about, those criticising didn't.
Enterprise drives are not supposed to be more reliable.
They are supposed to be faster, typically spinning at 7200 rpm. In return, they sacrifice obviously more wear because of the higher speed. They are also supposed to be kept in a controlled and protected environment, and are typically deployed in RAID1/5/6 configurations where failure can be coped with.
Consumer drives on the other hand have to cope with rough handling, be it in tower cases under the desk which are regularly kicked or knocked, or laptops which suffer even worse. They are also deployed in environments where there is no redundancy and often no backup.
Of course consumer ones are going to be more reliable. Its an obvious consequence of the engineering brief.
Re: Could you please drop the swearing?
One downvoter thinks either that the F-word is professional and serious, or that they know my mother better than I do.
Re: Could you please drop the swearing?
So you know my mother better than I do now?
I am just not going to send my mother an article which uses the F-word. It not only is coarse and unnecessary, it looks unprofessional and unserious, and detracts from the message.
She will have to remain uninformed about this important issue, which is a shame.
Could you please drop the swearing?
I know it is a topic well worth swearing about, but I would like to be able to send the article to my mother, and other people of a delicate temperament, who will be put off by swearing.
You can buy fusion reactors...
"Humanity has briefly achieved artificial fusion reactions, but sadly only in H-bombs"
Erm, no. You can buy Farnsworth-type fusion reactors as a laboratory neutron source.
Some hobbyists have even achieved fusion at home (see Wikipedia for more information)....
I think you mean "briefly achieved self-sustaining fusion reactions". Or possibly "net power producing"...
Only a few months ago they were going to allow directors of animal testing companies to be anonymous....
... and now they are going to make all the shareholders, shareholders in shareholding companies, and so forth, public.
Re: WTF? indeed.
The police are an arm of the government (or "emanation" in the parlance). This is not controversial.
There are many forms of natural selection
One of the most active in evolution is the question of "who to mate with". We haven't put an end to that one. The girls still decide who gets their end away... as it should be of course. Clever chaps find out what the ladies like and provide it, amplifying cleverness - of various kinds - in the gene pool over the generations.
But unfortunately the ability to make beautiful programmes about charismatic mammals is not at all the same thing as actually understanding that evolution thingy.
They will still be able to do that after this "hole" is "plugged".
"""Pulling off the attack would normally require either physical access to a targeted machine or an attack involving the planting of malware on a mark's PC, a level of compromise that makes most security protections redundant."""
Which rather depends on being on the other side of the airtight hatchway.
Seriously WTF? Register journos are supposed to be IT literate. Physical access and/or the ability to install software mean GAME OVER. This is like saying: Attackers who gain access to your jacket can undo the little button on the inside pocket and remove your wallet.
If they gain physical and/or admin access to your machine they will still be able to do this after this "hole" is "plugged".
allegations of mass copyright infringement, racketeering and money laundering
1 Copyright infringement in bulk
2 Crimes committed in bulk, and in conjunction with others (i.e. a repeat of 1)
3 Attempting to evade surveillance when moving money (presumably derived from copyright infringement). I.e. a repeat of count 1.
I.e., he is accused of making money copyright infringement, in conjunction with others, and attempting to hide the fact.
That's really only one count.
Re: Go right ahead...
"Plain and simple, they want your money and if the only way to get it is to give some of it to the government then they'll fall in line."
Well, yes. Customer pays X. Workers get Y and shareholders get Z. Governments take tax T= X-Y-Z. To increase T, you can either put up X, hurting the customer and making it a disguised tax on us, reduce pay Y to workers or reduce profit Z.
How confident are you that it will be Z which is reduced rather than X going up or Y going down? Not very I would suggest.
Erm.... surely we are importing software from the US?
Virtually all Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM software is made by programmers in the USA. That's where the high-value-added is. Obviously that's where the profits go.
Its like complaining the profits from selling BMWs go to Germany.
Or the profits from banking stay in the UK, including in the form of banker's bonuses which we levvy 50% tax on.
We get to levvy taxes on bankers' profits, for banking services provided to businesses the whole world over. They get to levvy taxes on software profits, for software sold the whole world over. Because that's where the value-added is taking place.
Swings and roundabouts, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, etc.
It rather involved being on the other side of this airtight hatchway...
If you can run arbitrary code, it is no surprise that this gives you the ability to run arbitrary code...
Small claims court with statutory damages
Small copyright owners should be able to have a standard schedule of statutory damages for unauthorised publication to fewer than 10000 recipients, at a minimum list price, plus three times the commercial value gained, Basically like a "copyright penalty charge notice".
Photograph: Minimum £150 for the first 10 of less of up to 1 megapixel as published (higher resolutions count as more than one)
Literary work, poem, or lyric < 400 words: Minimum £150 for the first 10 works of 400 words or less. Works of more than 400 words count as one for each 400 words or part thereof.
Musical score: £150 Per minute, for the first works of less than one minute, or the first 10 minutes. (e.g. someone nicks your tune for a youtube advert or video)
If you find someone infringing, just send them a bill for that amount. If they won't pay, send them a pre-action notice that you want that amount, plus three times the commercial benefit they got from the work, or you'll see them in court. If they still won't pay -- see them in court.
Re: I have nukes
North Korea is in the position of "might have nukes" and has been since they de-fueled their reactors in the 1980s. They have about enough to make a couple of bombs using an old fashioned, easy design, or up to about 6 or 8 with a modern, harder to do, design.
That's why they haven't tested them*. They haven't got enough. So who knows whether they work? One things for sure, nobody wants to find out.
North Korea also have heavy artillery within range of Seoul - capable of causing almost as much damage as a nuke.
(*There was a supposed test. This proves they can load a mineshaft full of the fertiliser/oil mixture known as ANFO. At least as long as the Americans continue to supply fertiliser and fuel oil to feed and power the country.)
"Stick it to the man"???? Srsly?
"Well done Kim, you are really sticking it to the Man by launching your missile!"
Never mind that to millions of Koreans he IS the Man!
Srsly, that's an insane thing to say. Launching a missile has nothing to do with the equal dignity of the Korean people, and is all about Kim and the ruling clique holding on to their absolute power. But to you, that's "sticking it to the man".
WT??? "such a hard time achieving anything"
"The ITU works entirely by consensus - which is why it has such a hard time achieving anything."
You mean that's why when it does things they are generally sensible?
If there is no consensus on what action should be taken, or on what that action should be, doing nothing makes more sense than enacting something under an entirely artificial and manufactured sense of urgency.
If they don't decide anything, what bad thing will happen? Nothing. So don't decide anything.
When you look at the sort of "achievements" many bodies have - our governments for example - it makes you long for gridlock.
Re: Sad day? The previous kernel versions still exist
Erm, they aren't going back in time and deleting previous kernel versions. Just saying future kernel versions won't work.
So just use the ones which do work. No problem.
As for support, they will be supported in the same way as any other linux kernel - you support it in-house yourself, or buy support separately from a company or person with expertise.
- One HUNDRED FAMOUS LADIES exposed NUDE online
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Rubbish WPS config sees WiFi router keys popped in seconds