4564 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Re: Its simple to me
You cut off your digital dong to spite an algorithm? Wha?
You fail during your rant to mention which alternatives you feel are more morally or ethically "proper" when compared to our advertising chocolate factory overlords. Google are haughty, arrogant fucksticks, it's true...but the alternatives are worse.
At least Google mostly builds products and services I want, for a price I can afford and even periodically listens to me, the customer. (If you pay for Google Apps, you are the customer. Otherwise, you're the product.) Google stalk me, but they also try to keep me happy while they do it.
Microsoft tells me what I'm going to pay them, puts a loaded gun against my head and says "nice business you have there, shame if something happened to it. Now about our ransom...." all the while never giving a bent fuck about my desires or requirements as a customer. With added doses of Metro, Ribbon bar, SPLA restrictions, 15% user-over-dev price hikes and VDI licensing to make you scream.
Microsoft also stalk me, scan my e-mail and otherwise are creepy douchecanoes, but they don't even have the decency to use lube, let alone try to keep me happy while they're working me over.
Then we look at Yahoo's antiquated bucket of customer-hostile fail or Oracle's wallet-seeking doom missiles and things start to get progressively darker from there.
So Google sucks. I'm with you on that. But they suck the least out of the available candidates. It's like politics: you don't vote for who you like, you vote for the halfwit you think will do the least amount of harm. When it comes to my privacy, my pocketbook and the foundational principles of the open internet, at the moment that happens to be Google.
Hey douchepopsicle, one of the commenters very explicitly stated "In relation to the internet, we are consumers. In relation to our ISPs, we are customers." Thus, as someone who does things in relation to the internet, the conversation is indeed about me.
The argument that we are "consumers" of the internet is bullshit. Maybe if your forehead slopes just that little too much that's all you ever do on the net...but a significant chunk of wired humanity create content, not simply consume it. That's one of the beauties - and the horrors - of the open internet: everyone has a voice.
Don't presume I'm trolling just because you are too thick to connect the dots without me getting out the big crayon and doing it for you. I expect that the consumers of content in El Reg's comments section shouldn't have to have such things spelled out for them. I am appalled and shamed to be wrong.
Why would you be under the illusion that I might require or desire that you be impressed?
Perhaps he meant "the election of president Clinton?"
Really? Sure of that are you? Seems to me I'm a content creator, not merely a consumer. So, um, GTFO my internet.
Soon, you'll dream of the "à la carte Internet"
Shut up and pay, peasant!
Re: Dell staff?
I explicitly asked him about the Dell layoffs. Dell have many good developers, sales staff and marketing folk. The cream of that crop could find a home at Spiceworks.
Re: Purchasing - No thanks
The core app will remain free, but they are opening the platform up for developers. Consider as one example Teamveiwer. Teamviewer makes great remote administration software. They could then sell their application through Spiceworks as a plugin, integrate with the platform so that as you are navigating through your inventory or responding to a ticket about a given PC you just click the button and Teamviewer will connect.
This would allow you to connect without having to exchange TVID/password combos, going into the Teamviewer manager or carefully curating a list of PCs through the "computers and contacts" section. Teamviewer could even build the app such that when Spiceworks detects a new system on the network it automatically installs Teamviewer on the new system and adds the TVID/password combination to the Spiceworks system. I'd pay for that.
Others are doing things like integrating their mobile device management software into Spiceworks. You get a set of features for free as part of the base Spiceworks app, but you pay the vendor to unlock the really sexy stuff if you want to go farther.
Spiceworks will always be free. But now there is a path to integration for vendors looking to build on the platform and offer non-free management tools to systems administrators.
We don't believe you, CSEC...or you either, CSIS! We'll see your ass in court to have this out once and for all, without the weasel words, misdirections or deception. None of this pussyfooting around in parliament. To the judge with you!
Re: TO THE LAB!
It has a Spicerex. We should totally name him Igor.
Good catch! I hadn't had a chance to chase Elan on that one yet. Come to think of it, this calls for a review. TO THE LAB!
Josh (@prodigSC) supposedly found out some magical way to hook up Plex (@PlexApp) to it. I wonder if that got nuked by the Chocolate Factory's rampant douchebaggery?
Re: Google is as Apple does
What upsets me is the "you don't have the right to stream content you own and which resides on yoru own network."
To hell with this "pay us all your after-tax money per month as a service" rent-seeking bullshit.
Run your workload on our cloud selector: it makes your workload cloud agnostic!
Run your workload on our cloud, it makes your workload hypervisor agnostic!
Run your workload on our hardware, it makes your workload hardware agnostic!
Re: @Trevor_Pott - @Trevor_Pott - @Trevor_Pott
"I usually find those of your age who've such perception and passion have returned from Afghanistan etc. and/or have had mates killed there."
I did have mates killed there. I grew up within pissing distance of a military base, and have spent my entire life connected to the people who work there in one way or another. I was never physically fit enough to serve - or honestly, I probably would have - and I am rather sick of losing friends to the Americans' godawful war.
Not that being a civvy means I have the faintest clue in hell what serving on the line is like, just that those who fall there leave behind friends and loved ones here.
A) Apple barely talks to The Register. The chances that it was paid for are the square root of negative yo momma.
B) I found the article informative and interesting and connected to a bit of IT history that I found amusing.
So STFU and GTFO. Not every article has to be something you personally care about. Can we please have just one article on the internets about technology without the comments section devolving into brand tribalism? If you don't like Apple, don't read articles with Apple in the headline!
I like it. It's well done. Good job, Apple marketing guys.
Re: expect it to be significant and ongoing
Yeah, because management techniques like stack ranking et al have done ****ing wonders for tech companies. Morale matters. Culling is non-optimal: look to mentoring, leadership and training instead.
Good luck to all my friends at Dell. I hope the finger of death points not at you.
Re: I wish ...
I remember "IBM" stores in my local mall when I was a teen...
Re: And of course there is always this from Boy Wonder...
"Stealing ideas is perfectly legal.
Stealing registered design dress, patents, trademarks is not."
Unless you're Apple. Then you can steal registered design, dress, patents AND trademarks and get away with it. By presidential decree, even. Sorry, buddy, but Apple are fucking clownshoes, just like Samsung.
Re: I wish ...
"Maybe Samsung copies them, but Apple do not make the best products. That's like saying that The Register has the best words - absolutely meaningless."
That'll be you eating your hat, then.
Re: I wish ...
"64bit processor - workable fingerprint sensor - soon to be seen on a Samsung near here."
64 bit ARM CPUs will be standard on almost every ARM device within the next two years. There is nothing about that which is "copying" Apple. It's a natural evolution of the market which was not started by Apple, but instead by a little company called ARM. Samsung's expertise will be needed to make sure those 64 bit CPUs get designed properly for a production process and then produced. Apple are the ones willing to take the market risk and put them in phones first. That is all.
As for fingerprint sensors, Apple arent' the first with a fingerprint-enabled mobile device, they won't be the last. They may be one of the few I can make work by swiping my penis on it, however. The fingerprint readers in my Windows, ChromeOS and Linux notebooks all seem to be able to tell when I am trying to swipe something that's not a finger. I suspect authentication-by-penis will be a feature Samsung don't copy.
Re: I wish ...
"Apple do make the best products - Samsung copy them."
Having used products from both companies: you're full of shit. Apple sometimes make a better physical casing. Samsung almost always have a better UI with more features, better multitasking and greater user freedom. Not to mention little things, like user swappable storage and batteries.
Samsung make the better products. Apple sue them in terror. Blackbeery makes better widgets than both of them, but they fucked up so hard in the past that noone will give them a chance on what they've got to market today.
Re: I wish ...
"While your example is correct, i do not think there are many other mobile phone manufacturer that have their own retail outlets selling their phones. This might be true for every tech company other than Sony and Apple, and Sony probably were first because the Ginza store has been there forever."
So your statement is that "because it involves a mobile device" it is somehow a different idea worthy of protection for being "unique".
Get the fuck off my planet.
Re: I wish ...
"Competing is not copying."
Actually, yes it is. Competing is copying but offering products at a lower price. Competing can also be copying but with a twist so as to offer a slightly different product/service/experience such that people can choose between different realizations of the same concept and thus have the market decide which is best.
Competing is absolutely, 100% copying someone else's idea and doing it differently so that the market can decide which is better.
One vendor per market is called "a monopoly" and is the exact fucking opposite of competition.
Where's my goddamned Johnny Cab?
None of which has anything to do with the courts, their officers, or the RCMP. And if you think for a second the RCMP would hesitate to lock away any of those bastards, you're an idiot. The Tories threw the RCMP under the bus in the name of public opinion by launching investigations into RCMP corruption and misbehaviour. The RCMP would love nothing more than the return the favour.
Re: @Trevor_Pott, @MachDiamond
The USA is a secular nation with no official religion. 76% of the US is christian with only 51% being protestant. Generally it is only a small subsection of protestants that are completely fucking whacko.
If I gaze at these statistics with a cynical eye I don't think that the % of Americans that are batshit-bananas Revelationists is not that much higher than in most other countries. 20-30% of most countries seems to be peopled with such individuals, the only thing that changes is the document or charismatic authority they worship. The politically correct term for these folks is usually "the conservative base".
This isn't about being a born-again christian. I know lots of born again Christians who haven't taken the express train to crazy town. This is about Revelationists and their dogmatic hatred of their Islamic counterparts.
For all that I take issue with religion in general, the believers willing to say "convert or die" are actually a minority of the population. And if we're going to profile nutjobs from one culture we should profile from them all.
...especially in secular nations like Canada and the USA.
Re: I have a left Ear yet understand the need for my Right
Any time, sir. I'm always open to beverages and socialization with people of insight and cognitive capability. Even the ones with whom I disagree. Unhindered discourse is one of the liberties that we defend in "free societies", if celebrating that happens to involve a proper lager or three, who I am to say no?
Re: Easy option
So the price of internet access is acceptance of total surveillance? This seems okay to you? Get the fuck out of my country.
"If a murder has been committed and the detectives take casts of footprints in the area (yours happening to be amongst them), is your privacy being infringed?"
In your scenario the investigators have probably cause to gather evidence based on an event that has already happened. The difference between that and spying on everyone all the time is that the difference between investigating an incident looking for clues and monitoring everything proactively in case there is an incident. Put more simply:
Total surveillance obliterates the presumption of innocence. Investigation of a crime scene does not. The presumption of innocence is a far more important social concept than the illusion of security provided by turning my nation into a police state.
Re: I have a left Ear yet understand the need for my Right
I do take a pragmatic view. Security is an illusion. You are never safe If I want to kill your ass, I will. Any sufficiently motivated individual with enough time to plan can accomplish it. Fuck, man, I can personally build something like a dozen weapons of mass destruction using items I can purchase without being ticking up the radar from various hardware and chemical stores and/or have lying around the house. There's nothing special about me or my knowledge, and I - despite this knowledge - haven't the desire to go a-murdering.
Despite literally tens of millions of people around the world having this kind of knowledge, you are not dead, your civilization is not in ruins. How do you reconcile this with the need for the panopticon?
There will always be some nutjobs - read: chaotic evil - who just want to watch the world burn. There will always be people willing to sacrifice their own lives or freedom to accomplish their goals. Stopping them is usually impossible, or requires the sacrifice of so much liberty that the civilization becomes a police state.
The deaths of the few are an acceptable price to pay for the liberty of the many. Even if those deaths include me or my loved ones. It is a sacrifice each and every one of us would willingly make. It is the price of freedom.
I do not advocate anarchy. We have laws and many of those laws need to be enforced. (Way - way - more should be repealed for a huge number of reasons.)
Simultaneously, I cannot countenance the centralization of such overwhelming power and the lack of any meaningful controls to it's use. The ability of the people who get to decide what is legal and what is not to track all people at all times and then send men with guns out to force the populace to comply must never be allowed in a civilized society. EVER.
We're not talking here about targeted surveillance. We're talking about mass surveillance of such scope as to know every sorted detail about every single individual's actions, their beliefs, their affiliations, their network of friends, family, contacts...
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Lest we forget. Je me souviens. If the cost of the liberty of my nation is my life, I offer it willingly.
Explain to please me how someone in traditional Muslim dress with a banner/sign/scarf/whatever saying "God is great" in their native tongue is bad.
Please also explain how it is any different from someone in jeans, cowboy boots, a cowboy hat and a t-shirt that says "praise Jesus"?
Both at first glance look like flagrant adherents of dangerous religious sects that have been responsible for untold suffering and misery throughout human history. Both would seem to match the stereotype of dress assigned to bigoted individuals who have no moral qualms about invading other nations to kill civilians on flimsy pretenses that amount to "convert or die." Both are people I'd avoid and consider to be equally radical, dangerous and a threat to the ethical and moral future of a civilized nation.
I say if we're going to profile against one type, we should profile against both.
if the Canadian "spooks" were to prevent even one incident a year as a result of 10 years spying on free open networks then i would still consider it an unacceptable violation of the liberty of Canadian citizens.
Liberty is never an acceptable price to pay for security. Let alone the illusion of security.
Also: while we're talking, are you interesting in purchasing a rock that keeps away tigers?
Because if Harper doesn't obey the spirit of a ruling he'll find himself in front of the Supreme Court judge one more time, and they do not take kindly in this country to repeat offenders. If he tries to outright break the law, the mounties will throw his ass in jail.
The wheels of justice turn slowly, but - at least in this country - they do still turn. And that sonofabitch absolutely runs the risk of jail. Not only for this debacle, but for several others as well. Unlike the USA, our governments are not immune to the powers of the court. Not yet. With luck, not ever.
Though our courts do take rather a long time, they eventually reach the right decision. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to plan a stagette for a friend of mine and her soon-to-be-wife. An event made possible by the supreme court pissing on the government's agenda.
Re: Once again, the elephant in the room ..
"you have to be brave and emotionally strong enough to stick your neck out to help protect others. It takes a special kind of person."
Agree entirely, however, that's not why many police officers sign up. Far - far - too many sign up simply because it gives them power over others. The desire of which virtually assures that they will abuse it the instant they have it.
An additional item for you to consider: police exist to uphold the law, however, the law has little to do with morality or ethics. That something is legal does not make it right. That something is illegal does not make it wrong.
That exists for one reason and one reason only: to ensure those in power remain in power. It has fuck all to do with "the common good" and hasn't for a very long time.
If you are sworn to uphold laws that are designed in such a way that any average person attempting to be a good citizen and going about their day breaks several of htem on any given day then you are an instrument of oppression.
Police are trained to uphold the law without interpretation, compassion or judgement. If that law no longer protects "the people" then it is not "the people" that the police serve.
"So Microsoft have finally invented a reseller interface."
While at the same time obliterating margins for resellers and redesigning all aspects of their software to remove the need for resellers altogether.
Mine's the one with the SPLA to the nuts.
Re: A Simple solution?
Hi Frank ly, as a Microsoft reseller I would like to jump here.
While I agree with your premise that if a company is "pushing" a product they should dogfood it internally, there are two issues with your statement.
1) Office 365 is vast. Just because it's down for one company does not mean it's down for another. Even users within the same company will not (usually) experience outages at the same time.
2) That some of us are supporting customers using Office 365 does not mean we are "pushing" Office 365 to our customers.
Personally, I would rather be peeled than use Office 365. Unfortunately, some of my clients request/require/demand that it be supported. Some come with Office 365 when the customer is acquired.
That said, the new upgrades sound promising. They almost sound like they'll make administering office 365 for my client base easier. Which only makes we wonder what else Microsoft is going to change in order to fuck this up as they have proven is essentially inevitable.
Re: Define "Aryans"
Well, I lack a better term than "Aryans". Let me define it for you as I understand the term. For me, "Aryan" would be a people of indo-european descent whose meets the following criteria:
1) Mostly stayed in Europe/Middle East after the Indian/European split
2) Did not do much in the way of mixing with the mongols when they were a-invading
3) Did not do much in the way of mixing with the moors when they were a-invading
4) No mixing with East or South Asian peoples after about 10,000 BCE
5) No mixing pretty much at any point with Polynesians or Aborigine peoples
That doesn't leave a hell of a lot of people. Celts/Gauls (Hallstatt and La Tène) pre-moor invasion would seem to qualify as they would have been the most isolated Indo-European peoples.
Germanic tribes and Nordic countries are probably a safe bet. Slavic nations I'm a little unsure about, as their populations saw a lot of mixing with mongolians not too far back. Alexander the Great also did a rather good job of muddying the waters on this, what with sewing his seed to and fro.
More scientifically, it's a neat way of packaging up populations dominated by Y haplogroups R1a, R1b I1, I2a, I2b, N1c, N1b, and N1c without much in the way of genetic influence from the surrounding Y haplogroups Cx, Ex, Fx, Gx, and Jx. (The other haplogroups, to my knowledge, never really having "bordered" the "Aryans" so the genetic mixing being even less frequent and likely.)
Right up until the end of the neolithic gene flow didn't seem to happen that fast. Humans were still speciating. natural selection was still "a thing". Since the end of the neolithic we seem to have mostly stopped evolving gross phenotypic variations due to hybridisation. Genetic variance seems to be largely down to mutation and selection-by-disease. (As opposed to climate, scarcity, etc.)
Some of that is probably down to "the neolithic wasn't all that long go", so populations that defined the end of that era remained mostly relevant. Some of that, however, really is down to increased gene flow since then. We got better at moving around the world. We spread our genes.
Unfortunately, we don't really have good terms for a lot of these end-neolithic populations. Relying on haplogroups is inaccurate, as neither mtDNA or Y-chromosome groups accurate reflect population grouping (and the associated genetic isolation). Similarly, using cultural or linguistic terms (such as indo-european or indo-iranian) is equally inaccurate.
For example, the closest mtDNA groups are R, I and W-descendant populations, but these don't neatly overlap with Y haplogroups R1a, R1b I1, I2a, I2b, N1c, N1b, and N1c. if you researching both groups however, you start to get a rough idea of the populations in question and the genetic trait clustering in question.
Despite this, modern humans did experience a period of relative genetic stagnation some time between Y chromosome Adam and Babylon. It created distinct populations each with their own genetic clusterings.
Most interestingly, while individuals that are part of the population I was discussing as "Aryan" are more likely to have lactose tolerance than non-Aryans, it really can't be used to define the population as the evolution of lactose tolerance was only about 6000 years ago. That's well after the neolithic and into the point where we started roaming around the earth a lot more frequently.
That said, Lactose tolerance as well as the "resistance to the plague/HIV" genes would help you narrow things a little, as both of those are far more likely to occur amongst the "Aryan" populations. (Though many "Aryans" would not have them, and our gene spread has brought them to other groups."
Speciation and taxonomy are imprecise.
Use of the term "Aryan" is thus not an attempt at sparking any hatred, but simply a lack of anything more precise. It is the most accurate term I know of to represent the specific population (and associated cluster of genetic traits) that I was thinking of in my previous comment. Alternative (less angry-making) terminology suggestions are welcomed.
Re: Define extinction
Well, at the end of the day, Hitler was right.
"Aryans" are "different" than humans. At this point we're not talking enough to be a species-level difference...but selective breeding across a not-very-many number of generations would probably be able to accomplish a distinct speciation between Aryans and Humans.
I don't agree with the Nazi concept of placing a value judgement on "us" versus "them". Who gets to decide which (sub)(sub)species is better? On what basis? Why does one have to be "better" in the first place? This sort of racial disharmony I don't understand at all.
But from a purely scientific standpoint, there is a difference between "Aryans" - or at least a significant subset of them - and pure-strain humans.
"Aryans" are far more likely to contain certain genes. Lactose tolerance, pale skin, that one that conferred immunity to the plague and now confers immunity to HIV. Similarly, pure-strain humans are more likely to have things like sickle-cell anemia. (These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.)
Asians (but not all, apparently) might also be broken into a third sub-subspecies, as they have Denisovan DNA. What advantages did that confer to them? What disadvantages?
Hitler chose to view these genetic deltas as something that had ethical or moral implications. The race he identified with - "Aryans" - was "better" than others. Why, I honestly don't know. I never understood that type of thinking...but the fact that some people in our history - and our present - choose to think like this absolutely should not prevent us from thinking about human speciation, subspeciation or the real-world implications of genetic trait propagation.
A great example here is the immunity to HIV. "Pure" Africans don't seem to have it. So far as I know we've only detected it in a few Europeans. There's a really good chance that this particular mutation is in fact some remnant Neandertal DNA. If so, we should start testing Asians for it to see where the branching point was.
This mutation is rare; Europeans only seem to have it in any number because it was related to plague immunity and a lot of those without it died off. Maybe there would be long-term species-level benefits in encouraging those with the trait to seek mates amongst populations where it is not present. It wouldn't solve problems today, but it might make a difference 100 generations from now, offering those populations a greater chance of survival, thus potentially preserving a more diverse human gene pool after $deity only knows what the next plague will be.
Like Hitler, I think studying populations to determine origins and amount of genetic mixing is important. Unlike Hitler, I don't think it's important so that we can keep these populations "pure". I think it's important so that we can encourage strategic genetic mixing so as to create the broadest possible genetic diversity in the hopes of ultimately having a species more capable of coping with unknown future bottleneck events.
"Pure" matters, because "pure" generally means "less likely to adapt." Hybrid vigor, man. Embrace the future!
You are certifiably insane. The only people who know how to make good beer are Canadian microbreweries. No one else can come close to them for quality or diversity.
@ Sir Spoon
Your father was a hamster and your mother smelt of elderberries! And yes, I'll repeat that to the plod too.
"Isn't the most charismatic of leaders?" What?!> Please, spend some time a room with the man. Lack of charisma is emphatically not his problem. In fact, other than being shackled by Ballmer and Gates on the board, I don't see him having all htat many problems at all. Nadella would make a hell of a CEO for Microsoft. I really hope he gets the gig.
Re: Good to have choice
Why does every market have to be "huge" to be relevant?
Re: Important change
">>"Speaking as someone who actually works on a library that tries to read and write OOXML I can tell you that OOXML still is not very nice: it is overly verbose and inconsistent."
And compared to the original version? ;)"
Twice zero is still zero.
Re: Important change
"Office 2013 is really, really good"
If you ignore the UI, which is awful. And the spydrive integration. And the part where Microsoft tried to make it impossible to buy a non-subscription version. And the rage-inducing defaults like "smart quotes" and "adding space at the end of a paragraph instead of letting people mange using carriage returns." Oh, and the massive history attached to the vendor of said product that includes a whole lot of "not listening to customers" and "telling end users to **** off."
Other than all of that - and a few more nits here and there - it's middling to passable, yep.
Re: what happens when you inadvertently provide that file in response to an NSL
That's a good question. I suspect you would get a demand for the unhoneypotted passwords followed by a conviction if you refuse to comply.
- Review Apple iPhone 6: Looking good, slim. How about... oh, your battery died
- Review + Vid Apple iPhone 6 Plus: What a waste of gorgeous pixel density
- +Comment EMC, HP blockbuster 'merger' shocker comes a cropper
- Moon landing was real and WE CAN PROVE IT, says Nvidia
- 46% of iThings slurp iOS 8: What part of this batt-draining update didn't you like?