Obviously there was no wifi, so the poor fellow couldn't get El Reg. Must have decided that without something good to read the fondletat was pretty worthless. What good's a consumptive device with nothing to consume?
5423 posts • joined 31 May 2010
- ← Prev
- Next →
Re: is it criminal watching criminals?
You can't be charged for an intent to commit a crime unless you actually go forth and do so. (Or threaten someone.) Unless your nation has embraced authoritarianism so fervently that thoughts are now actually a crime there. (Wouldn't surprise me.)
Aye. I do believe that your words indicate a belief that men are of less value than women. That their nature, desires, thoughts, emotions and so forth are a secondary to those of women. I get this in large part from your lashing out at people who call for equality while praising those who demand special treatment for women.
So yeah, misandrist. I do believe you are one.
Exactly what is sexist about wanting to see some jiggling boobies? Please explain this in detail. I'm genetically programmed to want to see jiggling boobies. Reproduction/mate acquisition is quite literally one of the most fundamental instincts our species has.
Are you honestly trying to say that it is somehow not sexist to demand that an entire gender repress/deny their own base instincts while it is somehow sexist for that same gender to acknowledge those same base instincts with the full participation of consenting adults? And what does this say about your views on women that you feel they don't have the right or capability to choose when and where they allow men to ogle them?
What right does anyone - man or woman - have to tell me whom I may or may not ogle, except the person whom I happen to be ogling at the time? If $individual doesn't want me to look at them they have every right to tell me to piss off. By what right does a third party - any third party, regardless of gender - insert themselves?
Are they next to tell me whom I can mate with? Perhaps I cannot mate with a member of my own gender? Or perhaps I cannot mate with a member of the opposite gender? Or perhaps I must undergo some meaningless religious ceremony before I am allowed to mate? Maybe I need to get a form signed in triplicate before I can even attempt to initiate a mating encounter?
There is nothing wrong withe human sexuality. It is an absolutely normal and natural part of life. There is everything with forcing unwanted sexual advances upon someone else, but nothing at all wrong with consenting adults having whatever fun they wish with however many layers of sexual - or, for that matter non-sexual - overtones.
Where in any of this does it say the hola-hooping ladies weren't digging the attention? And frankly, why wouldn't they? What we have is a third party getting upset because she observed a consensual display of interpersonal amusement that may potentially have had very mild sexual overtones. There is no indication anyone forced her to watch, to participate or even to acknowledge that the event was occurring.
Based on the evidence available she chose to insert herself into the interpersonal activities of others without invitation or desire on behalf of anyone else.
Your comments come across as misandrist. Pure and simple.
That is her interpretation of those events. It could just as easily be that she's incorrect and that the two events were not related at all. There is no rational reason to believe her interpretation of events until evidence is presented.
"Unless she was forced to take part then there would be a grievance."
Technically that's not entirely accurate. If she were somehow punished or experienced retribution for not taking part then there would also be a grievance. That isn't the same as "being forced to take part" as the "forced" indicated there is a threat at the time of the event, as opposed to petty vindictiveness afterwards with no advance warning.
A minor quibble, but the latter is a heck of a lot harder to prove than the former, but constitutes some pretty up there douchebaggery all the same.
Re: Awful lot of misogynists here
"I doubt these people even wonder why there are so few women in IT, let alone what to do about it."
Here's a better question: why should I care why there are "so few women in IT?" I treat women as equally as I know how. They get the same respect I would show any man. I see no reason to do anything differently than that. If women want to be in IT, I have no problem with that. Some of the smartest IT practitioners I've ever met are women and I think gender plays zero role in one's ability in this field.
If women don't want to be in IT, I'm okay with that too. I have never had this whole issue adequately explained to me such that anyone can convince me that every single field on earth should have gender equality. Women should have the right to choose what they want to do and I think it's sexist for us to dump umpteen squillion dollars into trying to change their minds en masse.
There are fields where women dominate and men are the distinct minority. We don't dump anywhere near the amount of money into attracting men into those professions that we lavish on women. Why? If absolute gender equality is the goal shouldn't all things be equal in this regard?
It isn't my job to worry about the grand cosmic gender balance. It's my job to treat everyone the same regardless of gender. So I do. They can choose to do whatever the hell they want for a living, I refuse to presume to direct their desires just to fill some fucking quota.
Re: I don't like....
"You're right, those women who happily took part in the hula-hooping incident must be forced to change so that they conform to the standards that this particular woman believes are acceptable.
They must come to understand that they have failed their gender, that women everywhere will be abused, maybe even raped, because they thought they could engage in such an activity."
This. 10,000x this.
Why does a company's culture get to be determined by the loudest individual? At what point is it "one person with a problem" and not "everyone else in the company" who has the problem?
I am not saying that there is or is not real gender prejudice occurring here. I am not there so I can't possibly know for sure. Despite this, the lady's own account contains incidences of other women being perfectly chill with the corporate culture; enough to make me question "is this the culture or the individual?"
If I am uncomfortable with ladies walking around with clothing that sexually excites me against my will am I allowed to request that they alter their behavior? Or will I go to jail for making the request because the mere fact of making that request is sexual harassment? Why then can this lady demand others change their behavior when it when it would seem everyone involved is totally okay with things (the hula hooping incident) except her?
Why does having been born with one's reproductive organs on the inside as opposed to the outside confer upon the person in question a socially acceptable "right" to demand dramatic changes in behavior in others whilst simultaneously providing a blanket immunity to similar standards for that individual?
This is a complex issue and one that cannot be judged based upon hearsay. And if saying that makes me a misogynist in the minds of some, so be it.
I don't think the majority of people here are "dismissing her claims as false." What we aren't doing is "taking her word for it." We are aware that the world is a complicated place and the - shock of fucking shockers - women are just as capable of lying, misrepresenting the truth, being mentally ill, being prejudiced or being out of touch with reality as men.
None of us in this thread where there, we have no possible way to know how this played out in the real world. To take the lady's side on this without question is just as fucking sexist as to say "she must be wrong because she's a woman." Maybe she's right. Maybe it was a hostile environment. Maybe she's wrong, and it was a perfectly rational environment where people were treated equally and she's just a special flower lashing out because of her own prejudices or mental issues.
How can you unequivocally take one side in this without all the facts?
Men and women must be treated equally by law. It's also ethical to do so; there's no rational reason to treat them differently in most circumstances. (Bathroom-related items to one side.)
Men and women are also treated equally by law. This means both genders are expected to behave without prejudice, are expected to be capable of accepting criticism, are expected to be able to deal with differences in culture, gender behavior and more. There are no absolutes here. This is why discrimination issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
You are as guilty of rank sexism as the worst chauvinist in these threads. Your pervasive misandry is offensive and I demand an apology.
"Deal with people. Some people need different things, that's the world."
Equality isn't giving some people more and some people less so that we meet a minimum standard of "cuddly friendly happy" with effort, remuneration and tone adjusted to match the emotional state of each person.
Equality is ensuring equality of access; that everyone gets the same chance, the same opportunity, the same treatment, with appropriate adjustment for any disabilities that may be required to insure quality of access.
It is not equality to demand that I alter my natural - read, genetically precoded - behavior patterns to suit the whims of others whilst they are required to adjust to nothing. It is rank insanity to suggest that is somehow "equal".
Everyone has to learn to fucking cope. Whether you have a penis, a vagina, or a 40 ft tall spider robot body.
In my years here I have never witnessed "unbridled adoration of Google on these forums". I have witnessed a lot of shitting on Google, but no "unbridled adoration".
I think, perhaps, you are mixing up "choosing Google as the least terrible option amongst a sea of soulless peckerheads" with "unbridled adoration". That has more to do with your brand tribalism than any real-world pro-Google bias in these forums.
Google are completely, utterly, unrepentantly evil. But they happen to do something that benefits the average Joe from time to time, which makes them that ever so slightly less asstastic than the alternatives. Never mistake the fatalistic choice of "the assholes who will do the least amount of damage" for genuine affection.
Re: On tech journalism shills: a freelancer's view from the bottom
It was a Monday. I dislike Mondays. I decided the only way to be sure I quashed the relevant bug was to deorbit several dozen kinetic rods directs on top of the target.
It is the only way to be sure.
Besides, this way I can link back to it the next time someone accuses me of the same thing, yawn, and go back to sleep.
Re: Other tools
I've been pondering this one pretty much all day. How exactly do you compare a vulnerability assessment tool? The number of knobs there are to turn? How well it's configured default out of the box? Speed? Price?
If we assume for a moment that - within a reasonable margin of error - all the tools pick up the same number and criticality of vulnerabilities then you're down to "soft" issues. How scriptable is it? How easily does it integrate into other systems? How appropriately does the tool rank vulnerabilities?
Then we get into other things. Are you going to use the assessment tool mostly in a scripted, automated fashion, or will you basically be living in the UI? If the former then the design doesn't matter. If the latter, then "adjunct functionality" really starts to mean something.
In most environments I use a combination of OpenVAS for vulnerability assessment, Spiceworks for monitoring and Languard 2.0 for discovery. Cost being the biggest driver for a lot of these folks. But the Languard 2014 can reasonably do all of that - and more - with easier configuration and scriptability. (OpenVAS is cool and all, but I don't find it as easy out of the box, something that matters if you are just showing up to do a sweep on demand.)
Nessus is something I find easier to use - as I should, given that it's a commercial version of an antecedent of OpenVAS - but more restrictive, despite being more feature rich. I'm intrigued but the "multi-scanner" approach, and I start to wonder if they have enough components and technology to challenge Thousand Eyes and offer that sort of "premises-to-the-cloud" monitoring as part of their offering as well.
Without question Nessus is a staunch competitor to Languard, and for good reason. The number of plugins available alone has created an ecosystem around Nessus that's hard to ignore. I do happen to like GFI's on-premises tool a bit more then Tenable's offering, but I wonder how much of that is simply habituation and familiarity.
There's also SAINT, PSI, Retina and whatever that Cisco one got renamed to that we should all consider. Add to the mix Nexpose/Metasploit and CI (if you're rich) and this is a field with bountiful competition.
So how do we compare A to B, C, D, E, F, G, and H? What matters to you won't necessarily matter to me and we may both differ from that guy over there. It's honestly hard to call a "better" - though I would entertain arguments for CI - when there is such a diversity of need. If the key need is being met (the detection, alerting and remediation of vulnerabilities) the rest is the sort of trite shite that ends up in emacs versus vim arguments or GUI wars.
At the end of the day, I honestly don't know how to compare these products. I lack the knowledge to do so without greater context for the specific target application. The answer to "which is better" is that ages old IT answer that so rankles certain people who believe in a black-and-white universe: it depends.
So when I review products in categories like this I measure them on merit alone, largely on the basis of meeting claims put forth. By that measure, I stand by what I said in the article. Languard does a fine job. It does what it says on the tin and does it for what I consider to be a fair price. It is exactly the sort of tool that no sysadmin should be without.
If Languard itself isn't the precise combination of twiddly knobs that meets your needs, there are others out there worth a look to. More important than which tool you choose is that you choose one and use it. Securing your network makes the internet a safer place for us all.
On tech journalism shills: a freelancer's view from the bottom
Hey there, good catch! I didn't even notice that it looked like an affiliate link when I added it. I was asked to add a link to the trial version (which, frankly, I probably would have done without anyone asking me, because it's just nice to do when you're writing about someone's product) and this was the link I was handed. The link itself is as follows:
The official explanation by one of our commercial guys is as follows:
"The link in question just goes off to their trial download. It has google analytics code appended to the URL so they can track, via GA, our readers who end up downloading said trial.
In order that we could also track this, I ran the URL through Reglinkz to output something we can track. However, this type of link won't get caught by ad-blockers etc"
That suits me, I hope it makes sense to you. To address the "shill" issue more directly: what I wrote about GFI's Languard I wrote because I felt it was accurate. I was asked to review the product and I did so as truthfully and honestly as I was able.
Dissecting the issue
Your question, however, raises a valid concern and we should dissect it to its fullest extent. Let's not take the fellow's word on this, but let's use some examination of the evidence and whatever personal experiences I can bring to bear to really examine the situation.
The link itself contains references to The Register. I was asked by The Register to do the review. I think it's safe to conclude that the on-premises side of GFI asked for a review of the product as part of an advertising campaign, and that the link provided me for the trial version is a means by which the GFI folks track which clicks came from the El Reg article.
For obvious reasons - writers of articles need to be kept separate from the messy details of where the money comes from in order to maintain objectivity - I'm no expert in the how and why of El Reg getting paid for things. Still, I very seriously doubt that The Register would have an actual "affiliate link" style arrangement with GFI on this. I just don't see that model having long term business viability for an entity the size of The Register.
Let me be, 100% clear on this, however: I absolutely have not and will not write nice things about a company because I get paid for it. I think you'll find this true of all El Reg writers.
One of the reasons I choose to write for The Register is that I get to write whatever I want. Companies pay The Register for advertising, yes. That's a fact of life in this industry. But the editors here will absolutely go to the mattresses for my right to say what I want.
A great example of this is my writing about Microsoft. Microsoft periodically comes in and runs a campaign about Office 365, Azure, Windows Server or so forth. They phone up El Reg and say something like "we would like 5 reviews of Office 365 to be published over the course of the next 2 months and each will focus on a different major feature."
My editor will then come to me and ask me to come up with topics that meet this request while still delivering useful technical content to our readership. We'll come up with a list of 7-10 possible review topics to cover the 5 reviews they want, they'll pick amongst them and I'll get hooked up with whatever resources I need to be able to do the review.
If you have read anything I've ever written about Microsoft you'll know that "Trevor saying nice things" is not something they can purchase.
A company paying The Register> money can get The Register to commission a review of their product. A company paying The Register money cannot and will not get that reviewer to write nice things.
If I have a really good idea for an article I can pitch it as a feature. Here I have to duke it out with every other freelancer wanting to write a piece about $topic. In addition to the above, I get to write a fixed number of blogs/reviews/podcasts per month (currently 6 per month) in which I get to pick the topic.
As concepts, these are important. If you are an advertiser trying to "shape the message" by "buying reviews" then you're going to have all sorts of problems. Journalists are prickly bastards. We would probably use our "pick your topic" articles to decry such shenanigans.
If you have followed me as a writer you'll know that I have never shied away from using my little digital soapbox to express my opinion.
I am – as one example – a VMware vExpert, a designation which I got mostly because I "evangelise" virtualisation. Being a vExpert conveys various interesting advantages and unlocks doors that otherwise I would never even know existed. Despite this, I have called VMware on their crap – both here on The Reigster and over at SearchVMware. I have talked about the stuff I see going on within the community and the company that aren't the shiny, happy world they portray.
Indeed, even with my commercial writing clients I don't write fluff, I focus on finding the truth and talking about it. I won't take a client I don't think has a good product that can benefit sysadmins and I never try to obfuscate or inflate the benefits of their product when I create content for them.
I can't speak for other writers. I never went to journalist school or took political science. I don't have an MBA or any time spent doing sales. People hire me because I tell the truth. It doesn't always make me friends – lots of people don't like the truth – but it is all I know. I'm a lazy sort by nature and trying to keep up a tangled web of lies is too much effort for me to expend for any reason.
The price of a man
I'm not unrealistic about the world. I have a price. My price is eight figures. Meet this price and I'll say whatever you want me to say. This price is way – way – beyond what anyone has ever offered me. I'm just not important enough for someone to have tried to buy me yet.
It's easy to level accusations of "shill." I've done it myself when I think so lowly of the other party that I honestly believe they could be bought for a half-eaten hamburger. We all know the guy who bought an computer product or service that was far more expensive than the competition just because he got a fancy lunch. Why not assume that journalists are as easy to buy?
The truth lies in the profession itself. If The Register were to become known for being "purchasable" then it would simply cease to exist. The readership would dry up and the value of advertising on the site would evaporate immediately thereafter.
The same is true for me, personally, as a journalist. If I have any "value" in this profession it is because I am known for being a hardass that truly and honestly believes in El Reg's motto: biting the hand that feeds IT. Companies seek me out to do reviews because they believe that if they can get a good review out of me people will believe it. If I accept a payoff then I lose my livelihood.
Fear and loathing in Silicon Valley
Consider Chris Mellor. I know for a fact that there are several hundred storage PR and marketing people who live in mortal terror of that man. When I started to write the odd piece about storage for The Register they all popped out of a portal desiring to woo me because they hoped (in vain, I might add) that I would be less blunt.
Mellor has earned a reputation for being fierce that, quite frankly, I envy. He tells the truth as he sees it. It is journalists like him that are why I have been a reader and fan of The Register for over a decade.
I get far more of a thrill out of talking about the elephant in the room than I ever will get out of some bit of techno-gadgetry. I don't need Yet Another 4-bay NAS. I don't need Yet Another NFR Software License. I have a pretty cool testlab already, and I am absolutely transparent about where I got my gear.
To be perfectly honest, I personally haven't wanted for shiny computer widgets for home use in over a decade (long before I started writing for El Reg) and I am only rarely interested in any of the new stuff that I see hit the tradeshow floors. I write about this stuff, I even practice this stuff professionally, but my life's ambition is not the accumulation of techno-tat. I want to write a science fiction trilogy. The gizmo of the week isn't going to make that happen any sooner.
If you honestly think that The Register is peopled by shills then I invite you to do some digging on your own. Talk to PR people. Ask them. They will tell you the same tales as I have told you above, but with more four-letter words and a lot of repressed bitterness. We do not make their lives easy.
I hope that the above explains the world of writing for The Register as seen from the world of a freelancer such as me. With any luck, I've helped explain a little of "how we writers get paid" and how the absolute wall between the monies paid and the writers is maintained by the editors. Thanks for your time, and I hope you choose to keep on reading El Reg.
This, incidentally, is where my "purchase price" comes in. I will say anything you want me to say if and only if you pay me enough money to say it such that I never ever have to worry about money again and retire the next day.
Re: How about ....
"I'm 40 and I can operate a computer"
Other agencies have to get a warrant. The NSA does not*. This is the primary difference. Warrant = presumption of innocence preserved. No warrant = Spookocracy.
*warrants from secret courts operating with zero oversight overseeing secret laws issuing secret letters of demand are not counted as "warrants" for the purpose of hte preservation of the presumption of innocence.
Nor, I should point out, does IBM have a history of scruples when it comes to customer selection. In fact, of all the vendors out there, I would most easily believe that the devices used to remove the presumption of innocence from billions of individuals were manufactured by IBM. Of course, I've no proof of that, but they would be the logical supplier to me.
Re: Bad News - Good News
Aye, whereas I believe that's merely a bone thrown to investors and not remotely the bit the people running the company care about.
Re: Bad News - Good News
Bad news is "we may have gotten caught paying some bribes".
Good news is "preliminary reports indicate there is little likelihood that this will not result in charges against our executives."
Same article, two different interpretations.
There are differences
Re: Am I getting tired?
"So Reporters without Borders agree that governments are spying via internet on citizens?"
"On the other hand, Reported without Borders don't like that government is spying on citizens."
I do not understand why these things would be mutually exclusive? Or perhaps I am reading your comment wrong...what exactly is your issue with the RWB statement again?
It's all good 'cause without it the terrorists will get us. Spying on us has stopped many terrorist plots. It is necessary for our safety that the government know everything we do. If you have nothing to hide then you should have nothing to fear.
The fact that I believe you, personally, are an imbecile doesn't mean I don't appreciate people who disagree with me. It proves nothing except that I believe you're an imbecile.
If you had twelve functional brain cells to rub together you'd realize that I truly adore people who disagree with me. I love arguing. I love learning. I absorb knowledge on every topic I can for no reason other than pure enjoyment. When I'm wrong, I get a thrill out of having it proven to me, because it means I now know something I didn't before. That's happy fun times for me.
There exist, however, people who believe wholeheartedly they are right, that I am wrong, but who cannot prove this to even the remotest degree. You are one such. Having a great big ego and demanding that I believe something different doesn't make you right. When what you assert goes against every bit of evidence I have then I am going to rapidly come to the conclusion that you're a tool, thank you, and extract my enjoyment from trolling you.
So I return to the statement at the top of this comment: the fact that I believe you, personally, are an imbecile doesn't mean I don't appreciate people who disagree with me. It proves nothing except that I believe you're an imbecile.
Deal with it, or don't; that's your bellyache. I have no need for your validation, though you are clearly upset that you lack mine. Cheers.
Oh, I like people who don't agree with me. If any two men agree about everything then one of them is redundant. I don't, however, suffer fools.
Guess which you are?
Most sysadmins out there have never heard of rsync
*puts fingers in ears*
I refuse to believe this is true.
As for the "Microsoft bubble", well, there's robocopy, richcopy, DFSR (just off the top of my head) for file-level replication and Starwind for block-level replication (well there's lots more than Starwind, but Starwind's the only one I trust.)
But not heard of rsync? I...just...wha?
Beer. I need beer. I am going to go format floppy disks and drink beer while I dial up to one of the last remaining BBSes with my 9600 baud modem. Because I still can. (But for how long?)
This seems like it might be painting Google with too positive a brush."
Then you are either unaware of my feelings towards Google or you are so unrepentantly biased against them that is no brush too negative with which another person can paint them.
Now I'm not saying I prefer Microsoft - by no means.
However I would reject that "[o]nly one of these two will hold the majority of the English-speaking search market".
Reality does not require your acceptance.
How about neither? A third player?
Not going to happen in the next 10 years. Do you even begin to comprehend the barriers to entry in the global search market? The insane amount of intellectual property that goes into the algorithms? Not just ranking, but efficiently indexing, retrieving, geolocating, etc? That's before we even touch upon the infrastructure required to run such a thing.
I would lay hard odds that even Amazon couldn't challenge Bing. To say nothing of Google.
Several more specialized search engines - perhaps through a central search engine that'll be forced to link through the specialized search engines that it's ripping its results from... I don't just speculation of course.
Same problem. A specialized search engine is even harder than a generalized one. You're trying to find not just needles in the haystack, but needles of a certain texture. Even if you could get a bunch of companies to create these specialized search engines, why would you ever assume they wouldn't be complete ass when compared to Bing (let alone Google?)
And who pays? How do these specialized search engines make money? Who is going to "force" a centralized search engine to link through others, and how does that search engine make money? No company is going to set about pissing away billions (and yes, we are talking billions to play the game today) on something that isn't ultimately profitable to them.
Besides which, why the metric fuck would I accept some government forcing me to use a particular search engine? Why should I? What right does a government have to tell me what search provider I must use?
If the government isn't forcing me to use a given search provider, why would I use anyone but the best of the best of the best? (Which is Google, hands down. Absolutely no contest.) If all rational decisions makers choose the best search engine (and probably a handful of irrational decision makers as well) then how does Google ever lose that monopoly unless someone comes along and is legitimately better?
Being legitimately better has such a high barrier to entry...
Look: you can't legislate people to use a given search engine. All you can do is make sure that a company with a natural monopoly is prevented from abusing it. In the case of Google, search is a loss leader so if you try to turn the knobs too much they'll just say "fuck you" and leave.
At which point you've cut off your penis to inflate your ego because now you've either crippled your own economy by ensuring your people only have access to an inferior tool when compared to the rest of the world. If you get into a trade war pissing match with the multinational in question you end up creating a subversive culture where people will tunnel past your firewall to get access to the tool they actually want.
More people using a search engine doesn't make that search engine better. Even if Microsoft won, got Google banned from doing any business whatsoever in Europe, that is absolutely not a victory for the citizens of Europe. Microsoft doesn't have the skills to go up against Google and provide a tool of equal value. Nobody else does either...though Baidu might get there in a few years.
So what you get is functionally annihilating the internet economy in Europe so that one American corporation can evict another. How the hell does that serve Europeans?
If you want a third party search engine, get 10 billion dollars together, get the best PhDs you can get, build the best search algorithms and infrastructure and maybe in 5 years you'll be where Google is today. If you can accreted enough users you might get enough revenue to compete with Google and maybe you overtake them.
Google, however, won't stay still. And they have better PhDs than any you could buy. They have loyalty and the ability to continue to afford such loyalty. Most governments can't take Google on directly when it comes to internet R&D.
This isn't me liking Google. I'm pretty convinced they're evil. (Though I believe they are less evil than Microsoft.) But I recognize reality. Google represent something that has never existed before in all of human history. They are the gatekeepers to all human knowledge. They are very nearly the gatekeepers to all human experience.
More than mere money, Google have power. The power that comes from intimate knowledge, the power that comes from intelligence (detailed knowledge of the enemy), and the power that comes from religion (they have True Believers that number in the millions).
Like it or not, Google are more powerful than most nations. They are not a force that can simply be legislated to come to heel. And they are not a force to be trifled with. They provide a very distinct, very real competitive advantage to those who use their technology and they know it.
This is more than simply a wish list of wanting something for nothing from some yankee corporation. This is the game of thrones, and if Europe moves to smite Google the consequences will be very, very real.
Alumia knows that. His decision was the right one, given the circumstances. That isn't me "being kind to Google", that's just accepting that knowledge = power, and Google knows fucking everything.
Almunia is one of the not so bad guys. He has rightly determined that Google is less ass than Microsoft. Trading in a company that is anti-competitive in a manner which is beneficial to the consumer for one that is is horrifying wasteland and anti-consumer amorality isn't a bargain.
Does Google promote it's offerings over the inferior offerings of others? Yes. Would Microsoft do any different? Fuck no. Does Google track us in a creepy fashion? Yes. Does Microsoft? Yes. Would Microsoft with the market share of Google be as bad as Google? They'd be 10,000 times worse.
Google spies on you in order to make money to deliver you things you want so they can spy on your more.
Microsoft spies on you in order to make money to increase shareholder dividends. Then they make shit you don't want, hold a gun to your head and say "upgrade or die."
Only one of these two will hold the majority of the English-speaking search market. I know which one I prefer.
Re: lets see..
Get a new computer or tablet and fire up a web browser, or download one from the web. Fire up the built-in search bar, or even simply type something that isn't a url into the address bar. What's the search engine that gets fired up?
It's Bing. Just tested five computers from three different manufacturers. The very first thing I do is change it to Google because Bing is a fucking nightmare of traumatizing awfulness.
Go to the website of virtually any major company and view the source. Find the section that provides tracking and analytics information scripts. What's the one that's always there?
Yup. Google Analytics. But fuck you in the brain with a rototiller if you are going to tell me that companies are somehow forced to use Google analytics. Doing so takes effort. It's not a default. Google offer the best service, period.
If Ford wanted to know the details of every journey I made, or Coke wanted to know every shop I personally bought a can of drink at, I'd be worried about that.
Ford do want to know the details of every journey you make and Coke do want to know every shop you personally bought a can of drink at. Welcome to the 21st century. Your precious Microsoft is just as fucking guilty as Google. They are merely less capable than Google. They make shittier products, people trust them less and website administrators don't find as much value from their tracking packages.
Re: lets see..
"If I go to a search engine (any search engine) should I not get a fair and impartial return to my query?"
No. They're a commercial search engine. Not a public one. They aren't a library. They aren't journalists. They are a business. Why should it be fair and impartial? According to which ethical logic?
Microsoft are far more evil than Google. Microsoft are easily as corrupt as Google already, given them the all-pervading power that Google has and they will create a fucking distopia.
Every one of these bastards wants to drag us down to hell. I choose the carriage with the most comfy seating, thank you.
Re: High Reliability… It’s not that easy…
I am intrigued.
Microsoft no longer sells Windows. They sell tiles under a false name.
Re: Stop who?
I never said a government should bend to me. I said said that governments are instruments of the people. People are not instruments of the government.
Unlike your antiquated and simplistic advice I don't believe in simply "me for me." Upping stakes and going elsewhere because I don't like the choices made by governments elected by a minority of individuals would be cowardice.
Bravery is found in driving change. In putting one's time, effort and resources towards achieving the desired outcome. I find no valour in meekly accepting what is. I see no honour in capitulating. Right and wrong are not dictated by those in power; especially when those in power are emphatically not elected by a majority. (There's a proportional representation discussion to be had here.)
I certainly don't see any bravery in allowing foreigners (Americans, Brits) to dictate to my nation - and thus to me - what will be, what is right or what to believe. Instead, I choose to push for change. To stand up for what I believe and to encourage my nation to stand up to those others who would have us compromise our values.
I am defending my home using the only means I have available to me. I will not run and hide. I find it incomprehensible that anyone could advocate such under the guise of bravery."
Re: Stop who?
"If you ask yourself why you care if NSA is spying on you, you likely also answer the question what the FSB or Chinese secret service could do to you."
I care that the NSA is spying on me because what the NSA finds they share. I don't give a shit what Russia or China knows about me because they aren't going to affect my life in any meaningful way.
"I am of course happy to see that you are so on the ball. Wind power, solar power, and IC circuits were industries which weren't able to do what you can -- when they had their technologies stolen and copied, they got outcompeted."
Americans and Brits conduct economic espionage against other countries too. Don't pretend otherwise. Political machinations at this level are way beyond "the average guy". Defending home infrastructure is exactly the sort of job the NSA should be fucking doing, and this is exactly the sort of shit they should have prevented. Had they not been pissing away their resources on surveiling their own citizens for drug crimes they might just have been able to.
Strategic companies and tactical government investments need defense. The best defense that the nation can afford. That's the job of the spooks. It's not the task they're currently engaged in.
"How do you reckon? I've never even heard of anyone getting arrested by the NSA or based on NSA evidence; the number of cases must be very easily counted."
Your inability to actually read the news isn't my problem. They have passed along all sorts of info to the DEA, the FBI, etc. They snoop, they pass along, regular joes get nabbed for petty shit.
"Like I've said before: the focus on NSA/GCHQ is a bit unfortunate, not just because it ignores the equally big threat from other countries, but especially because it ignores that most people are under much greater threat from the rising capabilities of "standard" law enforcement agencies. NSA and FSB wont give a crap that I've got a copy of the "Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars" DVD on my computer, but the FBI or Metropolitan Police would kick my door down and haul me off to prison."
I don't disagree with this, but I think you live in a fantasy world where you envision a separation of powers here that doesn't, in fact, exist.
If the NSA/GCHQ/CSIS/etc were to limit their snooping to national security issues, I wouldn't have a problem with them at all. Hell, I'd cheer them on and might even want to work for them. They don't. Not even remotely. They backchannel shit to other enforcement agencies all the time.
Therein lies the problem. As a society we decided that "regular" law enforcement should have X capabilities and national security interests should have Y capabilities. This is because we believe that there is a difference in priority between the two. Breaking some laws just isn't as important as breaking others. (See also: criminal versus civil division.)
And yet, people selling mary jane are being picked up because the machinery of national security is hijacked to fill quotas. City councils abuse CCTV installations to catch people putting out an extra bag of trash.
You argue that the concept of the NSA is necessary and good. I don't disagree with you one whit. Where we disagree is in our acceptance of how this concept has been implemented, and how much corruption of the basic separation of enforcement capabilities we are willing to tolerate.
The state should not be able to tap an undersea cable to catch me downloading Farscape. That falls into the realm of "petty crimes" for which the state should have to have reasonable suspicion and there is the whole concept of "innocent unless proven guilty" to cope with.
The state should, however, be able to install equipment required to detect spying from international interests. Foreign govenrments don't get the benefit of "innocent unless proven guilty." I do, however, argue that allied citizens should.
And there's the rub. Innocent unless proven guilty. When the government can spy on everything that everyone does how does that concept apply? How do we enforce it? Where do we enforce it?
From what I see today it is largely being ignored "because we can." And that, sir, I have a huge problem with. That is the bit that needs some real fixing. And that is why I decry those who would support dragnet surveillance as "evil."
I believe in "innocent unless proven guilty" as a fundamental concept. A idea of such importance that it is, in fact, worth dying for. Those who advocate abridging it for convenience or the illusion of security, well...I find it hard to express the true vehemence of my disregard.
"I will note that cynicism is the simplest political posture."
Personally, I'd argue that "faith" is the simplest political posture, but we're really arguing two sides of a coin there: the extremes of the concept "trust" are far simpler than dealing with the messy reality of the middle.
I am a cynic by nature, but I put actual effort into not allowing that to drive my political views. It's hard to be both a cynic and a socialist! Most people, I think, are inherently good...but most people are also too overwhelmed with the business of daily life that they don't have the means or the time to engage in political discourse about larger items. Fear plays a role: if they keep their heads down they may be left alone to tend their own issues.
It is faith to believe that those in power over us will do what is good and right. It is cynicism to believe they will do what is wrong. It is faith to believe that we can make the world a utopia. It is cynicism to believe that we can have no effect at all. These beliefs are trite and easy to be passionate about. They are views that feel intuitive, and thus it is easy to become attached.
Reality is a lot more murky. Those in power will not do what is good and right...but rarely do they set out do evil, either. In truth, humans build complex systems that they cannot control and a single enterprising malefactor can take control of the machinery to bend it to their own ends. Our entire history is examples of this happening again and again.
The fight for balance will never be over. Pick any two poles (liberty/security, right/wrong, etc) and there will always be forces tugging society to either end.
The price we pay for being part of the governing structure - even peripherally - is that we must remain perpetually vigilant. We must take note when the needle slips too far to one side and take action immediately to remediate the situation.
Sadly, you will never convince those who are currently content with their life to do anything excepting defend vigorously the status quo. Society as it is currently structured has obviously provided them with a life they enjoy and thus any change in these circumstances risks being to their detriment. They will oppose change with what borders on an elemental force.
"I've got mine, so fuck everyone else" is all too common an ideology.
Re: I know the Reg hates Google but @Howverydare
"Mind I suspect you may have touched a nerve and am now expecting a conflated and massive polemic on the evils of anybody Trevor doesn't agree with ...... regardless of the reality of the situation."
I don't have a huge problem with the corporate collection of data. I am, however, aware that many others do.
Yes, these companies have no choice but to hand over the data they collect. That's merely a statement of fact. Those companies, however, make a choice as to ho much data they collect. There is no evidence to say that they have been directed by national agencies to specifically collect more data than they otherwise would have.
That means that whilst I don't personally have a huge issue with the fact of corporate data collection, there is a legitimate case to be made by those who do. That means that aversion to the amount of data collected by these companies can be part of a rational decision making process that entails choosing not to use these companies.
Thus the fact of their collection - and how much they choose - to collect is relevant. As relevant (if not more so) than the fact of national dragnet surveillance. Corporate collection makes the job of the national spy agencies easier and cheaper. The companies in question can choose to collect less, or to collect in a manner that makes that collection useless to the spooks. (Unless and until ordered otherwise.)
Me, personally, I wouldn't have a huge issue with corporate collection if the spooks weren't a threat. I can choose to avoid corporate collection with simple tools. Google, Microsoft et al provide me valuable tools in exchange for my privacy, and I honestly believe many of them put effort into doing a good job to protect my privacy from everyone except the spooks.
So if I've a beef with the original poster here it is merely that one cannot realistically separate the fact of corporate collection from governmental collection in today's world. They are deeply intertwined.
Personal privacy will best be regained by curtailing and limiting the powers of our national security agencies and dialing back the surveillance state. Once the spooks are prevented from using dragnet surveillance and properly restricted to targeted surveillance then we as citizens can set about choosing how much of ourselves to reveal by choosing which corporations we interact with.
Re: Stop who?
"> There is an important difference between the two concepts. Governments are servants to their people. Rules make servants of the people."
There is a typo here. This SHOULD read:
"> There is an important difference between the two concepts. Governments are servants to their people. Rulers make servants of the people."
A subtle difference that totally changes the meaning.
Understand me clearly: I do not mind that laws exist. I do not mind the existence of rules. I do mind someone who seeks to rule me. I am nobody's subject. I am nobody's slave.
Rules that exist to prevent tragedy of the commons, this I accept. Rules that help maintain order, this I accept. Rules that exist in to instill fear in a population or to surveil their every move...these I do not accept.
Rules must exist for a society to function. But no man belongs to another, nor does any man belong to their government. Governments belong to their people. I
I have little real issue with most laws. There are too many and they are overly complicated to the point that a good cleanup could benefit us all, but for the most part they serve society. Even where laws are stupid, outdated or brought about through corrupt practice they usually have narrow impact and the existing processes allow for their redress, alteration or nullification.
This isn't the case with laws aimed to allow dragnet surveillance, remove the right to face one's accuser, strip citizens of the rights against unreasonable search and seizure or those which alter "innocent unless proven guilty" to "guilty unless we allow you to attempt to prove your innocence (which is unlikely.)" These are laws that fundamentally affect the balance of power in our nations.
These are laws that make "the national good" and "the good of the people" separate and distinct items. Those are the laws I have trouble with, and those are the laws that must be fought. The national good must always be the same thing as the good of the people. When it is not, it's time to rebuild.
Re: Stop who?
"You've never been married have you?"
Almost 2 years now. Quite happily. The wife doesn't rule me, I don't rule her. The cats, on the other hand....they might well be my masters. I'm down with that, however. Cats are superior in every way. All hail our feline overlords.
Re: Stop who?
So far we've managed to defeat several bills aimed at expanding the surveillance state, gotten all of the opposition parties onside with the idea of completely redesigning our surveillance system and even gotten commitments towards greater civilian oversight.
We've raised millions of dollars towards awareness and lawsuits to challenge the status quo. We've organized letter-writing campaigns that encompassed a noticeable percentage of our population and triggered investigations and mediation. We've even driven down the popular acceptance of the conservative party to such an extent that if the election were held tomorrow they would lose and lose badly.
Fundraising is going well, both from the spying-on-your-own-citizens and the telecoms reform groups. Enough that each has become a powerful lobby in this nation of their own right; given that they share very similar goals and are purchasing political capital with abandon we actually stand a decent chance of making a dent.
Additionally, we've sent some of our top organizers to the states to train their groups. They are responding well and they are seeing an uptick in responsiveness and funding. Enacting change in the US will take a lot longer - and it is a hell of a lot more expensive - but there is every reason to believe we will ultimately be successful.
The UK is a whole other ball of wax. Canada and the US don't have popular support for dragnet surveillance. But he UK has a strongly authoritarian society. Libertainism (either right or left) isn't very deeply embedded into the psyche of the nation and so steering them away from such a path will take decades. First, we must change the society as a whole...that takes time and even more money than lobbying in the US.
But as for how it's going? Well. Piece by piece, bit by bit, the pressure is mounting. The discussions keep occurring and popular support is growing. As for "abuse"...I stand by what I've said, sir. I do hold that your beliefs are in fact evil. You have the right to think of me what you want. It is that right - the right to think what you will and express it openly - that I am fighting for. If you choose to hate me for it, so be it.
Re: Stop who?
"Except, of course, they use what they find to blackmail you or steal vital secrets from the company you work for (or own)."
I don't' do business with them. So what do I care if they attempt to blackmail me? As for stealing vital secrets...so what? So they can make what I make or do what I do? Oh well. Let them. Their society needs people and companies that do what I do. By the time they get tooled up to match me and have enough presence to reach out of their market and compete against me in the markets I occupy I'll be several evolutions beyond them onto "the next thing."
Risk is part of life and it is certainly part of business. Vain attempts to minimize risk at the expense of freedom are pointless. Our own governments and their allies are far greater threats to the average person and business than the Russia/China boogeyman.
Re: Stop who?
With enough effort I *might* be able to convince another government to accept me into their country. At which point I've replaced my current government for another. I have no choices which involve "no government" excepting (possibly) Somalia. Even there, the local warlords that have eeeked out territory constitute a government of sorts. You are subject to the whims of those who claim the land upon you live and seek to rule you unless you are so much stronger than they that you form the ruling class on your own.
Your entire argument is a statement of "this is how it is, so learn to like it." I call that cowardly bullshit. You may be roughly accurate in describing how limited our options are - though I believe you are overly optimistic about how many options the average person realistically has - but we always have the choice to resist.
I don't accept the status quo. The status quo is inadequate and doesn't benefit me or mine. I will resist the status quo and seek change.
People, like you, who believe that the illusion of security is an acceptable trade for liberty are those against whom I the struggle must be directed. Your misguided beliefs must be changed so that the people can stand united against those who would seek to rule us.
Governance of populations is necessary, but I am no slave. I will allow no man to rule me. There is an important difference between the two concepts. Governments are servants to their people. Rules make servants of the people.
And to be perfectly clear: I'll die before I allow someone to rule me.
Re: I know the Reg hates Google but
You deny that Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other similar companies conduct planetary-wide mass surveillance up to - and in some cases over - the limit of the law?
Re: Stop who?
I can't opt out of my government. Or out from under the thumb of the USA. I can opt out of Google. There are tools that let me defeat a Google. I can install them on my computer. I have fucking nothing that will defeat people who have the legal power to tap trans-oceanic fiber or install MITM equipment in telecoms closets.
So yeah, I've got no big beef with corporations tracking things. Or rather, I do...but that is a technological arms race that I can win because they are limited to the same scope of powers I myself posses.
I have a great many issues with governmental surveillance, especially by my own country and our allies. I don't care about targeted surveillance; that's requisite and sane. Dragnet surveillance, however, places too much power in the hands of petty bureaucrats and border security agents. Both these categories have minimal-to-no oversight and unchallengeable authority.
Maybe China and Russia have similar programs. Oh well. Who cares? Their spying programs won't impact me or mine unless I try to enter their country. The same cannot be said of my own country spying on me, or of allied nations spying on me.
Allied nations share their surveillance with my nation enabling my country's petty bureaucrats to make my life miserable at will. Obey or be destroyed.
Allied nations are also where I am most likely to want to engage in business or travel for leisure. Again we encounter the real world impacts of mass surveillance, too much power and information given tot he petty thugs left to man the borders.
If they want to create terrible societies that is up to them. We claim we're "better" and more "free", we should damned well prove it. Liberty is not an acceptable price for the illusion of freedom.
Re: Cue the
"At this stage, I would rather refer people to that Microsoft online service, which no one is using, than send more people to Google."
Except Microsoft are just as evil, go out of their way to collect just as much infomration and use it in as creepy a fashion as Google do. They simply don't have the scale that Google do due to lack of "products = overpriced ass with complicated and punitive licensing."
Microsoft's are no less evil than Google. They're just douchey enough not be players on the same scale.
Dinosaurs didn't have a space program and look what happened to them.
They're still around. There's bloody billions of the things. Some of them - such as the family Corvidae - are damned near as smart as we are.
It isn't asteroids we should be worried about, it's the slow death of the Sun. It might sound stupid - the Sun is supposed to have a few billion years left - but it's not. There are maybe a billion years of habitability left on Earth. Long before the Sun expands into a red giant and blasts the atmosphere off this rock it will have been completely sterilized. Several estimates have the planet able to sustain truly complex, intelligent life for 300-400 million years at best.
In geological context, that isn't all that long. That's one more mass extinction cycle. Or one more "largeish quantities of Algea into fossil fuels" cycle, to be more precise. It's this latter that matters.
You see, the biggest issue is that fossil fuels are of finite supply. They represent the densest chemical energy source we know of and they are an absolute bitch to manufacture synthetically. Simply put: if you want to put a rocket into space fossil fuels represent the most efficient method we know of.
Once fossil fuels are gone humanity will be facing a pretty big energy crisis. How will we generate the kind of power necessary to run our ever-increasingly-power-consuming society, let alone blast payloads into orbit?
Going out into space with enough people and equipment to begin a space-faring civilization is going to take sending up a lot of material. The geopolitical realities of our species make a continent-long rail gun highly unlikely, we're hundreds (if not thousands) of years away from orbital tether technology and an energy-starved future humanity isn't going to be all that inclined to spare the power necessary for the electrolysis of $stupid quantities of hydrogen or the purification of $stupid quantities of aluminum.
(Don't say "nuclear will save us" because A) people are dumb, stupid, panicky animals and I doubt they'll ever be able to overcome the conditioning of "OMG RADIATION" so they'll cut off their nose to spite their face on that regard. B) Even if we did suddenly start to grasp basic science and accept that fission is a safe form of energy there simply isn't enough fuel to sustain our society at present technology levels matching projected demands for all that long.)
If we are ever going to get out into space with enough people and enough equipment to master the stars the time is now. Now while energy is cheap. When it can be pulled out of the ground in ready-to-use form, densely packed and easy to implement. This time will not come again for our species.
By the time there is enough fossil fuel recreated by natural processes on Earth humanity will be dead and gone and buried. Dusts of the ages and extinct a long, long time ago. Will earth birth another space-capable race in time to use that fuel? The chances aren't good...and there's really only the one more chance after us.
It is comforting to think that the Universe is teeming with life; that even our own small galaxy abounds with multiple life-bearing planets. It is comforting to believe in this because it removes from us the burden of seeding the Universe with the only known life to exist: Earth's.
Humanity will die. Earth will die. Eventually, even our Sun will die...and none of that is all that far away. Personally, I think it would be a cosmically reprehensible shame if life itself died with our planet. It would be an unimaginable tragedy if it was our own shortsightedness that meant that the only species known to have ever existed to be capable of spreading this fluke of chemistry to the stars failed to do so.
I believe that the only purpose of life is the continuation of life itself. It isn't about the continuation of our lineage, or even our species. The stakes are bigger than that. It is about ensuring that life manages to outlast the stars themselves; that the Universe is given purpose beyond mere existence by the fact that life still exists to experience it's wonders.
Our time is now. It may never come again. If Earth is, in truth, the only place in the universe where life arose - and until we have solid confirmation it exists elsewhere we must assume this to be true - then we must take advantage of what we have and act. Hie thee to the stars, earthkin; we have a duty to the universe itself to spread the seeds of experience before the brief candle of our existence is blown out.
Re: The oldest swinger in town
"Value for money" is a dirty phrase in the IT industry today.
Well, Americans probably don't have to worry about economic espionage by the NSA. Anyone else, however, is probably better off not putting their crown jewels in the hands of the yanks.
Dude...are you smoking timecubes?
- ← Prev
- Next →