2112 posts • joined 4 Jun 2010
Re: Taiyuan Navigation Friend Aviation Technology
Or maybe the person flying it feinted due to lack of calories.
Re: The 1950s want their values back
"A bit like the kids that would call me names at school because I beat them all at maths."
Glad to see that you've completely gotten over it, though.
How I hated him.
Nearly as much as Scrappy Doo.
He needed to die.
With fire and acid.
Re: .. Fukishima Residents Never Allowed Home?
"There have been articles on El Reg making exactly this point."
Yeah, but they were by Lewis, so hardly impartial...
Re: .. Fukishima Residents Never Allowed Home?
To be fair: America did a great GREAT job of nuking itself stupid fifty years ago, so it could well be the radiation still...
Re: MIT boffins moot tsunami-proof floating nuke power plants
"There's also a floating nuclear plant in the US"
The Nimitz, Abe Lincon, Ronald Reagan...
Then there's the really clever underwater ones... the San Juan, Santa Fe, Boise...
"That's because floating power nuke plants are a daft idea - rogue waves or off course ships pose more likely hazards than tsunami, but either could be as devastating for a floating nuke plant."
How many aircraft carriers have sunk in the last 25 years? Seems fairly safe so far: We just need to make sure the floating power stations have a pointy bit at the front!
Re: As has been proved time
Exactly. It's a concerted effort, beyond the ken of most drug-addled thieves. By the time they get it to someone who can do it, the owner has hopefully realised it's gone and had it locked down or tracked.
Security is never 100% foolproof in stopping people getting in. The point is to slow people down enough that they are likely to be noticed.
Re: @ Semtex451
What pisses me off more is the BBC constantly referring to tweets in stories. It's fucking lazy journalism.
Re: Twitter = marketing and PR
"I'd be interested to know the other reasons why a person actually puts things on twitter."
1) Because some people like entertaining others and making them laugh.
Yes, Twitter is a massive marketing tool and used for self-promotion, but there are a lot of people on there who simply enjoy sharing a bit of mirth/sarcasm/stupidity.
2) Some people don't live in the free world, with free press, or a right to protest. Twitter is a valuable tool for sharing information, organising protest and getting news out of war-torn sh*t-holes.
Even if traffic from '1' and '2' are only TWO percent of Tweets, it's still worth having in our world.
Re: Only 44%?
"Twitter has always struck me as being an incredibly narcissistic premise to begin with, there must be a hell of a lot of self-flattery underlying their usage statistics."
Well...yeah. It's shouting to the world that you've just bought a new toothbrush in the hope that dozens [millions in some cases] will be excited to hear this utterly boring piece of news about you.
But people are narcissistic. So it works.
It was never supposed to really reduce costs.
Like many things that publicly floated companies do, it increased share-price, which contributes to the value of the company, as opposed to doing things effectively which makes a public company more efficient but no more valuable.
It's a trap that many publicly listed companies fall into. Their share value is about perception and being seen to be doing the 'next big thing'. Many of these same companies ploughed millions into failed e-comm projects first time around and never realised much real gain from them in terms of bottom line... but who needs to when it secures a 10% share value hike?
Off-shoring has been wildly successful in terms of doing what the Board wants it to do. It's just that 'being effective' is not part of the requirements.
They were fasting, but only between meals.
Re: Did the NSA write this bug?
"The hole is so elegant"
No it's not.
"you would wonder if NSA wrote it."
Only if ill-equipped with facts and predisposed towards such an opinion. It's certainly not one that it would be easy to come to without a hefty bias towards conspiracy.
"If indeed they failed to act, that implies they didn't see this as a threat to any national data"
Assuming they knew about it, which is hell of a leap. "Something exists ergo the NSA know about it and if they don't, they suck" is a completely irrational and illogical response.
"which suggest they knew it wasn't originated overseas or by black hat types. That means they are likely perps!"
Assumption based on assumption.
Odd how it conforms to your existing opinion.
"Because one source has an extensive recent history of deep untruthiness."
Whereas 'unnamed sources' have?
'Unnamed sources' is newspaper talk for 'we made it up and this way don't have to give a citation or be legally accountable'.
If pressed on the matter, they can claim it was a mate in the pub who empties dustbins.
Re: Maybe I'm naive,
"Basically, if the NSA did not know about this before public disclosure then they are incredibly incompetent because it's something they claim to be doing"
How the heck do you expect the NSA to find every security flaw before the rest of the entire planet?
If I walk into your office and spot a way of doing something better, does that mean you are incompetent? By your measure it does.
"NSA was not aware of the recently identified Heartbleed vulnerability until it was made public."
...and someone isn't getting their bonus because of it.
"If the NSA didn't know about this bug... what are they getting so much money for?"
So... you expect them to be utterly all-seeing and all-powerful, but at the same time take issue with the fact?
*sometimes* several million people come up with stuff that several thousand highly trained professionals don't.
It just happens.
"I have seen more than one completely coherent post from amanfromMars"
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.
It's nearly like the time GCHQ invented public key encryption...
... and didn't tell anyone for 20 years.
But we were all ok with that, at the time.
Re: Wrist, meet slap
Yes, it's all Obama's fault.
None of the hacking was authorised under Bush at all.
Re: Taking a Walk on the WWWild
He's always like that.
It's not supposed to make any sense; merely to drain your sanity away.
"but It is not far off even money that a nasty one will."
Yes it is. Citation needed.
"The plan I would adopt would be to buy up a few Soyuz chasses, a few thermionuclear powerplants, and a few medium-powered lasers (ideally I'd get some of the USASF high-powered lasers they were talking of putting into their fighter jets,"
Only one of those things exists in the real world, y'know?
"You see, with one Soyuz-plus-laser installation ahead of the asteroid, I could slow it down and change its orbit coming out the inner system"
Let's see the maths. We're back to the 'bad at numbers' things again, where rocks weighing a million tons moving at 20 miles per second can be waved clear by lasering them.
Re: Wiped out species in existence?
"So after the apocalypse, life will begin again outside offices and in shelters outside of pubs."
Certainly that's where civilisation will bootstrap itself.
"The only reason there is not a huge concern about such an event is because people are bad with figures."
Really? I would say the opposite. We are bad with figures, therefore we grossly overestimate the threat. Humans toss the word 'million' around casually without registering how vast it is. We happily turn the stupidly huge into something trite and worry about grossly improbable things, instead of worrying about the far-more-probable.
Looking at a thousand years of future, we'd be astronomically unlucky to get hit with a rock that big: A millions to one chance, even without the consideration that there were a lot more space rocks floating around our solar system 3 billion years ago.
The problem then is not us being bad at numbers, but bad at risk assessment. The odds are stupidly long, but it's essentially 'game over' for humanity. We should keep an eye out for big rocks not because of how likely they are (they aren't) but how devastating they will be. That's almost another problem though: they will be so potentially catastrophic that civilisation is likely to be knocked on its ass. Hence: There won't be any economy, hence no profit, hence it's not something large organisations have an active interest in. If everyone will be screwed afterwards and the odds are long, why financially disadvantage in the current timeframe yourself to ward against a threat that won't materialise.
Poor risk assessment skills and greed are the main issues, not being bad at numbers.
There weren't really many of them*. [French] history tells us that the countryside was awash with people in berets fighting the Germans, but the reality is that 99% of the country rolled over.
* but kudos to the ones that there were.
"Fine, ignore the phone, ignore the email as instructed but when you come into work on Monday and find you have been out manoeuvred by a foreign company..."
Yeah, sure: Dress it up and play sexy. Let's pretend every 11am call is of critical importance and all the cool cats in the office are taking them.
I'm calling 'horse-shit' on that, though.
Because we all know that 95% of 11pm calls are because someone has lost a password, failed to read an email properly, can't follow instructions, or just wants their hand held because they are being a scaredy-cat can't take the responsibility of making a decision on their own. Ergo: A waste of fscking time that they could have avoided by way of having to think for five minutes before reaching for the phone.
Re: Allowable overtime means they can creep up to almost 40 hours?
I agree with the sentiment regarding tax and handouts, and that industry breaks are often for the lame horses.
However, they're also for any company floated on the market, who -unlike yourself- will never have 'enough', because they are always legally obliged to seek more. Whereas you might be happy to hand out a million bucks for a job well done because - well, how are you going to find time to spend it yourself - but a company owned by shareholders would rather not. And they'd quite like a tax break, too. And a handout.
Although -as I stated- I agree with the sentiment, I can't condone the self-righteous attitude that seems to have come with it. working 100 hours a week and having lots of money doesn't really make you a better person, so perhaps you can stow some of that.
Re: 9 to 5
"Oh how awful, I didn't hear it ring".
Not something I'm personally comfortable doing, or would recommend because it means you're letting someone down. If you're being rung on a work phone out of hours it tends to be important, and ignoring it is inconveniencing someone and annoying them: Bad Karma.
More to the point: If you never had any intention of answering it, their expectation is at odds with your intention. And them finding that out at a crucial moment is not going to work out too well for either party: You are both annoyed and there may be fall out.
You need to lay it down *beforehand* that you won't answer the phone at weekends and leave it on your desk. That way your manager won't be blaming you for not answering, but will be blaming the person who expected help from someone who had made it clear in advance that it would not be forthcoming.
Sometimes it's best to state your intentions in advance.
About 1942, when enforced by the Gestapo?
Re: I agree
But on the other hand, if someone is taking the money for call-out and doesn't pick up, I go fucking mental and take it to their boss on Monday morning. Pocketing call-out and not being able/willing to respond is fraud.
Re: 9 to 5
"If it is a company phone, it is "expected"."
Then refuse the company phone, or pointedly leave it on your desk every evening.
Their supplying of a £30 phone does not entitle them to you doing free overtime.
If you are expected to answer a company phone out of hours then you seriously need to hand it back or do some negotiating.
Re: My phone
"I'm not lucky enough to be able to rely on a company or state payout every month, I actually have to work for a living."
I think I speak for every non-self-employed person who works hard reading this when I say 'bog off': Being your own boss doesn't magically mean you work harder than any of the rest of us.
And if you're too obsessed with your own business to have the sense to turn off your phone and enjoy your free time, that's your own fault and lack of discipline.
"Do you get your facts from Socialist Worker?"
That's right, Ledswinger: Everyone who disagrees with you is a Communist.
Not that there is anything wrong with reading newspapers and articles which are written from a perspective different from one's own. Quite the reverse: An intelligent man reads to challenge his conceptions and opinions, not to receive the soapy hand-job of having one's existing opinions propped up by the printed word.
In short, if you really look down upon anyone because they have read the Socialist Worker (or indeed anything which you personally disagree with politically), then you're being remarkably ignorant. If you use it as an actual insult, then you are merely advertising that ignorance.
"Remember "party lines"?"
No, because I'm not 70.
"Nationalisation saw our domestic car industry go from world leading to woeful, left our aerospace industry as a single firm that no longer makes an entire aircraft in its own right, created basket case monopolists like BT, or customer haters like British Airways. And you want more?"
Those are all grossly misleading brush-strokes. 'Nationalisation' didn't cause the problems: Bad management, shit unions, an oil crisis and other factors caused those issues. There is no reason that a nationally owned organisation can't be as effective as a private one. You just have to staff it with the same calibre of people and make it accountable.
Re: The needle returns to the start of the song...........
"Other countries in the EU would presumably still want to buy stuff from the UK if we left the EU, with their Euros being exchanged for a given quantity of Pounds Sterling...."
Plus all the additional taxes and levies for cross-border trading that would make us an expensive option. Being an EU member means that we get to trade with other EU nations without too much BS and tax. Certainly my own company would be boned if we left the EU and I'd be filling in a UB40. Still: I could always get one of those great minimum wage, factory shift work jobs that those nasty immigrants 'stole'. Y'know: the jobs that help boost our own economy. There's a reason why you don't hear properly wealthy people complaining about Poles and Romanians: Because we're profiting from them being here.
Remember too all the corporations who set up factories in the UK in the confidence that they can freely trade good made there with the rest of Europe. There's no frikkin' way any more of those will get built if we leave the EU.
Ultimately, the EU is good for us. It doesn't 'force' us to do anything because we have a veto. The reason why unpopular things sometimes get through to us is because our own politicians have agreed to them and not used a veto, not because Brussels made us. We are one of the big players in the EU, and that beats the hell out of being on our jack jones. It's not like the US wants to be our buddy any more now they don't need the extra runways.
That 'Europe' is bad for us is a blatant lie, told by people who lie for a living, in the hope that you will vote for them and give them both a free meal ticket. It's not like they could actually disengage us from Europe anyway. More than a casual examination of the facts makes it quite obvious that we are better off in the EU than without it.
I still don't like the French, but I'd rather be with them than without them.
Yup: Because clearly the ones stealing all the money *are the ones who are still poor and don't have accountants*. Definitely not the rich people who play bridge with judges.
Re: "UKIP are the only real option in the next elections"?? UKidding?
"they want to massively increase defence spending whilst, at the same time, introducing a Flat Tax that will save money for those who fall below its level and those who earn large amounts whilst leaveing those in the middle stuck with the bill."
So... kind of Nationalist AND Socialist, too.
I wonder why that's never been tried before?
Re: The needle returns to the start of the song...........
"UKIP are the only real option in the next elections"
Clearly you have no idea just how fucked this country's economy will be without the EU.
I would rather drink a pint of spit than vote for those scum.
I guess they've picked up on the casual rural racism thing, then!
Re: Agenda here?
"ignoring the fact that if people stopped eating meat it would result in widespread culling of herds of animals that have been bred purely as a source of food."
To be fair, it wouldn't happen over night, so animals would be culled for food until there was no more demand, so that's a bit of a spurious argument.
I would also argue that mass-farmed indoor pigs, cattle and poultry would be better off not being born than having their current lifestyle. Hi: welcome to life. Welcome to crowding, food in pellets, no sunshine and certain death in the next few months! Yeah: I'll pass. And I'm not even a veggie animal lover!
"What do you want to bet that if the increase in cancer wasn't on the organic side that it would have been announced from the rooftops instead of ignored?"
That doesn't stop the fact that the research would still have been carried out, the paper written and sat in an archive, though.
Re: 1 in 10 reasons probably invalid, so all invalid?
"So don't call it a straw-man argument. It's not. Rather a lot of folks make exactly that claim."
A lot of people thing the planet is flat and that invisible fairies live in the garden, though. Even most of the proponents of organic produce generally think that's horseshit.
Re: @Psyx -- Luxury item
"As I point out in the latter post, the single biggest problem in this debate is the morbid fear of chemicals and chemical pollution that has griped the population over the past few decades, it's so all-embracing that the matter cannot effectively be part of the public discourse."
Broadly agree with all other points, and mostly this one.
Personally, I don't have a morbid fear of chemicals. However, we don't have a great track record for pollution, with every generation spewing a selection of things into our water table and air that causes the next generation to exclaim "What the F&$K were you THINKING?". Those are the cock-ups that I'd like us to avoid, rather than a "pump it out and it'll probably be fine" attitude. That might be fine 99% of the time and ok if its your back garden, but when those are bad odds when the sample area is the place where we all live.
tl;dr: I believe a little more caution and forethought should be used when we're screwing with entire habitats, based on our track record of fucking things up epically in the past and the fact that the people making these calls are motivated by short term profit.
Re: Missed the point much?
Nicotine sure tastes good to me.
Humour aside, it's simply a blind assertion to claim that all organic farmers are hosing things down with 'old' pesticides. There are lots of organic farmers and lots of methods. Making un-cited blanket comments doesn't make it true.
"Is Google broken in your part of the world?"
Silly me: I thought it was for the person making 'factual' 'scientific' statements to back them up with some form of citation and reference.
It's those inorganic photons I worry about. They're like MADE of radiation!
Re: If food is not "organic", it logically must be "inorganic"
"Everything I eat, with two exceptions, is organic."
You know words can mean more than one thing, right?
In other words: Do you really want to side with the kind of idiot who says "Relativity and evolution are only theories"?
Re: Agenda here?
"But be aware that if you do drink milk a little baby calf has been born to die, so don't think you are on the moral high ground if you don't eat it yourself."
That's not a legitimate thing to do though. We all have moral lines and we all go as far as we are willing: We make only the sacrifices we want to and then draw a line, and it's not for others to say "You're a dick because your line isn't quite in the right place" - regardless of if they're vegan or carnivore. I think the whole "You suck as someone who cares about animals because you drink milk" thing - and similar accusations - are wholly inappropriate. It's like saying "You only make a small difference, so you're a hypocrite and shouldn't bother at all".
On the other side of the fence, I get similar comments from veggies sometimes: "You eat meat, scum" [or slightly more polite words to that effect]. When the reality is that I eat meat once every day or two and generally avoid beef because I recognise that it is a wasteful luxury that I don't need to fill my face with at every meal. But people are unwilling to give credit for a partial victory and try to make it a black and white distinction*. Another example is condemning someone as a smoker when they're down to a pack a week.
I personally believe we should give more credit for partial 'victories', instead of saying "You haven't done enough". After all: A lot of us do give a toss about the planet, but not enough to go and live in a box without modern consumer comforts, so ultimately we're all kinda doing half a job as regards whatever moral causes we support.*
* Don't even get me started on vegans who own nine meat-eating cats who eat more meat on a daily basis than I do and have a go at me eating a bit of chicken.
**Unless you happen to be one of the genuinely altruistic people who lives in a box in Cambodia and digs up landmines for a living. Next to those people we are all a bit hypocritical, I feel.
Re: Agenda here?
"Get invited to dinner by a vegetarian and what are the chances they will take your meat eating into account and cook accordingly? Yup square root of fuck all."
Well, you always have the option of not going.
Many veggies don't want to handle meat because they find it disgusting. I don't believe they should have to feel physically nauseous just to cater to my *preference* of eating meat. Which is the difference: There is nothing to stop me going a meal without meat except for a simple preference, whereas the opposite corner is a moral choice.
Of course they also have the option of not turning up at my BBQs... :)
- Review Ubuntu 14.04 LTS: Great changes, but sssh don't mention the...
- Vid CEO Tim Cook sweeps Apple's inconvenient truths under a solar panel
- Antique Code Show WTF happened to Pac-Man?
- HTC mulls swoop for Nokia's MASSIVE Chennai plant
- Study shows dangerous asteroid impacts hit Earth every six months