Posts by Psyx 2549 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Jun 2010
"So how many laps can these Milk Floats make before they KO themselves out with a +16h recharge?"
Probably many more miles than a top fuel drag racer can do before a complete engine rebuild.
And those sprinters... can't do ten miles at that speed, can they? Totally useless sport then, isn't it?
"Well thats what you get if you don't build it here....."
Ha!
Yeah, because our Nimrods worked out so well.
There's no point us making our own aircraft: We only need a handful and the development costs are thus insane. Our new radios and the SA80 worked out so well, too.
The problem with the VTOLs we are ordering from the US is the same problem we'd have if we had made them ourselves... except less-so, because someone else does actually want the same plan (USMC). If we'd have built them ourselves the costs would have been even higher.
"Problem is they can't do that because there's no money in it because they *can't* actually beat male teams... Last year there was a Dota tournament for women (absurd thing that it was),"
It's that kind of comment that makes a lot of women not WANT to play with men/jerks. And maybe that's how the organisers see it as well: How about a competition where a proportion of the entrants won't be derided and made to feel like second class citizens.
"It's literally down to lack of killer instinct."
Wow. really? You need to be a hardened hunter-gatherer to punch a mouse with the right level of aggression?
"@psyx They're allowing separate competitions for women, banning them for men. If women can't compete with men then there would be no issue with a men-only tourny, but there was."
Agreed so far.
"The participation levels never will be up."
I disagree. They will be. Either due to more women becoming interested in the competitive side, more competitions for less 'macho' games with a broader appeal, or more women not being so intimidated by the male clique (and who don't mind being in a room which reeks of man-sweat).
"Their discrimination is based on the idea that 50% of women are gamers, which comes from surveys where an hour on Candy Crush is counted the same as playing Halo for 48 hours every weekend for the last 5 years."
I agree that their data is clearly very wrong in some manner. Perhaps for the reason you suggest (although it's a little dismissive), or perhaps other factors (most women prefer games which are not one-on-one competitive, perhaps?)
"End discrimination by not discriminating, it's that simple."
I understand and sympathise with the message. I greatly dislike positive discrimination and the whole 'X History week' thing. However, I feel that there is room (temporarily) for a less intimidating and more introductory women-only competition, even though the concept annoys me for the same reasons it annoys you. Look at it as a promotional event, rather than a permanent feature.
"Giving anyone a special category is not equality"
It is if it allows people to compete fairly. ie: Mixed Olympic 100m sprinting would be not be very mixed at all, with the winners all being male, thanks to basic physiology. We have plenty of differing weight categories in boxing, to allow fair participation.
If the lack of winning female competitors in video gaming competitions is due to some innate male biological advantage, then by all means encourage separate competitions. If it's just down to low participation, an open competition is just fine. I can see why all-woman competitions are being run (to encourage more women players), but it's something that probably needs to get kicked into touch once the participation levels are up.
"Back in the bad old days of the Cold War, computers and other similar items that were used by certain government agencies had TEMPEST protection to prevent keystrokes from being read on the grid. Problem was, the tap had to be at the main input to the building for it to be effective "
Not strictly true: TEMPEST protection stops your keystrokes and monitor display being read remotely, across the street, without having to be tapped ANYWHERE. It shields against any leaks, which otherwise broadcast exactly what is going on electronically on your computer to anyone with the relevant sensitive electronics within a hundred yards.
"The problem was a prodigious one because of the huge amount of frequency variation in local power grids. All manner of electrical devices could cause a dip or spike in neighbouring networks."
Well...yeah: That's what makes it locational data, surely?
I seem to recall an interview on the radio last year where police in the UK were using ENF to locate audio recordings geographically. It's a bit hazy, but I seem to remember that they were building up a database of locales.
If the UK Police were talking about doing it (or even trying to do it) last year, then I have no problem believing the NSA are already doing it and have been for years.
"An Apple radio is a featureless block of highly polished aluminium, surmounted with several visible valves, carefully chosen for their aesthetic appearance."
They can't patent that one*, due to plenty of prior art:
http://design-milk.com/skim-milk-hybrid-tube-amplifier-by-case-real/
*They'd still try.
"Writing doesn't pay nearly as well as systems administration. From experience, however, there's less stress in the writing. "
Oh, my day-job is much more enjoyable.
It's the abject poverty for the other 15 hours a day that's stressful!
"You've got the fringe benefit of working in what is probably the most sexist industry available."
Haha.
No.
Writers don't get the pretties and champagne. Other 'artists' are far 'sexier', and marketing bods get the expense accounts AND the salary.
"My little runabout is actually a race-car that is street legal. Full roll-cage, fuel-cell, automatic fire suppressant system, 5-point safety harness for all occupants, etc .."
Because twitchy track handling is really good for the road.
5-point harnesses are inherently dangerous for road-drivers, because if they're tight enough to work, they stop you turning for visibility. I know because I have harnesses and NEVER use them on the road. I also doubt that you've got TC and ABS. It's all very well to say how much better a skilled driver is without them, but the average driver is better off with them, and even a skilled track driver switches to 'commute mode' at times, and ABS/TC would be a boon on occasions where attention wanders in a way that it doesn't do on track days.
"Excuse me? USD 20,000 for a car with this kind of performance is available to you "off the showroom floor"? What colo(u)r is the sky on your planet? "
Isn't it $22k for a Mustang these days? Sack of cr4p pony car it might be, but the performance is probably comparable to a refurb 60s vehicle.
You can't just discard the labour time as moot in a general comparison, either. If you're seriously expressing your option as an option for general motoring (which you initially did), then cost and time is a factor. Not to mention the fact that 99% of people do not want to climb in over a roll cage, sit in a loud track-tuned car and get their fillings shaken by hard suspension in a car that regularly tries to swap ends and kill them. It is not a motoring solution for the future. It might be a motoring solution for YOU (just as my old cars are for me) but that cannot serve as a sweeping condemnation of the Tesla, or modern vehicles as a whole, or some kind of solution for everyone.
"@Psyx you mean a car where you actually have to know how to drive and where you have to think about your own skin, so you drive it more carefully? And that is bad? ;) "
Nice try, but I drive old cars which need to be double declutched and develop healthy arm muscles due to their lack of power steering, so I know from first hand experience that they are inherently dangerous in a crash, difficult to drive, lack all the signals which show drivers in today's day and age your intentions, and handle like crud.
It doesn't matter if you drive more carefully, because the car is less safe. And frankly... I don't drive more carefully in older cars anyway. It doesn't change my driving behaviour. I drive to compensate for crap handling, but not inherently more carefully: I don't give cyclists a wider birth or check more times before pulling out of a junction. Slower!= More carefully.
"I thought most developments (with regards driving aids rather than the 'leccy windows) were originally developed in Formula 1 cars"
Indeed. It's one of the main points of F1.
Which is why it kinda beggars belief that people are moaning about the new F1 power-plants.
US stock cars are stuck firmly in the past mechanically, and so are utterly irrelevant dinosaurs when it comes to automotive development.
"An internal combustion engine keeps the car nice n warm and the ice away. An electric car is going to need a big fat heater to stop them freezing which would kill their range?"
What? Do you genuinely believe that the waste heat caused by a petrol engine 12 months of a year is less than the waste heat caused by running a separate electric heater on days when you use it?
Jake, your 60s car will have drum brakes, rubbish suspension, a fair chance of just breaking at the roadside (potentially then getting stacked into), no rear belts, probably no front seat-belts either, no roll-over protection, seats not designed to survive a crash and sod-all crumple zones. There'd be no ABS or traction control and the headlights will be rubbish. It won't have hazard warning lights and might not have indicators.
If we all drove them the roads would be FAR less safe than if we all drove a car which re-defined the limits of crash tests and has a screen in the dash.
"But useless for me"
And baby nappies are useless for me as a product, too. It's also useless for me in the same way that a Ferrari is useless for me: Too expensive. Although it really doesn't matter who or how many people find it useless or how much they dislike it. Rather, it's success is gauged by the number and happiness of customers. Negative reviews by people who don't own one and are outside the demographic really are rather irrelevant. (It's not like we go onto Amazon and add 'I would never buy this as it would be useless for me' in the reviews section, is it?
"it really needs a small engine for emergency use or casual charging."
Multi-billionaire businessman disagrees. Other people are building those cars. His aim is to do something else.
"For the market it is aimed at then it would be too large for the majority of London use, if you are "big" enough to have your own parking space in London then you'd surely want a more prestigious car too."
You mean like the Roaster? I'd be far more likely to consider a Tesla prestigious and cool than a German-made jelly-mould.
"Unfortunately, with the NSA/GCHQ and other intelligence agencies thinking themselves above the law, its going to be BAU for them"
That is NOT the problem, nor the case.
The Agencies do not consider themselves ABOVE the law: They consider themselves working fully inside it and have been cleared to do so by the judiciary.
And THAT is the problem.
"Let's say that you were alive back then, and knew about this ruse. What would you do? Shout about it in public?"
No, because we were in a shooting war, the details would be specific and the operation gathered crucial military intelligence on the enemy.
Whereas Snowdon revealed fairly non-specific details of a government spying on its own people during peacetime.
Apples != Oranges.
I can't say I blame YouTube for trying to cut out the middle-man, in the same way that Amazon are doing. It means more money for them and the publishing house or label gets screwed out of business. The only thing better than a huge slice of pie is an even bigger one, as far as tehy are concerned.
In some ways it could be positive: Publishing houses and labels will have to have something else to offer artists to get them to sign on: Actual PR, advances, help in marketing et al. All things which they probably won't be able to do because it costs too much, perhaps.
I suspect the reality of the situation will be that major labels will continue to be rolling in BritainsgotXFactorTalent money and the indies will struggle and whither.
The major difference between major label artists and indie stuff as a consumer is that you have to find the indie stuff yourself, instead of being spoon-fed it via the bought-and-paid-for radio stations and Saturday night talent-show TV.
"Yes, but the overwhelming reliance on SIGINT is there in the first place because it is easy."
It's really not. You don't need a degree in computer sciences and a deep understanding of radio propagation to take photos of an ambassador snorting coke of a hermaphrodite hooker's backside.
"Here or in the US, doesn't matter. I'm sure, if they hear that there is a awful terrorist cell operating from a building next to theirs they will still be sitting in their office, shuffling their "assets", tapping phone lines, realigning satellites, reading FB and watching YouTube instead of physically going across the street and checking it out."
Err...no. That gets done as well, but *by different people*. Kicking in doors is not NSA remit, in the same way that the DEA don't guard courtrooms. NSA/GCHQ are under the spotlight at present because Snowdon leaked stuff about SIGINT/COMINT and because everyone has data to worry about. There are plenty of people still doing fieldwork. It's just they haven't had anyone showing the world their Powerpoint presentations.
Citation: How did you nail Osama? Wasn't just the NSA, was it? No over-reliance on snooping technology was responsible.
"Er, kettle, meet pot? "
My own comment was clearly intended in humour and not directed personally. People can decide if 'the tinpot brigade' applies to them or not. Telling people 'your fellow basement dwellers' and insulting their mother is highly personal. There is a gulf between the two approaches.
"I would suggest you may have an higher tolerance of mindless stupidity masquerading as intelligent comment than I do."
No, I don't. I just have some manners and don't want to devalue my points with name-calling. Discussion is about learning, understanding other opinions, influencing and enlightening. Even if you believe you have nothing to learn, if you want someone to come around to your point of view, telling them their mother made a grave mistake is not a constructive tack. Of course, if people are debating purely in order to give themselves a hard-on and slag people off then personal insults is totally the way to fly.
Even stopped clocks are right twice a day, and points can often be learned from fallible sources.
And there's really no point going into a conversation with the preconception that the other person is an idiot and you're there to tell them so, as it really achieves nothing bar bad karma.
"PysX and Mat Bell**d should pay attention to this too, in answer to "Why are we suprised...??"
Well, I'm not suprised when criminals steal things, or break into cars, or commit acts of violence etc etc. No. Not suprised. but I DO expect the LAW to do something about it if and when those acts are against the law as it stands."
So do I. However, according to the court's interpretation of it, GCHQ are working within the law by not intercepting UK-'internal' comms, NSA aren't breaking it by not intercepting US'-'internal' comms, and as long as neither one reveals the source of intelligence [which ois NEVER done, so as to protect sources], they can swap information and it's all perfectly legal.
I don't like it just as much as you don't but the problem isn't that our intelligence agencies are BREAKING the law - they're not - the problem is that the sidestepping is perfectly legally legitimate.
In fact, I'd say that it's more of an issue that what has gone on is perfectly legal than if they were breaking the law.
"Under EU law, as it stands, the actions of the NSA and their covert partners are illegal and are subject to legal action."
Stop press: Nations say that other nations spying on them is illegal. So it has always been, so it always will be. No amount of whining by ANY court in ANY nation will stop other nations spying on it. Legal prevention must come from within and will never be dictated by what anyone else says.
"Your arguments that we should be suprised and they're not targeting me personally are not valid in the eyes of the Law of the European Union."
Yes, and we ignore it routinely on a swathe of matters (unfortunately, on the whole). And good old UKIP want us to vote for them so they can ignore the 'stupid' dictates of the European Court of Human Rights, to boot. (laughably retarded statement, because opting out of EU doesn't opt out of the rulings of that organisation)
"You may now proceed to call me names, set up straw-man arguments, dig for ad hominem attacks against those named in the article"
I think you may be confusing me with someone else.
"You know, all the same old bollocks and crap arguments you usually spout and we're all so very, very bored with. Try to argue above the level of a fifteen year old if you can."
Wow... so seriously, your request for civil debate is to play victim and then deliver some name-callign at the end? Putting that aside, I'm not 'arguing' with 'crap arguments', it's a simple fact. I'm not defending mass data trawling and I dislike the idea greatly. But the *fact* is that what GCHQ and NSA are doing is legal *in their own nations*, and THAT is the problem: Not 'they're breaking the law'. That it is illegal in target nations is moot, because so is every other form of spying that we've done. That's not opinion: They're the facts that we have to try to work with.
"So, they're looking for Al Qaeda terrirists on Facebook and Tw@tter... Found many?"
They've probably nicked a shit-load of people talking trash and inciting violence. Probably not so many actual bomb plotters.
"I'd say the real reason they do that is because they can and it's easier to sit in an air conditioned office reading some teenager's personal messages for laughs than to do the actual, old-fashioned, put-on-your-dish-dash-and-go-to-the-desert-and-speak-to-some-arabs kind of actual intelligence..."
Because GCHQ do that, don't they?
SIGINT is what GCHQ do. MI6 go and talk to other people overseas and MI5 bug people in Bromley. You might as well complain that the NHS isn't re-airing enough episodes of Bottom in the wake of Rik Mayall's death.
And do you honestly believe that Facebook is analysed by actually reading teenager's posts one at a time?
And talking to people in deserts is a pretty poor way of getting information in comparison to trawling data. And much more expensive. It still goes on, but it doesn't do much to decrease *domestic* terrorism, does it? Or do you think that some bloke in a village in 'Stan knows more about credible UK bomb threats than the people in the UK potentially organising it?
"You want case studies; I lived in Canada and Germany, so here are the local case studies involving the US:"
Not applicable. I asked for case studies backing up the assertion than GCHQ (specifically) imprison people at black sites.
So far I've been cited agencies of other nations doing stuff and an MI6 whistleblower doing a year in a perfectly normal jail. That's not even close.
I'm interested to know how people came to conclusions despite having zero evidence.
A prison is not a black site.
I see an awful lot of downvotes in the wake of asking for a SHRED of evidence, but the tinfoil hat squad appear to have diddly shit to back up their ramblings.
GCHQ don't hit people over the head and pull people's teeth out anyway. Anyone who things they do has an inherent lack of knowledge about the basics of what our security services do and where their responsibilities start and end.
On the other hand, cellphones themselves aren't allowed in prisons.
That they're common as stripy shirts is indicative of a failure in the prison services, rather than a cue to up the regulation. Being too inept to prevent the ingress of drugs and phones should not be seen as a free pass to get the proverbial big guns out.
"We're shit, we want more power to compensate" is a poor path to stride down.
For example: If the clear-up rate on violent crime goes down to 10%, should the police be allowed to interdict our communications willy-nilly? How about if our military can't achieve an objective due to ineptitude: Should we then give them some tactical nuclear weapons?
That said, I'm arguing against myself here: I do support phone jamming in prisons. But not if it means less effort being put into physical searches.
"If it was communism at work they'd have a whole factory devoted to making lime-green left hand shoes and another factory 700 miles away turning out bright red right hand shoes, for hundreds of times the going market rate. "
That's bad management, not Communism. There is no practical reason why Communist nations should be any more disorganised than non-Communist ones. It's just that the track record to date has been poor in places.
"But hey, they'd have 100% employment so that's something, right?"
Yes, it is.
" Thank communism and its consequences."
Plain stupid, plain wrong.
Number of phone jammers sold to US by hard-line, Communist China: 0
Number of phone jammers sold to US by capitalist, moderate, consumerism China: Lots.
China didn't used to flood the market with crap in efforts to make money prior to turning all capitalist. If you want to cry and whine, then it's the opposite culprit to the one you claim it to be: Capitalism, not Communism.
"So OK for NSA/GCHQ to do it but if some hacking group comes pissing in their yard then it's NOT OK"
Yeah, and it's ok for the government to nick a bunch of my wages from my paypacket, but if I do it to other people, it's theft! I AM OUTRAGED!
When the council put marks on the road it's OK, but when I do it' it's vandalism! I AM OUTRAGED!
DOUBLE STANDARDS!!
"Sure, but electric, steam, and diseasel cars were worse than the horse, so the horse was the best option available."
The horse was not the best option available though, as evidenced by the increasing popularity of electric cars and bicycles in the era. The horse wasn't even the best option against the horse-drawn carriage. For non-urban transport the steam locomotive was the best option.
"Once the car could achieve a similar daily range (albeit at a lower speed per hour), the future of transport was set."
That's selecting a line of reason after the matter to fit the modern issue, though. It was not solely increased range that sealed the deal, as said: It was the increased practicality due to other technical advances improving the design, that they became cheaper to run AND the range outstripped electric cars (which were slowly starting to win the battle against horses). Range was not the deciding factor... because of the train again. And remember we're talking old cars. 100 miles in a 100 year old car is a bit of an adventure, not a trivial matter.
"Sure they did. A horse can optimistically go about 40 miles per day."
[Heard of the Pony Express? ;) I know it's not overly relevant, but every long-distance horse messaging or courier or stage-coach network changed horses regularly.]
"The vehicle carried 3 people on this occasion, which no horse could do over a similar distance even if it could cover the ground."
Which would be relevant if the late Victorians were covering long distances on horseback, but they were not. They used carriages (which held more than the cited vehicle) for shorter runs and trains for longer runs. Trains left cars of any kind and horses standing for long-distance travel.
Which is relevant today: The combination of short-range electric car and long-range public transport normally moots the need for a long-range electric car... or would do if public transport didn't suck balls quite as hard as it does. *grumble*
"you'd need more than 8000 horses (assuming a 200 horsepower car)."
HP != BHP, remember. And 'horsepower' doesn't even equal horse power.
"The modern leccy car has 120 years of automotive development to overcome"
It can bootstrap a lot of that by simply using existing automatic tech though. We don't need to invent windscreen wipers again. Most of what we have learned is relevant to electric cars. It will take a lot less time, this time around.
Petrol cars spent the first half of their existence as pretty much a luxury product, rather than a mainstream one. I doubt it will take electricity as long to catch up. It'll be a bit rubbish if it does!
"I need a cheap track day car "
No such thing, is there? ;)
"but since it cost £500 to buy and has been reliable for the past 3 years, she may be waiting a while "
This is my problem, too: I do so *few* miles that coughing up for a new car that's much more efficient would be an epic waste of cash. Especially given that my motor only costs about £250 a year to service and maintain.
"in terms of speed, comfort, reliability and sheer usefulness. " <citation required>
How are electric cars inherently slower (clue: They aren't, they're theoretically faster), less comfortable (they aren't: They're quieter and just as comfortable), less reliable (they aren't: Far fewer moving parts and bits to break) or useful (except as regards range)?
"The purpose of a bus lane is to get buses around the city more effectively."
From my non-London perspective, the problem with the buses is not that they are slowed down by traffic. Bus lanes are not the crippling factor or massive enabler to their use. The problem is that the service sucks, is hugely intermittent and is grossly over-priced.
I'd quite like to see bus lanes around here getting used more than once an hour!
[None of that invalidates your points, it's simply my local observation on the horrific waste of space that bus lanes are around here. Money should have been spent on making the service better, rather than building them and butt-f*cking everyone else]
So this guy... who is working on a project to "improve our understanding of how the dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice will impact weather" (citation: http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/mathematics/staff/js546 )
... you're supporting his view on the subject, even though you don't agree that Arctic ice is retreating?
Cherry picking level up!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
