* Posts by SuccessCase

1046 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Jan 2011

Google accused of hypocrisy over Glass ban at shareholder shindig

SuccessCase

"Page responded that the company was committed to allowing users to control their own content as one of its core values."

Except for when said content has been requisitioned by the NSA.

Unemployed? Ugly? Ugh, no thanks, says fitties-only job website

SuccessCase

Re: At least with this site...

@Gio Ciampa

As Mick Hucknall once said, "I use to be butt ugly, but then I became rich and famous and now I'm really good looking."

My bleak tech reality: You can't trust anyone or anything, anymore

SuccessCase

"As to storing them on my local machine being somehow "safe"...tell me, sir, are you 100% positive - willing to bet your finances, your job, your life on the fact - that your local machine is not compromised by malware?"

Nope.. and I haven't anywhere said that.

And if any children out there there think they can ever be safe, I recommend, reading about the exploits of Kevin Mitnick in Cyberpunk. It makes a nice bedtime story.

SuccessCase

"Both these options have their own significant problems. The centralised LastPass store is an unbelievably tempting target for every ne'er-do-well on the planet. Although it is defended by a team of über cyber ninjas, if LastPass should fall, everyone who uses it is screwed."

Don't know how LastPass works, but previously I have used Passpack, which also uses two factor authentication. Passpack uses one password to access the service and the second to encrypts your password database locally, using Javascript (so the code is open and inspectable), before uploading it to the server. Therefore the risk of compromise is only on the local machine or, if the Passpack servers are compromised, an extreme brute force attack on the encrypted data blob. The latter is possible but is far from easy and if it becomes commonplace, then we are in the shit from all directions for all services anyway.

Former Microsoft Windows chief: I was right to kill the Start button

SuccessCase

Above, meant to say "this was not a MS business event", as of course the D conference is a business event.

SuccessCase

Actually, listening to him speak, I was surprised by how low level he sounded. He didn't talk numbers, he didn't talk financials, he didn't talk like someone who meaningfully owned the product definition. He sounded like an experienced senior product manager or head-of-product, who has spent so long navigating company politics he can no longer think outside the spun version of "reality" he has chosen to inhabit. Ironically if he had just provided some acknowledgement the crown has slipped and MS have to fight to get it back, he would have been able command much more authority and sound like the executive at the high level he actually inhabited. But no, in his version of "reality" all is roses. He was speaking to the audience like they were employees at a company convention who by virtue of being employees have to submit to the management principle you should only be allowed to look forward to positive outcomes, not backwards to the negative. This was not a business event. It was a chat, a chance to reminisce, an opportunity to relate to the world some of what it was like for him to work at Microsoft. At no point, did I feel we were hearing what he really thinks. There is a lot of value in the principle of looking to the positive when it is applied authentically and by a realist, but often and by Sinofsky, it was used to avoid acknowledging the Elephant rampaging about the room.

Right there, I thought, is MIcrosoft's problem. In a big company you end up with division of ownership along political lines and that results in political speak and the need to commit huge energy to get any job done. I wanted to shake him and say, "it's OK to criticise some aspects of the company. It's ok to say the innovators dilemma is a harder deal at Microsoft because, just look at the history, understandably we have a sacred cow." We get it that that places some very tricky constraints on product development at Microsoft. I don't see him as weak because he couldn't overhaul that after all it's pretty clear to the world only Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer can sign-off on truly radical departures from the status quo.

Google nuke thyself: Mountain View's H.264 righteous flame-out

SuccessCase

Re: @SuccessCase

@SimB Very true, re use of H.264 throughout the industry and I'm well aware of the content production and delivery pipeline technologies (my job is directing Digital TV integration projects). I'm not sure what you are saying contradicts anything I have written however. There are plenty of examples of predominant pro formats differing from consumer formats. MP3 being one.

The risk for Apple remained that WebM would gain traction and would be used for the Web, especially if MPEG LA imposed onerous license terms, which they were all set to do if it wasn't for the need to stave off the threat from Web-M - so Google did the industry a favour in that regard.

It's interesting that if you buy a consumer video camera, still to this day (or at least the last time I checked which was about 2 years ago) use of the technology for business will be forbidden by the license terms and that is because use of H.264 is cost free only for consumer use. Of course this is totally f**king stupid and the chance of me getting sued for using my (now ageing) consumer Cannon HF100 is slim at best. However in theory, if not in any practical reality, were I to use it for business (which was it's original intended use), MPEG LA could come after me for license fees.

SuccessCase

Re: Bad timing last time?

@Charles 9. Agreed. Employ game theory on this one and it is clear why the market moved as it did. The point is codec support doesn't need to be exclusive. You can support multiple codecs on a single device. However iOS devices were built to support H.264 in hardware and discourage use of anything other than hardware based video decoding. This was one of the key technology standards battlegrounds and saw it as essential to the iOS experience. Apple were much more on a knife edge on this one than many people realise and it could be argued widespread H.264 support was essential to the success of iOS as a platform.

I'm sure Steve Jobs understood this and I believe it was one of the key, for the most part under the radar, tactical battles Apple was engaged in from 2007 onwards. It is IMO a less publicised, but potentially more important reason why Apple were so down on Flash than the oft quoted headline reason of security. Flash had of course became, over time, mainly used as a means to ensure cross platform video decoding on PC's. But on PC's you don't care if decoding is being done in software and a lot of power is used doing it. Flash, if it were supported by Apple devices, could, of course, have supported hardware decoding of H.264video as well, but then users would also have expected it to work with all the video codecs it works with on a PC. That would have meant the user would never have been aware if a video was software decoded and draining the battery 5 times faster than the same video encoded as H.264 would have done.

Google I think also understood this and I believe, conveniently consonant with the policy of supporting open standards, they saw WebM was as a means to split the market and, potentially, leave Apple stranded on an Island with many websites not support the only video codec iOS devices properly support (you have apps which offer software decoding of video, but the experience isn't integrated with the Core OS). There can be little doubt if H.264 hadn't stuck it would have been very damaging to Apple.

In the end, as Web-M was late to the party, the market only really had a choice between A) support H.264 and provide for every important device in terms of market share, or B) support both Web-M and H.264 and provide for every possible device. There was no real option C) to provide for Web-M only because, in the event, given the success of iOS (and the resolute stance against Flash), even if it wasn't the majority of the market, it was clearly becoming a significant high value chunk of the market.

Given the choices A) and B) most content providers then reasoned they only really needed to support A). I mean if you think about YouTube and the sheer quantity of video stored there, imagine the cost now for Google of maintaining Web-M encoded versions of the video (especially given only a tiny fraction of what is stored is actually viewed more than a few times). They surely must have implemented dynamic transcoding of video from H.264 to WebM at the time a device requests it and the vast majority of video must surely be stored H.264 encoded. I would like to know if they have publicly admitted what the ratio of stored video formats are. I think it likely they would decline to answer that question, but perhaps someone on here knows.

First 'adult' app for Google Glass planned 'within days'

SuccessCase

Re: Chat roulette just got scarier!

A can of worms has just been opened. Not sure it's going to help the Google cause if when you are walking through an airport and someone wearing Google Glass looks at your children, you are unsure if they have an app loaded that is scanning faces in the hope of identifying hook-ups. Regardless of the practical risk (which is in all honestly likely near zero), it still nevertheless crosses the creepy line.

World's richest hobo (Apple) has worked 'tax-free' in Ireland since '80s

SuccessCase

Re: Easy answer then

I agree with Steve your argument is a ridiculous comparison. However I understand you are trying to underline a point of principle and I don't wholly disagree with your broader point. However I return to the example I have already given you and ask again - would you personally voluntarily pay more inheritance tax given the scenario I outlined?

Higher tax isn't in and of itself a moral good. Indeed forced money transfer often results in great inefficiency and often becomes a handy excuse for people to not help the neighbour in need next door.

As it happens, I agree Apple paying virtually no tax in Ireland is a problem. However bear in mind there is stored up tax potential in those funds because when they want to move them to do something useful with them (e.g. to the US), then they have to pay tax on them. Cook is facing a very real headache that is a product of success and it is not merely a hypothetical problem. As soon as he repatriates the money, tax is paid and once tax is paid, if the money is needed somewhere else in the world for other Apple operations it cannot be transferred there tax efficiently. Why should all offshore funds result in US corporation tax being paid instead of say British corporation tax or Dutch corporation tax when there are also operations there and funds may be needed there.

The US has no moral priority in demanding payment of the tax.

Because most people don't operate trans-nationally, they simply don't get the extent to which any set of rules are quite arbitrary with regard to morally which tax jurisdiciton has priority. These are very real problems and *it is* the role of government to resolve them, not Tim Cook.

Irish politicians disingenuous to claim they have not contributed to this problem because there is absolutely no question they knew exactly what it meant to set up a near zero corporation tax zone. They knew it would result in many international businesses locating there and that is precisely why they did it. This is what disgusts me most about politicians. When they say something because they know the mass of the public only has time for the soundbite, and they know every time the public will "bite" on the claim "It's the fault of the greedy corporation making billions." So they deliberately mischaracterise because they only have to say it for the meme to stick. They know all too well how the dynamic of public opinion works and can be manipulated. It is one of the lowest forms of inauthenticity.

It is simply not realistic to expect Cook to cut down the potential of the cash hoard Apple have by billions because he personally feels more tax should be paid, but, eany, meany miny mo, let's pick the US. Governments need to coordinate to create a better ruleset than we have at present.

SuccessCase

Re: Easy answer then

@david hicks

It has nothing to do with morality. I posted this elsewhere but it fully applies here, so apologies for the repost:

****

Let us suppose it turns out unbeknown to you, you had a rich aunt and you have found out about her because she has died and lawyers have contacted you to inform you she has left you a fortune. Let's say this rich aunt has dual nationality (not British). Let's say due to a some simple uncoordinated international tax rules and due to obscurity over her place of residence you have, within the rules, a choice as to the jurisdiction applied for inheritance tax on your aunt's estate. On the one hand you can choose the jurisdiction where you would pay 40% or on the other hand you can pay 5%. What rate are you going to choose ? Especially considering you have no particular allegiance to one or other jurisdiction (Apple is a US company, not British or Irish). Pretty much anyone who says "I would choose to pay 40% because it is the moral thing to do" is a liar. Moral in relation to your responsibility to pay inheritance tax where?

****

All senior company executives have a fiduciary duty to do the best for the shareholders they can. Despite what people want to think there is nothing deceptive or manipulative about Apple's tax arrangements. If the politicians don't like them they should do their jobs properly and change the rules.

There are ethically questionable tax avoidance schemes and the rule of thumb to identify them is if a company employs a complex instrument usually employed for purpose x, when there is no benefit from employing the instrument except to avoid tax. Examples include setting up complex rotating loans (loans being an instrument to obtain finance but providing a mechanism to exploit tax laws when one subsidiary provides a loan to another subsidiary in the group as a way to shift the "jurisdiction" of incurred costs and minimise corporation tax, rotating loans are renewed ad infinitum) and offshore banking in countries where they are doing no business and gaining no advantage from interest rates etc. but only tax advantages.

Google incidentally admits employing these questionable instruments. Despite what many people want to think (do no evil etc) what Google are doing *is* ethically dubious. Though, again, they are within the letter of the law.

Lego X-wing fighter touches down in New York's Times Square

SuccessCase

I wonder why they didn't build it with the wings open?

Daft tweet by Speaker Bercow's loquacious wife DID libel lord

SuccessCase

Re: This Morning

@Rikkeh. Lord McAlpine was also libelled by George Monbiot of the Guardian. However Monbiot to his credit, issued a full and proper apology and didn't contest the case. His apology should be held up as a model for how to do so properly (e.g. without reservation and with sincerity) and also illustrates how a proper apology effectively draws a line under the matter. In light of the apology, Lord McAlpine didn't request any damages, but instead requested he do some work for charity. So on the other side that shows the right attitude to hold when you are suing someone for libel. George Monbiot thanked Lord McAlpine for taking an enlightened approach and felt it was entirely fair and reasonable and ultimately beneficial for all parties (including the charity). All parties therefore found a silver lining within the cloud and came out with a degree of credit.

Compare that with how Mrs Bercow handled the case and it's difficult to imagine a greater contrast.

'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test

SuccessCase

Re: @SuccessCase (was: "The point is it has now been shown these things ::are useless::")

Quote from above link, where real testing (as distinct from The Register style armchair speculation) has been done.

"People think this takes an $8,000 machine and that it blows up on the first shot. I want to dispel that,” says Joe. “This does work, and I want that to be known.”

SuccessCase

Re: @SuccessCase (was: "The point is it has now been shown these things ::are useless::")

@AC 10:03

"Your ignorance is somehow thinking this is some great weapon."

It isn't. It's a set of 3D plans that can be printed on any 3D printer to produce a weapon with any material supported by the 3D printer. It is the demonstration of the concept a gun can be printed in 3D and can be effective when fired. My original post was against a Register article with the headline "Liberator': Proof that you CAN'T make a working gun in a 3D printer"

That is pretty damned conclusive, considering many people on this forum have no idea of the range versatility and materials that can be printed in 3D or the huge differences between the current crop of 3D printers. I bet you've made the statements you have without even being able to tell me the varieties and strength of the plastics and metals that can be printed in 3D, or what is predicted from the industry over the next 5 years? You probably aren't even aware there are 3D printers which will produce a version of the gun that is reliable for at least the first shot, yet you think it is justified to call me ignorant...

Here is one that lasted for nine shots from one of the cheapest printers but using better plastic (thus proving my point).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/20/25-gun-created-with-cheap-3d-printer-fires-nine-shots-video/

SuccessCase

Re: SuccessCase

so you don't think there is a big enough community of trust amongst the US gun lobby? Obvious jokes aside, clearly there is.

SuccessCase

Re: @SuccessCase (was: "The point is it has now been shown these things ::are useless::")

"The funny part of this comment is the ignorance."

Your knowledge is based on what? I've actually produced goods on 3D printers (an skateboard project, seeking to prototype a skateboard which could move sideways like a snowboard - I approached the engineering dept at Southampton University who allowed use of their 3D printing equipment, but I digress).

The tests in Australia were conducted by the cheapest 3D printers. There is a HUGE difference in quality between the cheapest and the more expensive. Plus everyone is overlooking the fact there are also titanium/stainless steel 3D printers. Cost is greater, but these are also on the way. So the funny part of your comment is the ignorance.

SuccessCase

Re: "The point is it has now been shown these things deliver a bullet with lethal speed. "

@Magister, you are quite correct. I did some embarrassingly shoddy copy and past of a Google search data. Though still the fundamental point remains it is an order of magnitude higher than gun crime.

SuccessCase

Re: @SuccessCase (was: "The point is it has now been shown these things ::are useless::")

@Jake.

"What, exactly, is the threat?"

So Jake, engage the visualisation part of your brain for me here. Visualise two identical worlds save for one factor. In these both these world's you are a resident on or near a high crime estate. On this estate there is one of those Internet cafe's you go to to get either drugs, check out kiddie porn or make international Skype calls. In one of these almost identical world's, the 3D printing revolution has matured and the Internet Cafe has a pay cash per use 3D printer. In the other the 3D printing revolution hasn't happened at all. Put that together with the fact crime statistics show most criminals can't even be arsed to even get on a bus to rob rich houses instead of the houses of their poor neighbours and then what the police have know for years is crystal clear. Crime is related not to what is possible now, but to what is possible and within a few yards of the sofa.

Consider also a translation of your logic to another context, someone 30 years ago saying "meth isn't a problem, tell me why the exact same threat from other drugs doesn't exist today, and hasn't existed since (roughly) 1750."

Is there a chance you would get stabbed on the other parallel universe estate? Of course. Did ready availability of low cost model T make a difference to the amount of travel conducted by ordinary people. Of course. Will readily available one shot throw away guns make a difference to gun crime by ordinary gang members?

For me the answer to that question is "of course."

So do I really have to spell this out? The threat is there is a greater likelihood of getting shot by some lazy arsed crim on the estate with the 3D printer service.

SuccessCase

Re: Wait for the first "hacked" printable gun

The same as we shouldn't trust open source software?

SuccessCase

Re: "The point is it has now been shown these things deliver a bullet with lethal speed. "

Er, there is this thing see, called the 3D printing revolution, and while they aren't cheap now, the Apple II wasn't cheap either. So IMO it only requires a small rational step to see that these guns will become to your average Gangsta like a knife+. As I have posted below, knives kill 130,000 a year in the UK as compared with about 51 for guns.

How long before we hear "I was standing arguing with this guy. There were these other guys in his gang who turn up, next thing I hear a shot and it takes me a while to register I've been hit. I don't even know who fired."

Few gun incidents involve running firefights in the street where you need an accurate piece. Must are cowardly acts of gang thuggery.

Personally I think the threat is obvious and that The Register are WAY off the mark with this one. Time will tell who is right, though this is one bet I would be glad to lose.

SuccessCase

There were 51 gun related deaths last year in the UK as compared with 130,000 knife deaths. I think the concept of a knife+ as this 3D printed gun represents is worrying indeed. The Register has blinkers on.

SuccessCase

Agreed it is unlikely to have impressive range. Agreed the lack of effective rifling will compromise accuracy. But neither of those things is going to stop these from being used. To be able to hit someone with a bullet from ten feet will hold a mighty appeal to the cowardly Gangsta who wants to stay out of the range of a knife. That's how these will be used. They will be a knife+

SuccessCase

Re: "The point is it has now been shown these things deliver a bullet with lethal speed. "

@Jake

FYI, I resubmitted below, having edited to remove references to publishing the pieces as irresponsible because the way I worded it was bad and would have meant my meaning was misinterpreted.

But in relation to your remark. Ad-hominem arguments are are a sign if weakness. You evidently don't know my background or expertise. It's also easy to make a tube bomb. I can make a lethal ballistic weapon with precision machine drilled tube, a plug and a vacuum cleaner put in reverse. So what? Would you like to take a bet on how quickly these, or guns like them, start to be used? That's the point. And yes much of it does come down to image and ease of production but I'm hardly responsible for the fact criminals have always tended to be pretty dumb lazy and lack the conviction to back up the ease with which it has always been possible to improvise a ballistic weapon. They can now get one by pressing a button. And guess what. They will.

SuccessCase

So the Australian Police release a video which contradicts The Register's previous story and you are trying spin this as confirmation you were right.

The Register wrote "Liberator: Proof that you CAN'T make a working gun in a 3D printer"

And

"The Liberator's bullet emerges going very slowly and wobbling or tumbling due to lack of spin. It might go almost anywhere, though not very far, and is unlikely to do much damage to anything it manages to hit."

You arrogantly said these things based on zero real world testing and out of a science or engineering grad assessment which though not without a degree of scientific understanding, nevertheless, evidently, drew the wrong conclusion. The US and Australian police instead of spouting off, actually do the tests, and conclude, even when produced by the cheapest available 3D printer that the gun is extremely dangerous, "both to the person it is being used against and to the user."

1. despite your twisted logic trying to support what was essentially an assertion the gun won't work, but even when produced using the cheapest printer does deliver a bullet with evident lethal force.

2. The gun designer never hid the fact the gun could catastrophically fail. It is a proof of concept, a proof of a changed world, and he never claimed it to be a quality controlled product or to pass quality standards. There are far better printers out there which produce parts with far higher structural integrity, than the lower cost printers do.

3. You seriously try to distract from the failed conclusion of your last article, by claiming the police are spinning the results because they have a gun control problem and want to hype the danger and the seriousness of the problem. But even if that has a modicum of logic, it is clear to anyone with even half a brain-cell, the police will be doing their level best to hype the danger to the user and focus on gun failures. But the fact that while doing that they confirm the Register was flat out wrong and confirm the damage these guns can do seems to be entirely lost on you, or perhaps you were hoping we wouldn't notice. The result is hardly the comic description of a bullet limply tumbling out the barrel given by The Register.

The point is it has now been shown these things deliver a bullet with lethal speed. The fact they are structurally dangerous and use once then throw away items is nothing when producing a gun costs 35 dollars and the users are likely to view using one as a demonstration of having balls. Using a gun is a uniquely cowardly act but using one of these is going to play right into the "gangsta" mentality where using one is spun as a uniquely brave thing to do.

The Register yet again proves it has the worst kind of cynics belligerence and simply won't admit when it get's it wrong; which it is doing with increasing regularity.

The iWatch is coming! The iWatch is coming!

SuccessCase

Re: resolve the problem, @SuccessCase

@Ledswinger. I didn't make that remark off the cuff. You're making the assumption Apple wanted to do their own maps app as distinct from wanting to avoid being forced to incorporate advertising in a maps app from Google.

The evidence goes against that.

A few points:

- The contract with Google for maps data supply was up for renewal, so Google could change the terms.

- Google were withholding access to the turn-by-turn directions API from Apple (Apple developed and maintained the maps app, though of course it was little more than a window onto the Google app)

- Google were withholding access to vector based maps, which are much higher performance (and consume less bandwidth - so this was for sure a political point not based on costs)

- Google started charging an arm and a leg for access to the volume mapping API (there was an outcry at the time from their established web customers, and they later reduced the newly introduced wholesale charges by an order of magnitude

Apple's position was that Google themselves wanted to provide maps to iOS and that therefore they were not going to a) pay for the maps data for what is a free app , b) be forced to take adverts (there is of course no way Apple would settle for such in a stock iOS app). In this context both parties were negotiating a position and both parties were free to horse-trade and or be aggressive in their approach. It is clear however Apple saying "we'll build our own" is not a decision they made in a vacuum or necessarily because they wanted to be in the mapping business per-se. Divining the motives of men (or corporations) is an idle task.

In the event Google have produce the maps app for iOS on the terms Apple were, reportedly, requesting in the first instance (e.g. not charging for wholesale data access, incorporating vector maps, and not incorporating adverts), so it could be said the evidence points to Google playing politics equally, if not more than Apple (though as said, divining motivations is an idle task).

Lastly Scott Forstall was the senior executive fully in charge of the maps project. It was IMHO appropriate he should have apologised for the debacle surrounding the low quality of the release. However responsibility was not shirked by other management, because, in the event, since Mr Forstall felt disinclined to apologise for the debacle, Tim Cook did what any man next up the tree should do and apologised unequivocally himself. I don't feel Forstall, reportedly sticking two metaphorical fingers up at Cook, and leaving the apology to his boss quite qualifies him as a poor unfortunate collared to be scapegoat. A scapegoat has no reason to feel the stab of the dagger on the sacrificial altar. Forstall would have avoided the altar altogether if he had stepped up for what, given his position, a quite reasonable mea-culpa.

Not sure I can be wrong on this any more than you, since I think it is a matter of opinion. However hopefully you now see I don't just express my opinions thoughtlessly.

SuccessCase

Re: resolve the problem, or they won't release the product

It may have escaped your notice, but the executive responsible for the maps fiasco was unceremoniously dumped for his failure.

SuccessCase

Re: This doesn't make a lot of sense

There were similar posts prior to the release of the iPad and iPhone. The thing Apple have learned to do really well is address exactly the kind of questions you have put on that list then test and refine until they have something enjoyable to use. They won't use focus groups which they see as a distraction from innovation (one of Steve Jobs' favourite quotes was Henry Ford, "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have replied 'faster horses.'") but instead will have a core team using the prototype product continually and asking themselves the question "is this something I love to use." If they have retained Jobsian disciplin then if they bump against an ugly reality - such as insuficient battery life, they will either work really hard to resolve the problem, or they won't release the product.

Part of what Steve Job's brought is the ability to say "no, it's not good enough." The problem most companies have when innovating new products is that people become overly invested in the product and due to time spent and career politics, will doggedly stick with something even when it starts to become obvious it is a bad idea or badly implemented. Even worse, the executives who approved the product R&D budget spend also tend to become similarly invested. Added to this is the tech press clamouring for something new from Apple as though it is a failure if tech doesn't mature quick enough to unloock entire new new markets with drum beat regularity (which has always been a faintly preposterous notion). So personally, unlike most others, I see it as a sign of strength if they can filter out the noise *refrain* from launching new products and have the disciplin to wait until the tech is mature enough (when they have to wait) and work really hard to improve the tech where they have the capacity to do so (famously Steve Jobs was a very good whip cracker, pushing others on to exceed even their own expectations).

They will have come up with some solutions to the questions posed about battery life etc. Perhaps motion sensing algorithm, tuned to switch on the display when movement matching some "intention signalling" pattern indicates the user is looking at the watch. Who knows. But it's clear this will be a big test for the post Jobs era team. Will they have succumbed to external pressure and release a product too early, or will they show they have retained the disciplin to release when the product is ready and one that users can really enjoy using it?

Eric Schmidt: 'Google IS a capitalist country... er, company'

SuccessCase

Re: "We need to fight for privacy or we are going to lose it."

Apparently he was on stage with nice Cartman and a several audience members were murdered by psycho killer pets.

SuccessCase

Re: Champions of privacy

"So you would like them to make the data they collect public, so that any company can use it"

No, clearly not, that would be dumb. I think you are missing the simple point your data is hardly private when you have shared it with a mega corporation the size of a small city.

SuccessCase

Champions of privacy

Champions of privacy! Champions of privacy! Don't make me laugh. Champions of keeping our valuable personal data private to themselves so they alone can milk it to the fullest extent permitted by the law. I'll grant him that.

David Cameron asks UK biz to pay their low, low taxes

SuccessCase

Absolutely. From what I've read of the senate hearing into Apple's Tax Avoidance scheme, is that they have come up with the incredibly complex and cunning plan of locating their European business in Ireland where the tax rules designed to encourage inward investment are that they don't have to pay corporation tax on overseas trade earnings *even when declared in Ireland*, and the rules for the US are that they don't have to pay corporation tax on oversease trade declared overseas ("incredibly cunning and complex" was sarcasm by the way).

Excuse me, but that is hardly accurate to call it a tax loophole. It's a deliberate tax "black hole of Calcutta," created by Ireland after their economy went *phoof* during the banking crisis. They knew full well it would allow businesses located there to reduce their corporation tax liability to near zero. That's why they did it.

Let me ask everyone in this forum a question. Let us suppose it turns out unbeknown to you, you had a rich aunt and you have found out about her because she has died and lawyers have contacted you to inform you she has left you a fortune. Let's say this rich aunt has dual nationality (not British). Let's say due to a some simple uncoordinated international tax rules and due to obscurity over her place of residence you have, within the rules, a choice as to the jurisdiction applied for inheritance tax on your aunt's estate. On the one hand you can choose the jurisdiction where you would pay 40% or on the other hand you can pay 5%. What rate are you going to choose ? Especially considering you have no particular allegiance to one or other jurisdiction (Apple is a US company, not British or Irish). Pretty much anyone who says "I would choose to pay 40% because it is the moral thing to do" is a liar. Moral in relation to your responsibility to pay inheritance tax where?

Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming

SuccessCase

Yep, the headline is spin, a travesty of statistical analysis and the study proves absolutely nothing.

It's a matter of simple logic. The two "positions" being investigated are skepticism versus the view global warming is man-made. As anyone who has studied philosophical logic to any degree will tell you, you can never directly prove a negative, only a positive. So this study is deliberately presenting the view framed on the positive under study e.g. the assertion there is global warming and it is man made as though there is a second side to the debate "there is global warming *and it is NOT man made*". But no sensible scientist would ever make a claim about a negative. That totally misrepresents what it is to be a sceptic!

With deliciously spun logic the study presents this as though it is a conclusion.

"among the abstracts that did express an opinion – pro or con – on AGW, 97.1 per cent endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming."

When the skeptical case is precisely that you do science, look at the facts and avoid expressing an opinion unless it's supported by strong evidence - if which you will by definition have none where a negative is concerned! Any scientist worth his salt will avoid confirming a negative assertion like the plague.

So in reality the data is showing 66.4% of papers are consistent with the skeptical view. I say "consistent" but I'm not going to attempt to spin the result like this paper. "Consistent" does not mean "confirmed skeptical" it actually translates to a null in a database: a no value or no conclusion. All we have here is is evidence that if you ask scientists to set about checking if you can prove a positive statement, you will get a proportion who will express a view on the positive, but you will get virtually none who will compromise their scientific method and spontaneously include a specious remark contradicting a positive by asserting the truth of a negative statement "I believe global warming is NOT caused by humans" Because you only make such remarks as a scientist when you have found another positive which firmly contradicts the negative and no one is saying there is any single clear candidate in that category (and few are looking for such anyway).

I read reports like this. Look at how the headline conclusion is spun and seriously despair. These are senior scientists failing in the most basic matters of logical analysis. But still, this something I've always noticed about scientists. They are far more driven by human emotion and daily politics than the lay stereotype likes to admit.

Mac malware found with valid developer ID at freedom conference

SuccessCase

Re: This goes to show...

@velv

Shows how little you know. Apple do provide it for free. They have anti-malware built into OSX with frequently update virus/malware definitions and very effective it is too. Unlike PC AV it stays fully out your way. But it will issue a warning if malware is found on your system. Few Mac users even know it's there because, as much as it seems to pain PC users, malware is still very rarely found on OSX and it seems to have no effect on performance. The new app ID system is also proving to be very effective and anyone who knows anything about IT, should know you are never going to be able to stop the custom targeted attack, which is in fact where most of the money is for malware authors these days (for both PC and Mac).

Have your users managed to force iOS devices on you?

SuccessCase

Re: If this was /.

I find that difficult to believe. The integrity of The Register fall victim to the impulsive urge to grab the headline joke before the truth enough as it is. We all know that and it is what most people read it for. Onion headlines with articles struggling to establish authority after the laughter of the headline. That's The Register. But that is a different thing from presenting adverts as a story without flagging it. Any website which does that is condemning itself to be irrelevant crap.

SuccessCase

It is good form to ensure you flag an advertisement so your Readers know. Or get paid for providing one. But I'll be damned if I can work out, for this piece, which the problem is.

Microsoft honcho pleads with media: 'Stop picking on us!'

SuccessCase

Re: "Microsoft honcho pleads with media: 'Stop picking on us!'"

@Frank 14. I completely agree. Yes I too think the word's "Microsoft" and "Windows" have become an Anti brand. At least they certainly have for me. I switched to using OSX several years ago and my memory is filled with pain at the thought of Microsoft Windows. Whenever friends ask me for help, I find my arse cheeks clench when I have to sit down at their machines (usually dog slow and chock full of viruses - yes usually mostly their fault - but that's the reality and what their machines have become like). This isn't a *rational* response. I recognise it is emotion. I recognise Win 7 got very good reviews (I left at the height of the pain with Vista). I recognise Win 8 is probably much more performance efficient (though I still have my doubts about any release that contains the same registry architecture). But frankly I don't give a shit and don't have the time of day for Microsoft. Given the amount of time I can illustrate they have been responsible for wasting in my life, I don't want to spend even one more second of my life evaluating their software. It would really have to have outstanding reviews to win me back. Indeed I'm even prepared to spend some minutes writing scathing stuff about them like this!

Another experience I had recently, was, with a friend visiting PC World in Wimbledon. Immediately on entry the place wreaked of bad customer service attitude. It didn't help that the staff in the upstairs PC section were allowed to play their own music and rap was blaring out the shop speakers. Now don't get me wrong, I actually like a bit of rap, but I'm also realistic enough to recognise, rightly or wrongly, it has immediate "I ain't here to service your needs and ain't gonna help much bro' " connotations. And this in the face of competition from a nearby Apple store in Kingston and Apple reseller Stormfront over the road. It's just a matter of being realistic, and if the PC market can't compete in the most basic ways, they deserve what they are getting. The cacophony of techie brands most people want to know nothing about (because who they are is entirely internal to the task they want done) is hugely damaging to business. It induces a state of mild depression in me every time I see the recogisable PC World purple and yellow. They have shelves of anti virus software and only think of it as goods to shift, not stopping for a second to consider what message there is so much of it, so many competing brands, gives about the PC experience. That the PC market has done so little to adapt to the new world order is quite frankly pathetic.

Microsoft are stuck unable to do the hardest thing - recognise the very high levels of brand recognition they have with the existing brand is a negative for them. They are stuck in a forrest of competing brands shouting for attention like waiters in tourist trap locations collaring tourists for business, and we want to know nothing about them. Their very presence is turning people off in droves.

Review: BlackBerry Q10

SuccessCase

Very good point about small form factor tablets subtly changing the market. I use my phone far, far less now for general browsing and media checking than I once did and I find the compromise in screen size for the few occasions I do I find to be far less of a concern than it once would have been. I can really see this working well for Blackberry. Not sure about the point re: battery life though. I suspect the good battery life is actually matched by a lack of pre integrated and comprehensive cloud-service ecosystem and associated network checking. So you gain because you have already lost. Of course if you don't miss the loss, then it's a net benefit.

Plans for fully 3D-printed gun go online next week

SuccessCase

"Given that you could do the same thing with a cnc milling machine, I don't see how this is much more than hysteria"

Can't agree with that. Most people would have to involve another party to get a gun machined. But 3D printers are set to be commonplace. Hell you could print out a gun for the evening without anyone knowing carry it with you while you do the thing you need protection for, then burn it the next day and nobody will be any the wiser. Talk to any policeman. Opportunity is a huge factor in criminal behaviour. So are you saying this is not a concern when your average South London teenage "Gangsta" (read "ignorant idiot with a teenage hormone overdose") gets the opportunity to acquire a gun at the snap of his fingers?

Apple's next OS X said to be targeted at 'power users'

SuccessCase

Re: bring back 'save as'

Oh forgot what is perhaps the main point. "Save As" litters the file system with multiple versions of the document. So it is easy to forget which is the canonical version (especially for those many users who use wonderfully myopic constructs like "new document x" !).

Any apps with the rename function, however, have built in versioning, so you get a single canonical file, with version history stored within the file. As well as versions being saved automatically, you can save them manually. Again much clearer and much safer.

"Save As" really is the source of much file system evil !

SuccessCase

Re: bring back 'save as'

Nope "Save As" has always been the source of much evil. The two options it is replaced by function far better and are wholly explicit.

Why?

Because "Save As" combines two acts when the user usually wants just one. The most common use for "Save As", is to save a new version of a document. But here is the oft encountered problem. It is easy to start a new version when you need to keep the old version, forget that the old version wasn't saved before you chose Save As, hack the document around to create the new version you need completed in three days time but then find you have buggered up the old version you intended to keep, but forgot to save first before using "Save As" additionally all documents utilising the new duplicate and rename function are going to be compatible with time machine versions of those documents, so your maintenance of multiple versions is handled efficiently and seamlessly.

Of course if you engage brain you can avoid the problem scenario I described, but I suspect most of us have been caught out by it at one point or another. What's wrong then with duplicate (which duplicates the document in a new Window ready to be saved with a new name and which also means you will be prompted to save the old window when you decide to close it)? By being explicit, there is less room for cock up. Similarly the simple "rename" function is also explicit. You keep the same file but it gets a new name. Can't see why these two wholly explicit functions aren't better than the evils of "Save As" as you are always intending to do one or the other of them when you use "Save As" anyway.

So sorry I don't concur. Wanting to keep "Save As" is a testament to the power of muscle memory over logic and clarity.

BadNews, fandroids: MILLIONS of Google Play downloads riddled with malware

SuccessCase

Re: Come on El Reg

"Your limited viewpoint is only due to you believing that, personally, you have the power to decide the definition of "useful activity"."

Er, yes I'm accustomed to speaking from my own viewpoint, as at one level or other everyone who has said anything ever in the history of the human race does the same. None of us are God.

And if I don't have the power to decide what constitutes "useful activity" from my own viewpoint, then I'm certain you don't. So I suggest rather than the sociopathic attempt to control my thoughts and language, you focus more on giving a clear reply on your own terms.

I note you didn't actually attempt to answer the question I raised. I suspect because you know the answer will sound as weak as your current reply and thereby illustrate even more clearly the point I raised.

PEAK iPHONE? Apple mobe growth slumps to ‘lowest in its history’

SuccessCase

Re: @RogerThat - Sweet Jesus, dude...

@Greg J Preece Clearly you are not an iPhone user as then you would know there is iCloud backup and they start the restore for you in-store. It's painless, very quick and requires no user interaction other than entering your Apple username and password. Also it's pretty ignorant to accuse me of simply chucking stuff out when it is Apple who recycle your defective phone. Check their website, their environmental and recycling policy is there for all too see. They will recycle the parts from phones they have exchanged. So all in all they are simply giving their customers good customer service so yes your logic is plainly twisted and downright wrong.

Get over it.

SuccessCase

Re: @RogerThat - Sweet Jesus, dude...

@Greg J Preece

"Apple simply throw new phones at anyone with the slightest issue to get them to go away."

Ha. With deliciously twisted logic great customer service gets transformed into a cynical ploy to reduce workload by getting rid of any customers with a complaint as quickly as possible.

Smartphone running 'Facebook OS' said to debut this week

SuccessCase

"Why will Google let HTC do this ?"

Because they don't have any choice. HTC have signed up with the Android handset alliance. Not Facebook. Google can stop HTC Forking Android if they wish to remain a member if the Alliance. But they can't, through the alliance, stop HTC being a hardware supplier to Facebook because that would get them a fast track referral to the FTC for anti-competitive practice. Threatening HTC with losing membership of the Alliance for supplying a competitor would be as clear a breach of the law as if they were to threaten the same if a member were to produce Windows or Tizen phones.

What is more interesting to me is that it's now clear that Google have lost control of the Android brand (it can be and is often used without referral to Google's legal dept), and that despite this loss of control (or perhaps because of it) most suppliers are moving away from referring to Android, what does Facebook's referral to Android mean in terms if the extent of collaboration between Facebook and Google? I guess we will find out soon.