1198 posts • joined 10 May 2011
Translation: "We want all of Rudd's mates gone so we can give the cushy sinecure positions to our mates."
Sometimes these politicians' motives are so transparent you could use them to measure Doppler shifts in distant galaxies.
Re: Well, if you're taking photos at a concert...
You're not alone there mate. I'm right there with ya.
Last year I went with my brother to some "Symphony Under The Stars" event, with the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra performing in Elder Park.
And all I could see was a sea of arms waving smartphones high in the fucking air. I don't know why 20,000 people all wanted 20,000 identical videos of a mass of 20,000 wavering smartphone screens, because that's all any of them would have gotten. The only way you'd have been able to see (or film) the orchestra would be to have been pressed up against the stage.
Because of this sort of thing, I've come to detest the fucking things. In cinemas, in restaurants, at concerts, fireworks shows, sporting events, everywhere, everybody constantly waving these fucking smartphones around every bloody moment of every bloody day. An EMP cannon! an EMP cannon! my kingdom for an EMP cannon!
@ DJO Re: Psudorandomosity
"As far as I know nuclear decay is the only easy genuine random source available but a bit tricky to include in a little chip at a suitably low cost."
What about Americium-241 based smoke detectors? We already have widespread, low-cost "nuclear" gear in our homes in this form - why couldn't we use this same technology as an RNG in our computers as well?
I don't have a problem
with the concept of the cloud per se. It has its uses and provides a lot of convenience; you can access your data from anywhere there's a computer and internet connection, you can share that data with colleagues in distant locations without the limitations imposed by email; you can offload much of your maintenance problems to a third party. The cloud certainly has its advantages.
What I object to, in the strongest terms, is this constant push, push push to force everybody to use cloud technologies exclusively. Increasingly, new versions of software are coming out as SaaS - pay every month, instead of pay once and keep forever. And if your cash flow is down one month, and you can't afford all the stacked monthly payments, you lose everything. Much of the software we use is now in two flavours - packaged and SaaS - but it's evident that "packaged" is being retained only as a transitional measure and the intent is to "wean" us all into the cloud as soon as possible.
Whenever something like this is pushed with such fervour and zeal, it inevitably means one thing: the big boys make more money which means you get less while paying more. Microsoft have found to their cost that selling a successful product can be a disaster once market saturation is reached, as the numbers of companies unwilling to migrate from the tried-and-true Windows XP shows. "Buy once and keep forever" is not as profitable as the "leech money off the poor bastards forever and a day" model. And this is one real reason why cloud is being pushed so hard.
The other reason is about power and control. Cloud storage means your data can be taken away if you don't toe the official line; it means your data can be monitored and analysed at will without your knowledge; it means your computer and your data are no longer your own, they now belong to the companies that own the OS and your data storage.
So in the end, my problem is not that cloud technology exists; it's that we are being forced into it to the exclusion of all other options. And until this hegemony is confronted and we are let to make our own choices about how and where we use what technologies, I and others like myself will continue to oppose this encroachment of our informational freedom to our last ounce of strength.
Re: Death to Ransomware
My thoughts exactly.
I've often maintained that until we start PUBLICLY EXECUTING these fucking bastards, and their families along with them if it can be shown that the family members knew of the criminal activity and did nothing about it, this sort of shit will run rampant.
Once we've had a few globally televised public hangings of these parasitic scum that are of no worth to the human race, once they made to realise the stakes are that they'll make money at less risk by enlisting for service in Afghanistan, we'll start seeing some results.
Who? Apple or the CIVC?
For my part, given Apple's legendary lust for petty intellectual property, I 'd love to see the Frenchies sue their arses off. It would be poetic justice.
Re: I'll say it, since nobody else has the guts to
@ Don Jefe: No advantage, in fact I've probably earned a place on a few watchlists for posting that opinion. I just felt I should point it out because the possibility existed that it was a motivating factor and that mentioning it as such was likely to invoke artificial social taboos designed to silence debate.
As to you others who felt it necessary to resort to abuse and insult, thank you for illustrating why it is necessary to oppose the proponents of political correctness, who are the very ones who use these tactics to silence discussion and dismiss opinions you don't like. What you fail to understand is that the more you abuse and deride those who don't share your worldview, the more people will oppose you, and the greater the eventual horror that will arise from that opposition. You seem to have forgotten, as so many have in the past, that carrot is more effective than stick.
I'll say it, since nobody else has the guts to
It's extremely politically incorrect to say this, and I'll likely cop a pasting as an anti-Semite and a Nazi and all sorts from the more oversensitive and zealous commentards, but -
Zuckerberg is a Jew. Shreateh is a Palestinian. I'd wager heavily that this political condition has at least some measure of effect in the making of Facebook's decision to refuse payment. After all, that money might be used to support anti-Israeli terrorism, no?
There, I've got it off my chest. Let the downvotes roll in, fellas.
Re: Mandatory XKCD link
e'); DROP TABLE PLANETS;--
I see little Bobby Tables has grown up to become an astronomer!
Re: iPhone buyers also younger, smarter, richer than 'droid drones
Ooh, ooh, can I write Apple's next marketing campaign based on this?
"Samsung and Android. The choice of bogans, chavs and rednecks everywhere!"
Interesting that Safari and Opera have such high error rates while Chrome is so low, considering that all three use the Webkit engine as their foundation (ISTR Opera switched to Webkit a while back didn't they?)
Like others here, I have no problem with the modern incarnations of IE. Since Microsoft have been dragged screaming to the W3C table the job of web development has become a lot less hair-greying than in the days of IE6, when as I recall I became quite the Firefox evangelist on these very forums (and elsewhere) to try and drive standardisation. I'm very thankful that that battle, at least, is finally over!
The only problem with a telescope in Antarctica is that you can only ever see the Southern Hemisphere. Perhaps there's a similar location in Greenland where they could put a complementary telescope, then we could cover the entire sky.
" If an agent of the copyright holder made the files available for download and advertised it on pirate sites, then the people who downloaded them obtained them legally."
You've raised a very interesting legal issue here.
Yes they did download them legally, but it's not the downloading the copyright mafia nail you for - it's the seeding / uploading, which is integral to bittorrent, and which legally amounts to unauthorised distribution. That's what they charge you with on the court documents.
I'd be very interested to see the legal take on this - if I, as a copyright owner, distribute my own work via bittorrent, I'm implicitly authorising others to distribute my work as well by the very act of using the bittorrent mechanism as my distribution medium. So does this implicit consent stand as legal authorisation for anyone in the swarm to distribute? What if I stop seeding the torrent myself - does that withdraw the consent for others to distribute? What if someone else creates another torrent on another tracker and starts seeding it there as well?
Bittorrent seems to be a real Pandora's box as far as legitimate or authorised distribution of copyrighted material is concerned. Any commentards here in the legal profession got a take on this, or does anyone know of any court cases dealing with these issues?
Re: Oh, Ambassador!
Shit, that would have to be a bloody big squirrel!
I remember seeing parody ads for "Crackwhore Barbie" back in the 90s, in MAD magazine or some similar publication I think. I had no idea companies would ever start selling toys that promote criminal activity for real though!
I mean, in an age when kids are expelled for merely hugging each other in school, how the bloody hell is Lego getting away with this without a massive media/do-gooder shitstorm in the offing? It just shows the extent to which the media controls public reactions to these things, doesn't it?
History has lessons for us here
This kind of greed and exploitation by the aristocracy is what eventually leads to revolutions and sends parasites like this bitch to the gallows and the guillotine.
Re: A Better Place.
Agreed, although the B Ark would be an acceptable alternative for those feeling a bit less murderous...
Re: "The US Government isn't a totalitarian government by any stretch of the imagination."
"Never heard of a county with several governments."
How about Somalia?
Re: Manning will have a lot...
This is a brain cell. I have quite a few of them to sell you if you'd like a couple of your own. Real cheap too, just 5 cents each!
Re: There is something sad about this
"The US Government isn't a totalitarian government by any stretch of the imagination."
Hitler was elected to power by voters in a democracy. Do not mistake the ability to vote for a guarantee of freedom.
Some toy throwing going on here.
I'm no Google fan any more than I am a Microsoft one, but it seems to me that Microsoft are throwing their toys out of the pram on this one.
As a web developer for many years, I still remember the horror days of IE6 and ActiveX, where I had to create two versions of the same website for every project - one for IE6, and one to the W3C specs. This blew out costs and dev times on every project and I came to loathe Microsoft for this.
But these days Microsoft aren't the big boys on the block any more, and so it seems to me they're now spitting their chips because they're not the ones shoving their bloated inconsistent standards down everyone's throats. Instead they're being forced to abide by the W3C specs as they should have been from day dot. And they're bitching about it because they're no longer the ones calling the shots.
So tough shit MS, your day is past and you have to suck it up and comply with the W3C standards like everyone else.
Mind you, I don't like Google's "We don't have to use HTML 5 but you do" approach either. Anyone who operates under "do as I say not as I do" is someone I never want to deal with, as I despise nothing more than a hypocrite.
Re: A Warning, Please!
Before clicking on any link, hover the mouse pointer over it. Then look at the status bar right at the very bottom of your browser window. It'll tell you where the link goes. Make it a habit to do this every time you follow a link.
Re: One must be a complete idiot
The diary comparison is certainly a valid one, yes.
But most people don't routinely hand their diaries over to the management of their local shopping centre for perusal to establish what adverts to show you when you walk into the mall.
Use duckduckgo.com. Not only do they not track you and respect your privacy a lot better than Google, they also do AND based searches by default (you have to use the OR operator if you want OR-based search) And I've found their search results as relevant as anything Google provides.
It's not that big an Achilles heel, and I see this in a different light - the whole event shows that a terrorist attempting to jam the GPS at an airport would be unlikely to succeed. There's nothing "fortunate" about it, evidently the airport authorities were prepared and able to respond to an attack of this kind.
A problem was identified during the test: a jamming signal affecting the guidance systems. The source was triangulated and located, agents dispatched to the location, and the problem was solved in a timely fashion and in good order.
I was impressed to see that there was no overreaction by authorities on this one; no SWAT teams armed to the teeth stomping the guy's face into the pavement, no gung-ho cops tasering innocent bystanders, no besuited operatives ramming gloved hands into body cavities. Just a measured response to the threat and the sensible capitulation of the culprit. It was what could be called a textbook case.
So this doesn't seem to me to be a failure of security. To my mind, it looks like a resounding success.
Encryption alone is not enough
No matter how effectively a message is encrypted, it can be intercepted and saved indefinitely in its encrypted form and then decoded at leisure. And with the computing power available to the three-letter agencies "at leisure" isn't very long at all in the scheme of things.
Better security would be achieved by breaking the encrypted file into pieces and routing each piece separately through a different random path each time, interspersed with rubbish pieces to further obfuscate the real ones. This way, no one system can capture the entire message and piece it back together. The internet is already set up to operate on this basic principle; all that's needed is software to ensure that no two packets go by the same route.
The weak point in this system would of course be the sender's and receiver's ISPs; of necessity, both ISPs would have every piece pass through them. A possible workaround would be an open network of interconnected wireless routers, linked between neighbouring homes and offices. This way, part of my message could go through my ISP, part through my neighbour's ISP, part through the guy down the road's ISP. The recipient could receive the message the same way. This way, even if all of us were on the same ISP (as in some areas where one big company has a monopoly), the ISP sees packets from multiple customers and has no way to tie any group of packets back together into a single file.
At present, this is conjecture, as in my area people aren't yet amenable to interconnecting their wireless routers, but I've heard of districts where this is being done already, and as governments and companies continue to encroach on our freedoms, I'm sure people will in time come to see the necessity of doing this.
"And what kind of free democratic nation would do that ?"
I don't think that word means what you think it means. As I understand it, "Democratic" - as in "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" or "The German Democratic Republic" - means something like "a nation governed in such a way is to give its citizenry the illusion that they have a say in how the country is run." You seem to have misunderstood the "the illusion that they have" part in that definition. Also, "free" is the standard word used by dictators from Napoleon to Obama to describe the conditions in the countries they preside over.
So, in actual fact, pretty much every "free democratic " nation would indeed do what you say, in keeping with what they really are...
Exactly what I noticed.
I actually laughed at the inherent self-contradiction when I read: "...the collected data was "anonymised" before it was analysed, hoped to use this technology to... show tailored adverts to people as they walked by the bins." The "anonymised" part is the most sickeningly obvious attempt at damage control spin I have ever read; in the very same breath they reveal the lie and their true intentions.
By definition, if they're showing me "tailored" advertising, they must know who they are showing the adverts to, ergo I am not anonymous. Whether or not they know the name on my birth certificate is irrelevant; to tailor advertising means they must know my comings and goings, likes and dislikes, lifestyle choices, associations, occupation, hobbies, interests - in short, everything that makes me who I am. What price a name if you have all that? Anonymised my fucking arse.
>>Or intolerant douchags...
Or sanctimonious PC do-gooders...
@OrsonX Re: face-recognition software banned being a shame
The use of face-recognition software in public places bloody well should be banned, so if it has been that's a ban I fully support.
Suppose you're walking down the street and your Glass films me at a politically incorrect rally, or walking into an adult bookshop, for example. The face-recognition software identifies me, even if I'm not known to you, and sends the info back to Google/Facebook for processing. My mother has already posted dozens of pictures of me on Facebook without my consent so Facebook already has a face-recognition profile on me, like it or not. Next, Google/Facebook notifies everyone on my contact list that I'm where you saw me, or at the very least notes it down in some database for later use when I need a security clearance or police check done.
That's the kind of shit face-recognition software is capable of, whether or not it yet does it. It's the most invasive technological violation of personal liberty yet created. Without it, cameras are just image recorders, that require a human to take the time to look at the images to determine if I was anywhere in particular. That degree of labour introduces reasonable odds that someone inimical to me can't easily identify me or be able to track my movements.
But with it, every net-connected camera becomes an automated remote identification device, constantly updating any relevant database with a running update on all my actions and movements, the result of which I have to live in the constant awareness of my every movement being tracked by people who don't necessarily have my well-being at heart.
if it sounds like I'm being paranoid, I have every right to be. The "liberal" supporters of political correctness are known for viciously demanding the ruination of anyone who doesn't kowtow to their PC worldview: the purveyors of "tolerance" are hypocritically the most sanctimoniously intolerant bigots this side of the Taliban. And I'm an active supporter of Men's Rights Australia, A Voice For Men, and the Campaign Against Political Correctness, amongst others. I've had hate mail and death threats from these same "pro-tolerance" PC bigots for publicly supporting these organisations. It's noteworthy that while the media is screaming about "trolls" and cops are arresting those who threaten and abuse high-profile feminists, nobody's doing anything about the harassment and abuse dished out by their supporters to anyone who dares to contradict them. The number of downvotes I'll probably cop for this paragraph alone will illustrate the principle quite adequately, I believe.
Is it any wonder, in the face of the hysterical PC self-righteousness that pervades society these days, that its accompaniment by such invasive technology poses such a danger?
No, bloody right face-recognition software should be banned. I wish they'd ban it here in Australia too.
I have a complex up/down voting system for this site!
On consideration, I find I have quite a complex algorithm for upvoting and downvoting on El Reg, more so than other sites, due to El Reg's voting system requiring a wait for two page reloads to vote. As a result, I only go to the trouble if I feel the post is worth voting on.
I'll upvote a post if:
1) The post makes me laugh or spit coffee/lunch over my keyboard or monitor.
2) The post expresses a political opinion I strongly agree with (regardless of its factual content or literary coherency - the political alignment with my own is sufficient cause for an upvote.)
3) The post has good literary merit or posits its owner's case with aplomb.
4) amanfromMars posted it and I cannot decipher or understand what he posted, or if I simply give up trying part way through.
I'll downvote a post if:
1) The post has even the slightest whiff of political correctness about it.*
2) The spelling, grammar and/or syntax is so bad as to make the post indecipherable (amanfromMars is treated oppositely here: he gets a downvote if his post is actually decipherable!)
3) The argument of the post is so ill-researched, fallacious or delusional as to expose the poster as a retarded fuckwit.
Fanboi/fandroid arguments get nothing. I hate Apple myself, because of their control-freakery and egregious litigiousness, but I won't upvote a post simply because it's an Apple hater and I won't downvote one simply because it supports them. My fanboy loyalty to IT companies died with the Commodore Amiga.
*Political correctness: I won't downvote a post simply because it expresses a political opinion I disagree with. For example, you could call for abolition of minimum wage or billion-year copyright extensions and I wouldn't downvote you for that even though I disagree with it. But any hint of the poster supporting feminism (note: by this I mean focus on women's rights alone), affirmative action, advocacy of censorship of dissenting views, or anti-white/anti-male dogma WILL get a downvote, guaranteed, regardless of the validity of the argument or how well the post might be written.
If I feel the politically-correct post is aggravating enough and it pisses me off sufficiently, I'll actually go to the trouble of going to the poster's public post history page and sequentially downvoting their other posts until my temper calms down (David W, Vladimir Plouzhnikov, Oolons and NomNomNom have all been victims of this at various times!) I know that's juvenile, and one should expect more from a 46 year old adult, but I find it therapeutic and it makes me feel better... So to the guys listed above: If you suddenly find your last 50-odd posts all have at least one downvote regardless of topic, you can feel gratified that you've pissed me off enough to waste half an hour attacking your post history!
"2. This person is overpaid and the price you are being offered is vastly inflated. (reality)."
This is why, in our office, a guy who shows up driving an 8 year old Ford Falcon and wearing a turtleneck sweater and jeans, has a lot better chance of selling us a few boxes of photocopier toner than, say, a guy who shows up in a new F-type Jaguar wearing an Armani suit. Given that attire in our office veers decidedly towards the neat casual side, upstaging one's potential customers with flashy overpriced bling that is obviously going to be tacked onto the sale price isn't a good start!
There's an old Murphy's Law corollary that goes something like "The plushness of the front office decor is inversely proportional to the fundamental solvency of the firm." The same principle applies to travelling sales reps as well.
@ Jim 59
Just because laws between the USA and USSR may differ, doesn't mean the principles - or abilities - do. For example, you argue:
"People could not even leave the USSR on holiday, whereas every American citizen is free to travel the world."
IF they can afford it. Given the wealth distribution curve in the USA, I'd say, at guess, that at least 60% of the population can't afford to leave their home town, let alone travel to another country. So while the laws may imply freedom, the actual outcome, for the majority, is still the same.
"The supreme soviet was unelected, whereas the US citizens have full suffrage."
But giving people the choice between Democrats and Republicans, given that for the average American life stays pretty much the same regardless of who is in power - that is, subject to random search and seizure, indefinite detention without trial, no due process (don't tell me that the Obama Administration has given Snowden anything remotely approaching due process) - so again, the effect is much the same whether there was only one party or two. Western democracy has become a token gesture at best.
"The USA has to keep people out, not shoot people trying to escape like the USSR."
That one I'll give you - considering that you have an overcrowded, poverty-stricken third-world country ruled by brutal drug lords on your southern border. Anything's better than that. But that's the majority of people you have to "keep out"; I don't see too many other westerners trying to set up in America.
"Snowden is being pursued by a democratically elected government that wants to bring criminal charges and give him an open trial."
Ha! Well, for democratically elected government I refer you to my above answer on that subject. The Obama Administration has openly branded him a traitor. No trial, no due process, no "alleged", they've just come straight out and announced on the international stage that he's guilty. There's no chance he'll ever receive a fair trial now. If you believe for one second that if Snowden were to return to the USA he'd be found anything other than guilty on the spot, I'd be interested in selling you the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
To finish, I'd like to quote some excerpts from a letter sent from Snowden's father's lawyer to the Obama Administration:
"We are also appalled at your administration’s scorn for due process, the rule of law, fairness, and the presumption of innocence as regards Edward... Your decision to force down a civilian airliner carrying Bolivian President Eva Morales in hopes of kidnapping Edward also does not inspire confidence that you are committed to providing him a fair trial... Yet Speaker Boehner has denounced Edward as a "traitor"... Ms. Bachmann has pronounced that, "This was not the act of a patriot; this was an act of a traitor." And Ms. Feinstein has decreed that Edward was guilty of "treason,"..."
Yes, a fair and just trial under a democratic government indeed. You can read the letter in its entirety here.
I find it amusingly ironic
30 years ago, we welcomed defectors fleeing Soviet tyranny, persecuted for revealing the truth about their despotic regime, and cheered them on as they made their life-or-death dash across the Iron Curtain, desperately seeking freedom from an unjust and totalitarian state ruled by a dictator.
Now, in these margin times, a defector is fleeing American tyranny, persecuted for revealing the truth about his despotic regime, and we cheer him on as he makes his life-or-death dash across the Electronic Curtain, desperately seeking freedom from an unjust and totalitarian state ruled by a dictator!
How things have changed. How they remain the same...
Duck test = fish test!
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck."
This line of reasoning could also be used to define a whale as a fish, since a whale looks and swims in similar fashion - as famously (and erroneously) argued by Herman Melville via his protagonist Ishmael in Moby Dick:
"Next: how shall we define the whale, by his obvious externals, so as conspicuously to label him for all time to come? To be short, then, a whale is a spouting fish with a horizontal tail. There you have him. However contracted, that definition is the result of expanded meditation. A walrus spouts much like a whale, but the walrus is not a fish, because he is amphibious. But the last term of the definition is still more cogent, as coupled with the first. Almost anyone must have noticed that all the fish familiar to landsmen have not a flat, but a vertical, or up-and-down tail. Whereas, among spouting fish the tail, though it may be similarly shaped, invariably assumes a horizontal position." - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chapter XXXII Cetology.
Obviously this reasoning is flawed, as any primary school kid knows that a whale is a mammal, not a fish. So in similar vein, just because something looks, swims and quacks like a duck, doesn't necessarily mean that it is. It may well be that it usually is, and one could be justified for saying so, but using this argument as the basis for a legal decision doesn't bode well for rule of logic and reason. There needs to be a more solid factual basis for arguing that Bitcoin is indeed the same thing as money.
At present, Bitcoin strikes me as having more in common with a commodity than a currency. Consider trade commodities, for example sugar or copper. Like sugar and copper, Bitcoins have a variable market price which rises and falls according to supply and demand. Like sugar and copper, Bitcoins are manufactured by a value-adding process of labour and production. Like sugar and copper, Bitcoins are bought and sold on commodity exchanges, not banks.
So under this court's ruling, sugar and copper are the same thing as money, just as Bitcoins are. They can be used to store and retrieve value, bought and sold for profit, just as Bitcoins are. But if we start treating commodities as though they were money, we're opening a Pandora's box of trade nightmares that are going to have repercussions around the world. I'll leave it to the more imaginative commodities traders to consider the ramifications of that decision!
I can answer your question, NomNomNom.
The reason your ISP will do nothing about your complaints about trolls, and the reason why you will inevitably receive similar ignorance from your MP, is quite simple, although you are clearly too blinded by political correctness to see it.
That is, because the endless assault on men and men's rights that feminist "men" like yourself have perpetrated in your self-hating ideological zeal, have cast women unjustly as victims, men as aggressors, and created an anti-male mentality throughout society. You don't need help because you're male. You're privileged. We should only be helping women and other "underprivileged" minorities, remember? Wasn't that your agenda?
There's no political mileage in assisting you because you are male, one of the "patriarchy", a "potential rapist". The very same social climate, with its myth of male privilege that you have helped to create is now therefore your undoing, in what I can only regard as a beautiful example of poetic justice.
Enjoy your anti-male discrimination, NomNomNom. You deserve it.
Re: Creation less than 10,000 ya
Of course he did.
Every faithful believer knows there's no mileage in preaching to the choir. You must go out and spread the Good News amongst the sinners! And what better place to shine the Light of the Lord than the benighted cesspit of atheist heathen unbelieving science geeks comprising the commentard community of El Reg?
Actually, given the power the PC lobby now wields in the media and Western government institutions, it's more likely the first person on Mars will be an African-American transgendered gay/lesbian feminist. Can't let those evil oppressive white male hetero cis scum have all the glory now can we?
It's a great idea, and it could work
if the content providers embraced the globalism of the internet. It'll likely work in the US, but if this were implemented in Australia:
My ISP: "Hi! We've noticed you just downloaded Game of Thrones. Did you know you can view it legally on Hulu.com? Click here to see for yourself now!"
Hulu.com: "We're sorry, but the content you have requested is not available in your country."
Me: "Fine, I'll just activate my VPN and grab it off TV Torrents, even though I'd rather buy it if I could. (And no, I'm not giving Murdoch $120 a month to watch one fucking 3-month show on Foxtel!)"
When these idiots wake up and realise that geo-restriction is the idiocy of an antiquated mindset, they'll solve the piracy problem overnight.
Re: From Edinburgh
Are these guys still at it? At least the've moved on from poems to jokes over the last 30 years.
I clearly remember when this same university, way back in the early 80s, produced a "sonnets" program designed to compose poetry via contextual AI rather than just randomly stringing words together (like the poems program did on my VIC-20). Although I recall that it failed rather spectacularly, I remember this event because of one rather sinister sonnet the Edinburgh program churned out at the time, that has stuck with me ever since:
For now the time draws near, that you shall fall
And so it is within my depths conceal'd,
This store keeps yet the greatest truth of all,
And to men shall it never be reveal'd.
So consider, take heed of what I say,
This day you rule, tomorrow I hold sway.
Knowing this was written by a computer spooked me back then, and looking back on it now it seems that our friends at Edinburgh presaged the RotM by a few decades!
"Avatar" meets "Twilight"
Oh fuck, that image just ruined the rest of my year.
If this actually happens, I would hope very much that the Great Green Arkleseizure sees to it that James Cameron suffers the same fate as Grunthos the Flatulent, and for much the same reason...
So what difference does https make?
Facebook are still going to hand over your details to governments and LEAs alike. If some feminazi on Facebook decides to step up the War on Men another notch, and I organise some opposition or argue back at her, I'd still be arrested for
political incorrectness hate speech regardless. So Facebook doing this proves what exactly?
Sounds to me like there's another civil liberty that needs to be removed or another tax imposed, one whose removal/imposition can't be justified by protecting children or preventing terrorism, so the old 'anthropogenic climate change' excuse is as good as any I suppose.
"Superfast" brings back a memory
As I recall from my dim and heady childhood way back in the 70s, "Superfast" was a line of Matchbox cars (the real solid metal ones - remember those?) of which I had several examples in my toybox. I also had the associated plastic track with the loop-the-loops and the "Superbooster" car-flinger that propelled the Matchbox cars around it. I'm still annoyed to this day that my mother ended up giving it all to the church when I grew up and stopped playing with it. The collection would probably be worth thousands today.
Re: Uncertainty Principle and all that
Which is why the Star Trek transporter includes this little gadget called a "Heisenberg Compensator", of which, when asked how it worked, the Trek producers replied, "It works very well, thank you."
Upvoted simply because you hate PETA. Great minds think alike!
Make VPNs legal?
Insofar as this is not quite yet the People's Democratic Republic of Australia (although admittedly it's well along the way), there is no law as yet forbidding the use of a VPN in this country. Although the way things are going there may soon be, albeit more likely as I've predicted elsewhere, some kind of business-use-only licencing system will probably appear requiring you to register and prove a requirement to use one in the normal course of business. Not just for copyright enforcement, but also in response to the reaction against PRISM and its ilk. After all, if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear, right?
Re: The Girl on the power driven lid..
"Miniskirted operator...mid 70s"
Mate, if you haven't seen a miniskirt since the mid-70s, may I suggest you move to warmer climes. Here in sunny Adelaide the miniskirt seems to be a perennial summer fashion; hot weather trumps feminist prudery every time. One only needs to hike down Rundle Mall of a hot summer Saturday morning to cop an eyeful worthy of Buck Rogers himself!
@ Oblivion62 and jonathanb
I wouldn't know how it was done on the system described, but on the Commodore 64 (the machine of my misguided yoof) redirecting the output of a for-next loop to the printer would have been accomplished by:
10 OPEN 4,4 : CMD 4
20 FOR X = 1 TO 1000000 : PRINT X : NEXT X
30 CLOSE 4
Damn me, why am I wasting brain cells remembering how to write in CBM BASIC after more than 25 years?
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- The long war on 'DRAM price fixing' is over: Claim YOUR spoils now (It's worth a few beers)
- Dell thuds down low-cost lap workstation for
cheapfrugal creatives or engineers
- NSFW vid LOHAN chap hooks up with busty stratominx in cosmic pleasure cruise