3868 posts • joined Thursday 14th June 2007 08:27 GMT
Re: "They're just [not] in _your_ server."
They bloody are, mate! No way am I swapping a SATA bus for BT's wet string.
Re: probably a .NET problem
"If they really must browser sniff to support old clients like IE6, then at least assume by default that any unknown device is upscale and should be served the full monty."
This, lots. It has *always* been the case that if you are going to browser sniff then your default option for "unknown" browsers should be to presume full compliance. This article explains why.
Re: Please leave the browser market
I dunno. *My* reading of the article is that the problem here *is* standards compliance. IE11 is more compliant and so sites stuffed full of workarounds will break. I don't see how leaving the market to IE10 (and, if we're honest, IE8) is going to help that.
The fix is for the CRM people to fix their shit.
Re: I'm conflicted
You encourage both sides to hire expensive lawyers.
Re: those HUGE red and blue arrows ...
...did at least make it clear that the upper and lower surfaces weren't counting as edges in this context.
A bit of a shame that, since it probably makes it much harder to produce a macroscopic "wire" carrying an appreciable current, which quite by co-incidence answers the question just below this sub-thread.
Re: No chemists here
Any literate chemist would have called it Stannene, with a double-n to preserve the short "a" sound. With a single-n it should indeed be pronounced "stain-ene" and deserves all the opprobrium of the OP.
Since China has the source code for XP, they could easily maintain it themselves. (I see no reason to doubt the competence of their programmers.) It would, however, be of dubious legality. However, if Microsoft refuse to sell the product and refuse to maintain it, the legailty of Chinese programmers maintaining it for free becomes debatable and in China itself the debate would presumably be fairly short.
Re: "So 80% can be stored in the cloud"
Two problems. Firstly, you are relying on researchers and assistants to decide whether the topic under discussion falls in the 80% or the 20%. Secondly, in the latter case you are relying on them to know where the pigeon hole is for the secure stuff.
It sounds to me like the IT department has just punted responsibility for data security over to the end-users. Just as well that Parliament doesn't do anything important.
Re: Malice or incompetence?
You mis-spelled "and".
"They are only moving to 7 as software houses, like AutoDesk, have said they have no immediate plans to support 8 (although that may have changed...)"
Software houses may be more willing to support 8.1 once they no longer have to support XP. For similar reasons (basically cost), they may also be unwilling to support 8.0 ever, simply because 8.1 is a free (and fairly minor) upgrade and why should they add 50% to their testing costs just to save you the download?
Re: Mint and Minecraft
"You'll need a reasonable video card and a reasonable CPU though, my 256Mb integrated intel video is certainly not enough."
That may be more of an issue than the OS. There was a minecraft update a few months ago that mean it no longer runs on one of our older laptops.
"So, you don't have a mobile phone?"
I'm not the OP, but it sounds like a pay-as-you-go deal, which for limited actual use might easily be ten times cheaper than any contract.
Re: Message to mobile operators
" they will hop to another network and get it there."
But if it is costing you and your competitors to offer the Apple product, then losing Apple customers might allow you to keep more of the cash you make out of the rest, who are the majority. It rather depends on the numbers. The good news is that if operators don't think they are better off without Apple then non-Apple customers probably aren't paying too much Apple-tax.
In any case, if the other big name manufacturers are cutting similar deals then Apple aren't as evil as the article makes out.
Re: the problem is subsidised handsets
"They can't be bothered to do some basic primary school maths..."
By the time you've considered likely interest rates over the repayment period, I'm fairly sure that quite a few people simply aren't able to do the primary school maths.
On a philosophical point, that's why society invented the notion of consumer protection law. The vendor has staff working full-time to make sure that their products extract as much cash as possible for as little product. The consumer has limited time (for each of their many purchasing decisions) and usually lack some of the information and skillset to make the judgement. Therefore, the law says vendors aren't allowed to offer insanely bad value or risky products.
At least, *sometimes* it says that. I believe financial services products (like investments or insurance) are fairly tightly regulated in the sense that you can take far bigger risks if you leave the high street and go to the stock-market or Lloyds of London. Food, medicines and household chemicals are tightly controlled, too. Utilities and services like TV, phones, gas, electricity, water? Meh ... I haven't noticed it.
First they came for Eadon and I said nothing because, well, he was Eadon.
Then they came for the single issue loons and I said nothing because I have *several* hobby horses.
Then they came for folks who take the piss out of Godwin's Law and I was well stuffed, I can tell you.
Re: LAN of Things?
OK, I was about to ask the same question and I get the big data part of the answer, but...
Isn't this still a LAN of things, talking to a *conventional* (not especially low-powered) computer that aggregates the data for your house and then itself takes that data onto the internet. The difference, as I see it, is that the aggregating "PC" has some chance of being beefy enough to include appropriate security in its software stack, whereas a device that is powered by microscopic fuel cell breathing passing farts has no such chance.
It is going to be important that the internet does *not* see all the things in your house, but only the aggregated view that you choose to provide. An internet of things is as much of a design error as was (say) ActiveX controls in the 1990s.
@skelband (Re: Here's an idea)
Here's another thought, whilst you are collecting them. Perhaps *only* it could be blocked, rather than also taking out every other site using the same IP address, like the FA's court order did a month or two back.
Back with the original article:
“A specific blocking measure concerning a specific website is not disproportionate, in principle," the advocate general added.
In principle, "in principle" implies that it is possible. In practice, history teaches us that we need harder evidence than that. Even the supporters of this idea should be cautious at this point in time.
Not necessarily. In fact, this might be part of the solution.
At present, designs tend to put all the cores in one package and then join them to memory elsewhere. The package with the cores has a heat problem. The package with the memory is generally uncooled. Mixing the two is unlikely to increase the amount of heat produced overall and it could mean that the heat production is less concentrated.
Re: [Some anti-UK prejudice, y'think? — Ed.]
No, I don't think. If you have to guess then you ought to play the odds and, as the article notes, the odds point to tech companies being US-based and West Coast at that.
"Ninety per cent of people surf porn, ten per cent are liars"
Does that mean only 80% surf porn, or only 80% admit to it?
@Rusty (Re: Edit & Continue)
I cannot upvote this enough. Twenty minutes is enough time to rebuild several hundred thousand lines of code. (And that's *your* code, not someone's header file.) If your project structure means that you are doing that on a regular basis then you need to restructure the project's source code.
Edit & Continue is such a marginally useful feature that I'm surprised they ever developed it.
Re: The real question here is
"how many of the buggers knew how many other buggers were on her phone?"
Probably none, since the signal is broadcast and easily deciphered so you wouldn't need much more than some fancy radio equipment to become one of the other buggers. As the story mentions, this is all so well known within security circles that there almost isn't a story here. To a state-sponsored spook, a mobile phone is basically an unsecured medium, like plaintext email, or postcards.
Why pick on China?
Google could set an example by only offering an https service, worldwide. This would annoy spooks in every country (except for the NSA who have a legal backdoor) and perhaps encourage a few more sites to start offering private services. It would be nice if we could get most of the web on https before the next idiot politician decides to "solve" a problem by mandating deep packet inspection of everything everywhere.
Re: Licensing --> FTFY
"If your vendor's licensing is so complex that they created "licensing specialist" as a job title and certification, then you're buying something wrong."
Re: an ARM offering
They could have just ported their desktop OS to ARM. (WinCE ran on ARMs, back in he day, so it wasn't even like they'd no experience or tools.) They didn't need to re-invent the GUI.
"When I left the UK in mid '84 they were still using non-metric measurements for everything except petrol and packaged food."
We still are, which is all the more surprising when you realise that schools stopped teaching the old system in 1972 (?) and therefore most of the population have been taught only to use centimetres, grams and litres (Well, actually I was taught to use grammes. Perhaps one of you youngsters can tell me when teachers finally caved in on the spelling.)
But the French still seem to use livres in their supermarkets, so there's no rush.
Re: No User Manual, no software.
"this the main reason why I've tended to avoid using open source"
Does that mean you prefer to use closed source because in that case you can't see that they didn't have a spec?
Re: weight of manuals
It would also mean that everything you download off the internet was labelled as version 0 -- which isn't too far off the truth.
Re: (This sort of stuff is why non-tech people only use the admin account! )
Given that your example is Visual Studio Express 2013, I think that should read "This sort of stuff is why tech people use free software -- it's just less depressing when it doesn't work if you didn't actually pay for it.".
Re: + signs are valid in email addresses.
So are uppercase letters. :(
Re: On the other hand....
"(eg incapable of telling that whatever 3547+2974 might be, it's not 4xxx or 5xxx)"
I think it has always been true that most of the population is incapable in that sense. :(
Kids today have separate maths tests where they are or aren't allowed to use calculators. In the ones where they aren't, they get tested on the kind of numeracy that you refer to. In the others, they get to show that they know what operations ought to be performed on larger calculations, without being held back by the tedium of performing them.
I'm a big fan of mental arithmetic and estimation skills, but I still think calculators are a good thing. In fact, I think the solution to the endemic innumeracy problem is to split "maths" into the elegant stuff and the practical stuff and let those who aren't keen on triangles and quadratics equations drop them and concentrate on areas and averages. (For similar reasons, I'd like kids to be able to drop English Lit and concentrate on the English Lang skills that might let them put a coherent document together, or understand one written by someone else. I do think that one of the more damaging tendencies in education in recent decades is ministers who think the solution is to broaden the core curriculum year on year until there's no room for the "lesser" subjects that might actually interest 80% of the teenage population. Yes it would be "nice" if everyone knew a little physics and biology, but it would also be "nice" if everyone knew how to read music and knew that there *were* such things as the rudiments of harmony even if they didn't understand them, had some idea of the last 500 years of European history, some idea of the artistic movements that had accompanied it, some idea of where it took place, and some idea of the religious certainties that had motivated almost everyone until at least 1800 and a whacking majority until very recently. The moon on a stick would be nice, too. But no. We have to study triangles and quadratic equations and Chaucer and poetry.)
Re: Cheap version?
I'm sure he's referring to the fact that you have to add a keyboard, mouse and screen before the system is useful and not everyone has those lying about spare. Most families now have laptops rather than old-fashioned desktops with discrete parts and before you mention the TV as a screen, consider how many families would be happy to give up the evening's television because their offspring wanted to use the RPi for homework.
Re: What the law says makes no difference
"But the basic injustice still stands. That mega-corp only has to send out a letter to effectively suppress any comments that they might / do / could decide were not wholly to their benefit."
But what comments are "not wholly to their benefit"? As far as I can see, if I stand up and say megacorp are a wunch of bankers then 99% of megacorps will simply ignore it because they've heard of the Streisand effect. (For the 1% of megacorps who haven't heard of the Streisand effect, nothing is more educational than raining libel writs on Joe Public. Such corps will learn or perish.)
To actually incur the wrath of their lawyers, my statement has to look like it is making a specific allegation against them, like they ripped me off. In *that* case, their lawyers might want to consider that I might actually have documentary evidence proving that, in my case, they failed to "live up to their high standards of customer service". If I have my day in court and convince my peers that I have a case, it is then quite legal for *everyone* to say that megacorp are a wunch of proven bankers.
It's not all stacked on the side of the rich megacorps. Consider how Starbucks responded to the tax brouhaha by making some voluntary payments to the Inland Revenue. They had the law on their side and weren't even taken to court and they *still* felt they needed to give way for the sake of PR.
Re: If you want your private life to remain private
"Other instances are: when your name appears on any public records (company records, electoral rolls, official gazettes, ...), when you for whatever reason make the news (you're an athlete and appear in competition results, which are btw aggregated by various sites that create "your profile", you're a researcher who publishes papers─also aggregated─or you have made a noteworthy discovery, you found oil in your backyard, ...)"
None of these examples invade your privacy and none of them are different now from how they were a generation ago. What's different now is that people choose to put genuinely private material online (apparently in the belief that the web is like one-way glass) and the way that a computer can automatically trawl through everything so there's no need to hire a traditional private eye to build a file on a random person. The first is the technology out-stripping our social intelligence and I was reading the other day that present-day teens are much more wary about social media than the previous generation. (This is the "Facebook is for parents" generation.) The second might well remedy itself if the next generation grows up to view such trawling as grossly invasive, like peering through a bathroom window.
Society has changed an awful lot since we were running around on African grasslands. The legal framework is often one step behind technological reality but rarely more than two. It is within our power to protect privacy and my guess is that future generations will do just that.
Re: Can't wait to add it to my spam filter
You mean you're *not* already blocking TLDs longer than 3 letters?
Re: Not Good
"no-one tell the Cornish and we'll see how long it takes for them to twig."
I think you'll find they twig pretty damn smartish and have toll gates up ready for the summer season.
Meanwhile, Intel are adding very wide GPU-like operations to their own instruction set and these, obviously, enjoy the same single view of memory. Sounds like the cycle of re-incarnation is nearing completion, with everything ending up on the one [CG]PU.
Re: You think you're having a bad time...
Most UIs these days are so badly designed that it would turn you into a swivel-eyed loon if you actually documented it in any detail. So ... you've been spared that fate, at least.
"Each of them sustains fusion very nicely."
Only for a few billion years. Then they're just litter.
Unless, of course, an improved understanding of plasma physics turns out to be just what we need to make ITER work. But hey, what are the chances of that happening.
Possibly true, and I'm sure Michael Faraday thanks you for re-iterating this point.
However, do note that there are several examples of services where you pay a flat rate to be connected (which may imply a cap on your rate of consumption) but are neither charged nor even metered for actual use. In the UK, nearly all roads are provided on this basis, water still is for a significant proportion of households, and broadband can work that way if you choose. (I suppose membership of a private club often also works like this.) The phrase "too cheap to meter" is not as dumb as it is usually made out to be.
Re: And it will be ready...
" the opportunities for remote working being a bit more realistic and practical"
Well if you have roughly £1000 per head of population to spend you could probably wire up the whole country with fibre and wireless. (Unless you let the big telcos run the project, of course.) In fact, you'd probably have enough cash left over to replace the Victorian signalling on the railways we already have.
"Sadly, economic markets generally do not consider long-term effects a relevant factor either, which is what has led us to this current state."
Ah but they do and that's precisely the problem. Any cost that can be kicked into the long grass for long enough is effectively zero because you can invest a penny today, let the interest build up and then pay the bill in a hundred years time off the interest. (The actual numbers may differ, but that's the principle.) This is perfectly valid economic reasoning, as long as you can be confident that you will still be around in a hundred years time and that the economy won't have tanked in the meantime. Historically, both of those assumptions have held good over the long term.
"I've seen arguments recently that "hydrogen bombs" are not even really fusion bombs - they rely on making the fission explosion much more efficient with clever engineering."
That I doubt. Although I'm not privy to the experimental data, my understanding is that the yield depends on how much fusable material you include in the package and the fissile element (pardon the pun) is kept as small as possible. If so, that would imply that the source of (most of) the bang is indeed fusion of light nuclei rather than fission of heavy ones.
It is of course possible that the heavy nuclei are destroyed to a greater extent during their time in the sun than would be the case if they were left to their own devices.
"His recent involvement with Bing suggests Microsoft wants a techie tuned to the integration of web search and online services with Windows devices."
Wanting this is the root cause of most of Microsoft's miss-steps in the last decade. We'll know if the company has a future fairly soon. If the incoming boss doesn't pretty much reverse the policy then they are doomed.
That's not because they couldn't be a player in that market. It's because all their attempts so far seem to have involved walking away from (alienating) the desktop market. That's just daft. There's an ad going round for Microsoft's CRM software that says it costs six times as much to get a new customer as to retain an old one. Why are they walking away from the biggest monopoly in the industry to try to steal customers from their two richest competitors?
Re: Not going to happen
"Oh sure, the Servers and Tools division is still going to turn in healthy profits..."
Without all those clients, why run a Windows Server or write apps using the Tools?
At this point in time, I'm tempted to say that the source code for the Windows Desktop is Microsoft's only significant asset. (Their management certainly isn't. I wonder just how many of the good developers they still have?) Office is replaceable unless you are a power user (and there aren't enough of them to keep the cash coming in) and I can't think of any other MS products with a near-monopoly market share.
"Why is so much of the muck-slinging, accusing everybody of being shills, being done by AC's."
If they posted drivel under an identifiable handle, people might block them and then they wouldn't be famous on the interwebs. (Thought experiment: what would the forums look like with all the AC posts blocked? How hard would it be for El Reg to enable this so that we could try it out?)
"How long has the support cycle been known for?"
The support cycle has been known since XP was launched. At various points along the way Microsoft have *extended* the support life either by issuing service packs or by simply declaring that they will support it for longer than previously advertised. However, if you've got to 2014 and are surprised to see XP losing support, you've been asleep for at least 13 years. (Possibly longer, since Microsoft's support life-cycle policy pre-dates XP.)
If you've only just woken up, can I just point out that Win7 goes out of support at the end of the decade?
Re: Running scared Y2K
" ( seriously, we did have sign off Y2K on things that didn't even have clocks! )"
Was that not a clue that at least some of this 18 month marathon was actually unnecessary?
I'm sure IBM's mainframe division did sterling work in keeping up their systems, but that was a purely internal matter for IBM. In the more open PC world, where most of the y2k analysts lived and worked, there was never much to worry about in the first place. Most software that had to handle dates had needed to handle post-2000 dates long before y2k. Most of the rest was never likely to cause more than minor inconvenience.
Re: notable mathematicians of Rome/Byzantium
Greece, Egypt, Syria ... but only Roman by conquest and the ruling culture regarded mathematics as something for slaves to do whilst they sorted the design of some seige machinery. In at least some of the cultures they conquered, mathematics was a higher calling and practised by the nobs.
Ramanujan lived in what was then part of the British Empire, but I wouldn't call him British.