"Deutsche Telekom: 'completely unacceptable, if true'"
....bu perfectly acceptable if false?
1600 posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
....bu perfectly acceptable if false?
" I've been in the pools and containment building at the Shearon Harris facility outside of Raleigh, NC. I've actually been all over that place in many areas that humans rarely see."
"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time to die."
"Power is NOT the problem 100Billion GeV is only 16 Joules. I can do that by lighting a fart."
Well, don't light your farts then!
Googles argument (which I consider weak - and wouldn't be an issue with properly written software) is that it makes support harder for the developer, as he/she has to then debug/support many more possible configurations.
In my opinion, it would mean programmers being more specific in what permissions they require (and besides, coding for unexpected failures is a basic requirement of reliable software)
I don't know about WP or Apple, but one thing that causes this in Android is backwards compatibility:
All apps are coded to an API level based usually on the release at the time.
If a future android version now requires permissions for something it didn't need before, to retain backwards compatibility, when the app is installed, it's assumed that it requires this new permission.
So some older apps don't just request permissions that they don't need, but also request some the author never intended to request!
I know it's not ideal, but on android at least, there are many third party apps that allow you to retrospectively remove events and permissions.
I find event abuse the most obnoxious - apps can request to be run on startup, when switching to mains power, when switching to battery, when another app is installed/removed, any many more.
It's impossible to fart without loads of apps starting in the background. In my opinion, Googles own apps are the worst culprits.
@Trevor, fair enough, I concede there are many ways it's been unsuccesful too, but I would still maintain it's an overall success story. (We've managed to disagree without insulting each others mothers..... that's an internet first!)
Trevor, I totally agree with you about privacy/anonymity/civil liberties.
I was just pointing out that whichever way you cut it, TCP/IP has been a success story (and I didn't say 'commercial' success, although it's probably implied somewhat, in that the internet companies wouldn't exist if there was nothing in it for them)
"American developed "standards" are what got us here in the first place. Anything that is approved by the US Gov should be shunned by the rest of the world. We need to look at the stuff the yanks disapprove of."
Huh? Are you saying that TCP/IP isn't a success story? From its humble beginnings to where it is now, used on a scale unimaginable at it's inception, designed for a totally different user environment?
Their blog spins it as a feature to make viewing videos easier.
1) How is pressing 'play' considered difficult? Especially as you apparently need to click it somewhere to get audio, which is less intuitive than before!
2) If you do want to watch the video, by the time you get to it, you'll probably have to hit 'restart'.
3) As 'heyrick' mentions above, does this mean multiple videos playing at the same time?
I'm not one of those hate-facebook-whatever-they-do commentards, but I struggle to see how even their most loyal fanboi could say this is a good idea.
And amore general rant: As with 'Only me!', I use my tablet with mi-fi, and although the 15GB/month cap is generally adequate, I'm fed up of all the sites/apps that assume cellular == cost, wi-fi == free
However, the difference here is that he did what he did because he was paid to do it, not because it was some sort of hobby or general interest of his!
I know nothing about Wheeler, but to say he isn't appropriate for the position based on his past occupation is implying he's corrupt.
Indeed, as the metaphorical 'poacher turned gamekeeper' he should be an ideal person for the job.
""The surest way to stifle further competition and investment in the broadband marketplace is to impose public utility Title II regulation on Internet access. The cable industry is committed to meeting consumer demand for a world class Internet experience and competing in the marketplace with all wired and wireless Internet providers.""
Despite being a load of bollocks, why would we expect them to say anthing that would benefit the consumer, to the detriment of their members profits?
Seriously, *anything* they support is going to favour the telcos - that's their job!, so why bother trying to spin it?
"Well no, not really. I'm not a complete twat who'd even contemplate posting anything as moronic as a naked picture of myself in a public place!"
I wish you'd told me that before I wasted all those days looking..
"Facebook has the same issue - when you delete something it's not really gone, it's just the pointer to it that has been deleted - but anyone with the direct URL can still load it."
Not true. The raw URL can be used to get around permissions, but when a photo on facebook is deleted, the request is batched out to the CDNs. Obviously it's not as instant as the apparent deletion on the HTML side of things (and facebook did once get into a bit of hot water for not flushing the CSN's in a timely manner), but it is done.
Apart from the legal ramifications, why on earth would they want to waste storage on a photo that will never be shown again on a 'proper' page with commercials and sponsored links?
"If they want control of something, then they are more than welcome to make their own network."
The network is already autonomous - it's the DNS that the US control - though if they did something really mad, a split could be made - the infrastructure is already in place [non-US run root servers all over the world] - the sticking point would be to get everyone to stop using the US root-servers, which you may argue is a virtual administrative impossibility.
"I already got rid of whatever clickbait used to be on the left hand side of MORE FROM THE REGISTER."
Ah yes, the 'outbrain' stuff.
I mentioned before that these sort of 'headlines' are really annoying, patronising, and dumbed down, but got mostly downvoted
Those Paris Hilton digs were never funny either
"I thought this was going to be an article about how it sucks to be "a woman in a male dominated field" and focused on the alpha male traits you normally see in the likes of the banking and hedge fund world, but this was just...wow."
I had exactly the same initial thought, and the exact same reaction when reading the article...
Wow.... I suppose alcohol is the underlying theme, but being drunk just stops you being able to control your natural urges, effectively making you show your true colours.
Someone who's an arsehole when drunk, but appears ok sober is simply an arsehole that covers it up.
It seems that a lot of techie blokes are even worse than the stereotypical builder :-(
"In bright clear weather, if you're driving in a wooded lane, a car in shadow may be nearly invisible until it emerges from the shade. Addiitionally your eyes take a couple of second to adjust when going from bright to shaded areas."
Indeed, and therefore a good reason to use your lights.
I also didn't mention tunnels, or times when there is a total solar eclipse, but I assumed I'd made the point that a responsible driver would use their lights when appropriate.
"Hard to get it, is it. A car with headlights on is easier to detect. For similar reasons aeroplans, ships, emergency vehiles and similar use lights too in daylight."
Well, I don't see that many aeroplanes and ships on my local roads, and as for the emergency services, you've basically proved my point, (as admitedly articulated elsewhere by others) -- emergency services often need to break the speed limit, and go through red lights etc. They also need to be seen by the sort of drivers who typically wouldn't notice their presence unless they drove into them (you sound just like one of these)
So, how does this help the emergency services if *all* vehicles have their lights on?
This seems hard for you to get, old chap.
"You did however mention the "morons who don't think to use their lights", also that problem dissapears in Nordic countries as the lights go on when you start the engine."
Do you realise, yet again, you are supporting my argument here? Hard to tell.
"Trust me James I know more about this than you do, did you have prooblems with the logic behind safety belts too."
Condesending twatty comnent of the week right there, but so 'full of fail' as to be comically tragic.
1) My name, as on my birth certificate, and as clearly stated on this forum, is Jamie. I've never been called 'James' in any shape or form, so that smug assumption backfired.
2) You know fuck-all about my knowledge on the matter, although you yourself have demostrated that any knowledge you do have is due to being one of the aforementioned 'dumb motorists'
3) Enter strawman. Since when do seatbelts make emergency services less visible, along with cyclusts, and other road users? Since when does universal seatbelt adoption totally negate any possible advantage of gaving them? Since when do seatbelts waste energy and have the potential to incorrectly give somoene a false sense of security?
As "Adrian 4" and "John Arthur" mention above, far more eloquently than I could put it, the more this is rolled out, the more vulnerable other users get, and as it get's even more ubiquitous, it's effectively an arms race to remain effective.
And all this because apparently we allow people to drive when their eyesight isn't up to the job.
*smiley face back at ya! Have a nice day!*
Well done AC, you managed to paste a quote from a completely different article! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/25/police_lie_to_public_about_law_on_terrorism_videos/
Oh! I was wondering why I'm seeing more cars wasting energy like this these days.... I thought we'd been invaded by Sweden or something.
In bright, clear weather (which admittedly is often not the case here in the UK) I don't need to see lights to know if a vehicle is moving, I errr, just see that it's moving.
I suppose this is yet another driving dumbing down for those morons who don't think to use their lights in heavy rain, or, duuur, at night
"Perhaps amanfrommars will come back and El Reg can decipher him for us,,,"
"Im not so bothered about online gaming, but none of the Playstation Plus titles run without phoning into the mothership... and that is pretty much all my collection!"
But that's to stop the pirates! I.e. those that probably have a cracked version with such restrictions removed....
"Why is it a security hole? Can I pwn an Android system if I insert a FAT formatted SD card into it?"
Android leverages the Unix security underneath in that every installed app runs as a unique and seperate user. But of course, FAT32 doesn't have the concept of file owners and permissions, so, yes,
A dodgy app with sdcard access has access to your photos etc., or manipulate their data files if they are residing on the sdcard. i'm not saying Google is innocent here for allowing this to occur, but as I said, the root cause has bern down to MS using their monopoly to force the crappy FAT.
Now, you could be forgiven for not knowing that, which is why I briefly explained why in my original post, assuming it was enough for a techie to grok. My apologies for not dumbing down enough for you.
"Your whole rhetoric is complete garbage anyway because Windows has supported UDF for a long time. Just like all the other Operating Systems."
So, tell me why all flash media uses FAT instead of UDF? Errr, maybe because Flash isn't a frigging optical disk, where even R/W disks can't have sectors changed as easily as on flash or a hard drive.
I hope you are trolling this shit. It would be scary if you were being sincere.
Anyway, I'm slowly removing FAT32 from everything. USB drives and flash cards are now UFS2+SU partitioned with the bsdlabel. (No MBR bollocks or GPT over-engineering who's purpose will come into effect the exact ZERO times I use them in a Windows machine)
For convenience, the android cards will be ext3 or 4, but there are still some apps that don't play well.
"Umm... because FAT doesn't support ownership or security of files?
Until recently, apps can read the files created by other apps. For example, any app is able to access your naughty photos, passwords, etc. from your SD card."
Nice one, AC! I thought the point was clear, but apparently not. Thanks for spelling it out for them :-)
"Sorry, I can't dumb it down any further."
Well get practicing, because you may have to!
"I merely object to all the crap you ignorant bigots spout as if it were true"
Like the MS bigots that read something about MS refusing to support anything other than FAT32 in mobile drives, and grok it as "MS won't give away theud software for free and would be upset if we stole it, the evil bastards".
Get off your high-horse - the lack of oxygen up there is turning you into a hypocritical sanctimonious twat.
Incidentally, whilst I am a Android user and developer, I've been very critical about Android in the past, and often still am. I've also had far more downvotes for negatively perceived Linux comments than windows ones, feel free to confirm that yourself, so I wonder what pigeonhole *your* biggotted close-minded brain would put me in now.
"Google had to use ms formats as all cards come preformatted to it and ms won't support non ms format devices on their o/s. So to make things easy for the user and to allow easy data exchange Google had no choice but use fat."
But that's what I said!
"trans: If Google had been allowed to just steal[*] work from other people like they do in the fields of literature (Google Books), Photography (everywhere), music, film and TV (youtube) there would have been no problem at all. Curse you Microsoft and your evil objection to Google stealing!"
In what parallel universe could that possibly be even close to a translation of what I said?
This has nothing to do with paying MS to use the crappy single-user FS from the DOS days, that should have died 20 years ago.
They dould have adopted an implementation of one of the better, FREE alternatives, but they used their monopoly to refuse. Some of the very early cameras had different formats, and you had to insfall theor drivers to be able to download them.
As they got more popular, and started to double up as portable drives (before USB sticks / mmc cards as we know them came about) it soon became clear that it wasn't really porfable uf every computer you tried to interface too needed software installed first.
MS stuck to their guns, and now everyone uses the inferior FAT32 format.
See? Nothing to do with getting things from MS for free, or expecting them to pay for something, nothing related to "Microsofts objections to Google stealing" - a phrase you've picked up from your alterbate reality....
Anyway, I'm fully expecting that if you've just read this, no doubt in your mind I've just insulted Obama, accused Bill Gates of killing kittens, and blaned MS for the disapearence of Lord Lucan.
Go on... tell me..... am I close?!
Ironically, the biggest security hole in Android is Microsoft's fault.
By intentionally not adopting a free filesystem for memory cards, everyone else has been forced to use FAT32 so that usbsticks etc. wlll work on windows computers without additional drivers (which would be a show-stopper because it would bugger up their portability advantage)
The /sdcard and /extsd card are therefore FAT32, with all the problems of no ownership rights on any of the stuff (which would include your docs/photos etc.) within.
I heard somewhere that Google are now attempting a kludge to control fine grained access to memory cards, but if MS hadn't exploited their monopolistic position in the first place, this wouldn't be necessary.
"A crossroads near me is 2 phase and would work much better as 4 phase. You have someone who wants to turn right, but can't because there is traffic on the other side of the road."
Ah, fair point. I should have mentioned that the junctions I'm talking about are large ones, with both filter left and right lanes on at least the main junctions. Even then, I agree that filter lanes are useful when the traffic is heavy, but to arrive at one of the many 4 phase lights that have just turned red, at night when you are the only one on the road is annoying to say the least, and these junctions never used to be this way!
Still, this is the council that decided to reverse the traffic flow on the main dual-carriageway, and then claim it has nothing to do with the pedestria fatalities that have occurred there....
" Trafic intersections controlled by lights operate in 'phases' where one or more light heads can be green. Eg a crossroads where there is not just one approach green at a time - usually the opposite approach is paired up."
Not anymore in Swansea (UK). Most of the lights are being changed to a 4 phase rather than 2 phase (ignoring the pedestrian phases)
Is this happening elsewhere in the UK? It's bloody ridiculous, and I'm wandering if it's dumbing down because someone managed to sue the council when they turned right into oncoming traffic, hit someone, but argued 'the light was green'. it wouldn't surprise me...
I hope my irony filter has turned American (*snigger*) today, and that was intentional.....
"It's a particularly bad choice of visualization as 25% of the population are rendered as just 6.25% of the area. Infographic fail.""
It's obviously been based on radius/diameter rather than area, which would be too complicated for the mass unwashed to understand!
" And where does the US Copyright Office get the authority to deny a hard-working simian his rights to his artistic creation? Specist bastards! Someone get that monkey a lawyer!"
Errrrrm, it didn't! Surely their decision was pro-monkey, by not letting the human steal his work!
The Office said in its latest copyright law compendium (PDF) that images taken by animals, including the 2011 primate self-shot, could not be registered for copyright by a human.
Except of course it's apparently the users not the people who control the infrastructure who are complaining (probably because some icon is a different colour to what they use at home). Do you think they give a rats arse about the specifics, so:
""Oops - we got the messaging system a bit wrong. Nothing for it but to trash the lot and switch horses again." Seriously?"
Yes, seriously. If it was the people who ran the system who said this, your point may have been valid
"Which means it is not ready or fit for any corporate environment. 'Sorry you can't get your email. Some dude might provide a fix one day."
And how is that Microsoft alternative working out, then?
"Thanks for explaining to me why so many people insist on quoting the entire email back but don't edit their answers into the questions"
I'm still surprised (and annoyed) that even the posters to the FreeBSD technical lists largely do this too.
If old-fart unix hippies do this, we've no hope.
As an aside, in my last job, I once received a long 'reply/quoted/reply/quoted/reply/quoted' etc. email from BT that somewhere in the depths of it were things we were not to know about, along with strict instructions not to tell any of us at ICL what was being discussed.
Of course, many generations of this email later, and someone had replied to this 'chain mail' with info. that was destined for us, so our contact at BT dutifully forward it onto me, with all the secret history included!
It strikes me that this braindead form of blind 'include original message after reply' would not be necessary if typical mail clients kept a copy of mail sent, mail received, and had the ability to thread / group conversations..... Oh.... Wait a minute...
" Possibly the significant comment is the one about it taking several weeks to set up the Mayor's smartphone to receive email.
That sort of embarrassment in front of the big boss tends to lead very rapidly to change, regardless of any other factors."
Sheer ignorance and incompetence is no excuse! That so called admin had the cheek to admit that, when really he/she should be looking for a new job....
" thunderbird+ldap+mozilla lightning."
...... very very frightening...
Quite. And even if there really isn't anything suitable, paying someone to write software, or tweak existing software would be far cheaper than paying for MS licenses, and the hardware upgrades the monster would require.
And then to be bound again by a company that tried to force
metro big blobby buttons onto it's customers..... WTF?
The thing is, none of the staff that are complaining have to foot the bill, and don't understand/care about the issues.
" Another reason why I don't drink any more."
.....says 'bloke down the pub'!
"You won't believe how much goes into today's telly tech"
I realise it's likely the subheading was probably not added by the author, but PLEASE El Reg, stop using brain-dead ''buzzfeedisms".
They are obnoxious, patronising, and part of the dumbing-down culture.
You'll find that the majority of the readership here will 'believe' this article. Further, I'm sure a decent percentage not only believe it, but knew it already.
Please stick to innuendoes, childish humour, and nob jokes, like you do best!
Yes, because Google are so short on internet infrastructure, they need to go wardriving.
Seriously, they admitted they were storing MACs and their location. This may or may not be something to be concerned about, but do you really think Google wanted to crack the private emails etc. of wi-fi users? Especially when considering there was no way to tie an online user to this data in a way to improve ad targetting,
I always get much lower latency connecting to my US servers from the UK using IPv6.
Yes, I know this is due to link usage/capacity etc., and nothing directly attributable to IPv6, and that this load imbalance could well change in future, but still, it's a 'real world' advantage for me to have IPv6 at the moment!
manfrommars1, there's little point you posting anonymously!