> Do iphones support FLAC now?
No, that niggling little "F" means that Apple will not tolerate it.
103 posts • joined 4 Nov 2011
> Do iphones support FLAC now?
No, that niggling little "F" means that Apple will not tolerate it.
I also hope it gets worse - maybe the kind illustrated in Cronenberg's "Scanners" movie would be apt in more ways than one.
> What must be worrying intel agencies is that 'using encryption' will soon be useless criteria ...
This is so naive. Are you saying that honest folk don't use/need encryption for (say) online banking?
Encryption has never been the preserve of criminals (unless you include that fact that it was "security agencies" that were the first major users).
> The Reg editorial line is in favour of geo-blocking? Didn't see that one coming.
I did. It's an Orlowski piece, so inevitably embodies a rather wonky view of copyright (namely that is an excellent legal framework allowing middlemen to rip-off creators and consumers alike).
> They already have it. ESPERANTO...
No, despite claims to the contrary, Esperanto is very obviously a dialect of Spanish.
Hmmm... my daughter failed her first driving test, according to the examiner because she didn't speed up after leaving a 30mph limited area. We checked afterwards, and there was no sign indicating the end of that speed limit.
And the overhead speed limit signed on motorways near alleged roadworks or "incidents"? More often than not they are wrong, plain and simple. Any works here finished days ago; the incident - if ever there was one - was cleared hours ago.
In short, you can't win. As the old saying has it: the French invented the motor car, the Germans developed it, and the British tried to ban it.
> Somewhere David Cameron is having a coronary.
Why? He would have no idea that making a goverment website secure would require encryption! After all, that would imply that the government are terrorists or paedophiles... Oh.
Not really - what China is doing is protect its own psychopaths, not defending itself against other nations' psychopaths.
Absolutely not. Either it's for sale, or it isn't. Why should you know or care where your customer is?
If you don't want to sell, that's OK. If you do, that's also OK.
If you want to sell to "them" but not "us", that's not OK. If you want to sell to "them" at $1 and to "us" at £10, that's not OK.
> Surely not logging it means that it won't be written down as much?
Surely logging it means that it will be chopped down and sent to a sawmill?
> "ICANN has nothing to do with content." ...
... and a great deal to do with discontent.
> When you get a nuisance call, you press the "jettison" button. The call is transferred to a system which marries it with another random "jettisoned" call.
Better yet, to a premium-rate number set up for the purpose ... one that never hangs up.
> The security services try to distinguish between surveillance & collection.
That's fine ... until they look at what they've collected. In that moment, collection and surveillance become one and the same. Did they mention that?
OTOH, if they don't look at what they've collected, they shouldn't waste resources collecting it in the first place. And if they're collecting stuff unnecessarily, they should have their budgets cut (like everyone else).
But anyway, who believes what they say now?
Excellent point - tax avoidance is a fantasy promulgated by HMRC and other branches of Government, and there is no meaningful way that it can exist in reality. Tax is what the law say tax is, end of. All the stuff about "avoidance" boils down to the HMRC saying the law makes them look foolish, having a tantrum about it, and attempting to extort tax the law says they aren't entitled to.
> Hmmm yes binary logs, that was a bit of a fucktard decision wasn't it ?
Yes, and an obvious one. Just think what other fucktard decisions are hidden inside the parts you've not yet seen.
Maybe they, not we, are evolved from the Pak?
Whether or not you get crema from an Aeropress seems to depend on the water temperature, AFAICT. Whether or not you want pretentiously-named froth on top of an otherwise-perfectly-good cup of coffee is entirely another matter.
Excellent plan - I'd go further, though: after that first phase, the new rules are then extended to members of the police and security organisations for two more years, and so on - I'm sure we can all think of a few groups of deserving cases for a few further phases...
A quick search reveals that Camel essentially shut down at the beginning of the year. Apple may have bought it - probably for peanuts - to get a brand-name, a patent ($DEITY forbid), software to build into one of their own products, or simply a (small, admittedly) user base.
> "... Superfish was only installed on kit aimed at consumers"
"Superfish was only installed for customers who were unlikely to be able to defend themselves."
> Do you really think dividing the world into good guys and bad guys is a good way to understand it? Do you really think it's that simple?
No, but Marx did. That's why Marxism is, as previously mentioend, stupid.
...and Godzilla isn't a jet-setting "do as I say, not as I do" doom-monger
> The key benefits of cloud ... are around on-demand scaling and cost transparency...
Very, very few businesses need a significant amount of on-demand scaling. And cost transparency? On the one hand, it's the exact opposite of transparency, you really have no idea your money will be spent. On the other, it's transparent because you get a trivial invoice saying what you've bought and how much you have to pay. But you're likely to pay dearly for that budgetary simplicity.
Unfortunately the same criticism can be made of the studies that show moderate drinking is OK. The most notorious example being the study that counted ex-alcoholics as teetotallers, but all papers of this type suffer from similar, if subtler, errors.
> For half a century IT has been destroying jobs. The legions of clerks and secretaries responsible for the maintenance of post-War ‘Organisational Man’...
I'm not convinced by this. All the "clerks and secretaries" have simply moved into adminstration, where they cope with a lack of useful work by the simple expedient of creating useless work, writing it up as "policies", and getting the rest of us to waste our time in turn by writing up how we are complying with the policies. At least, that's what seems to be happening in every organisation I deal with.
You can absolutely guarantee that no matter what the technology is capable of, these vehicles will not make any journey faster than a human driver would make the same journey. They will not be permitted to, because our government is obsessed with public transport, and will continue to make roads less usable for other vehicles. In that context, they will be seen as a way of slowing down all traffic (except buses, in places where they get their own lanes). In fact, I predict we'll start seeing local government introducing regulations making it illegal to overtake self-driving vehicles.
> Professional gangs dress up as recovery trucks...
Yes, they even stole a recovery truck from a local garage a couple of years back, presumably for that very reason.
I think you meant:
It's a government, man. That is the only actor in the economy who can legallly do with your money what it damn well pleases - in particular, give to to other people...
> Windows Phone 8 - Zero known vulnerabilities. Zero known malware.
Yes, but you missed off "Zero known users. Zero known apps."
Presumably you omitted "social media users" from your list because it is implicit. I hope so, anyway.
> but in this case you have made an assertion that you cannot support - that copyright strength is irrelevant
Actually, the case was clearly stated. In the "old days", the record company said "assign me your copyright or else", nowadays you're complaining that Google are doing exactly that. Neither of those situations would be affected one way or the other by any definition of copyright.
Actually, awful as this is, record companies were worse. Why? Because if you didn't sign up to their deal, your music would never be heard on record, and if you did, you were not only signing all your rights over to them, but also usually the next few albums (aka years of work) over to them as well.
I know a lot of people hate Google (it's no surprise this was another Orlowski piece), but it's too easy to forget that they seem bad because you can see what they are doing, whereas when it was record companies / publishers / ..., all that stuff was much less widely known.
> Any successful organisation will have a make up that reflects the make up of the community in which it conducts its business.
Not necessarily. The only way to achieve balance is to appoint/promote exclusively on ability/performance, by some pre-defined objective measure. Doing so might achieve the same balance as the wider community, but might not, for reasons quite outside the organisation's control. And, of course it would be a slow process, which is the kind of thing that motivates the calls for quotas - but quotas are always guaranteed to be discriminatory.
> Hilton, Marriott et al market themselves to business travellers yet want to charge (a lot) extra for wifi...
Business travellers don't care, their company pays.
> We cannot have a society in which some dictators someplace can start imposing censorship here ...
It's just an example of imposing your own laws on other countres, a process that White House incumbents traditionally approve of.
You've inexplicably missed "Piece Of Crap" - Neil Young's tribute to modern technology - off your list. Out of politeness, I shall assume it was an oversight.
On a slightly-related topic (well, only-a-bit related, but never mind), is there any news on whether the the movie studios' tax-avoiding antics are going to come under the same spotlight as iwa being shone on Google, Apple, at al?
That's because HDR photography isn't actually HDR, it's 2 (or 10, or whatever) ordinary DR photographs munged together, then printed to look HDR, or maybe just H-ish DR.
Actually, the document only specifies 80% coverage *after cost-benefit analysis confirms it's worthwhile*. It isn't worthwhile, so there's no requirement at all, in reality.
> How do I know nearly no-one cares about smart meters saving on their bills?
It's not that they don't care. It's that the usage monitoring devices reveal very obviously that knowing what you are using makes no difference. (Plus, how many KwH do you need to save to cover the cost of 4 Duracell AAs?)
You may be unimpressed by Dan Brown, but he's no worse than the authors/editors of the religious tracts in question.
> The iPad was something people said "I can't see the point of it" etc... at the time. Tablets are now everywhere.
And we still can't see the point of them...
Why bother with driverless cars, when MK already has passengerless cars (aka buses), whose sole purpose is to cause congestion by justifying the creation of bus lanes.
>This is about data protection. Google have data on people (the associations between names
> and.search results). Those people, by right, can ask that that Google remove irrelevant and/or
> incorrect parts of that data. Google have a legal responsibility to delete that data where it is irrelevant
> and/or incorrect. Not "hide" or "censor"; delete.
But if what Google has is just an association between names and search results (i.e. other websites), none of it is irrelevant or incorrect, in fact.
Out of interest, is there a definition of bullying which wouldn't also encompass this idiotic legislation?
> Aren't these the same people - No. That was an EU court. Read up!
Actually, yes. It's the EU, end of.
> Still waiting for it to open docx files without completely messing the layout...
I use LibreOffice a lot and it hasn't messed up any docx files. Can't say the same about MS Word, of course.
The more people you can shoe-horn into a day, the more thay can increase the daily quota of fails (= re-test fees). And yes, I know that they deny that there's a failure quota... and you know how much you can believe them.
Meanwhile, "My nightmare scenario is" some dimwit in IT who doesn't understand our business and obstructs nearly every activity of the organisation. If it's a no-hoper on the helpdesk it just slows everyone down and causes annoyance; if it's the CIO we're dead.
All in all, you make it sound like a Lumia.