Want a laugh?
Ask any of the 37 who voted in favour of this how it benefits their constituents.
500 posts • joined 21 Nov 2011
Ask any of the 37 who voted in favour of this how it benefits their constituents.
So what say ye? A 15 inch laptop (or 17 inch with a numeric keypad), i5, 2400x1800 (4x3 aspect ratio) matte screen, 8gig ram (upgradable to 32), 256gig SSD*, a decent, backlit keyboard** and good trackpad?
Any objections? I suspect if such laptops were available to the Reg commentards (for a less than utterly ridiculous price) they'd sell like hotcakes and yet nobody makes em.
* Could always do with more but I wouldn't want less.
** Costs about $10 extra and is useful on odd occasions.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
He said: "Initiatives like TechFuture Girls that encourage young women to consider a career in this dynamic sector will play an important role in addressing this issue.”
Why? Is there any virtue to having a 50-50 gender split in the IT, or any other, sector?
I don't see any urgency to get men into fields which are dominated by women, and I'm ok with that too, because I don't see what's wrong with accepting that some fields appeal more to some population groups than others.
Teaching kids to code is what they called a 'hospital pass' when I was growing up.
'Here you go kids. Learn coding! What's that? You're good at it and you enjoy it. That's great! Well no. There are no coding jobs because they were outsourced to low wage countries before you started school.'
The CEO mentioned in the article wants kids to learn coding. Fine. But did he happen to mention any plans to hire any coders in the foreseeable future?
"(Yes, yes, I know it's just a trade agreement and not some super secret criminal laws... yet.)"
Unless you've read it, neither you nor I know what theis agreement entails. That's the problem with it.
"oops, sorry, here's a credit monitoring service. Now, let's get back to outsourcing our IT department to the lowest bidder."
And there I think you've hit at the root of the problem - it's cheaper and easier to say "oopsies" and give out pennies worth of credit monitoring than to pay the cost to secure the customer data.
Unless there's a big enough stick - either through legislation or litigation - this will continue to be the standard practice.
"but the issue [with my master plan of voluntary bad driver culling] is that it tends to involve innocent bystanders."
You're right, to an extent, but I see it as more of a trade-off.
Either a one time period of increased danger to 'normal' people while the incompetent drivers remove themselves from the gene pool forever. The added danger tails off in direct proportion to the rate of culling.
Or the continual risk of incompetent drivers only texting-and-driving if they can't see a copper nearby coupled with the increased chance of them reproducing and passing the 'dumdum' gene onto their offspring who will grow up and inflict their dumb upon the next generation.
I'd prefer to bite the proverbial bullet and go with the first option but can't really hold it against you if you favour the latter.
It's a delicious thought - remove all penalties, nay encourage using a phone/tablets/laptops/blow-up-dolls while driving, and let natural selection sort 'em out.
Who are these fines for anyhow? The people who don't posess enough rational thought to realise that driving is dangerous, and driving while intentionally impairing their driving ability is a really bad idea. Therefore the fines are for people who should never have been allowed to drive in the first place.
I'm no Tim W but I'll have a stab at it.
Uber matches drivers to passengers. The passenger pays the driver a 'fare', and the driver then pays a 'cut' of the 'fare' to Uber for their matchmaking service.
If the 'fare' is too high, there will be no passengers. They will catch a train, taxi, bus, or drive themselves, or just decide a night out is too expensive and stay home instead.
If Uber's 'cut' is too high, that is the drivers don't get to keep enough of the 'fare' to make driving people around worth their while, there would be no drivers. They would find a different job or maybe just stay home and watch TV or read Tim W articles instead.
This article is about Mr Novogratz saying that Uber's 'cut' is too high - Uber is overcharging for it's matchmaking services. If he's right, a free market will create a competitor which will kill Uber. One who is willing to take a lower 'cut' and thus is able to charge lower fares (which will steal all of Uber's customers) or pay the drivers more (how well would Uber do if their drivers all left Uber to work for a higher paying competitor?).
"Naikon has developed platform-independent code [...] "
Yeah right! It's on the desk over there, next to the perpetual motion device. Unless.. maybe the reason Kaspersky is reluctant to implicate a country is because that would be secondary to implicating the Naikon crew's home planet. ----->
I occasionally wondered about just that. What's to stop the CEO of a 'too big to fail' bank from going to the casino and betting the bank's float on 23 red? If it works, the CEO made a masterful investment and gets a bonus. If it loses, the bank gets a government bail-out (and the CEO probably gets a bonus anyhow for their skills in negotiating with the government).
Heads I win. Tails you lose.
These are the very basis of polygraph tests. If they really were 'lie detectors' then it would not be possible for Mr Williams, or anyone else, to teach you how to 'cheat' the test.
Sure big_D. Now who do you imagine is going to implement these laws? The corrupt or the corruptors? Or option #3, the dictator?
It's gotta be simply killing the supporters of both major parties that the one guy who, at least in this instance, is doing the right thing* by the American citizens... is the kind of guy who most supporters on both sides would openly mock.
* He's talking the talk, which isn't much but is still more than anyone else seems willing to do.
"Do you have a source for this assertion?"
No. In the mid-90s I used to work on a road where there was (still is) a string of car yards and that's what I used to hear from the car salesmen. The SUV (throw a hat over any 4-8 seater passenger vehicle larger than a sedan) are perceived as safer, but would Joe Public go through the extra effort of getting a truck license to drive (for example) a Range Rover when he could buy a sedan an drive it on a regular car license instead? It'd also mean the wife/older children couldn't drive it without extra driving training. So, for most families, the requirement to get a truck licence to drive a SUV would result in a sedan or, if the extra seats were needed, a minvan.
I could stand to be corrected with regards to the pilot's licence. My understanding is that even a recreational pilot's licence (single engine aircraft and a max of 1 passenger) requires a heap of supervised training, clearance from 3 different levels of instructors and requires the would-be pilot to have regular medical checks.
One of the factors underlying the popularity of SUVs is that they don't require the prospective owner to have a truck driver's licence*. If they did, you'd be lucky to see any SUVs outside a rural setting.
With no disrespect intended to truck drivers, a pilot's licence is another order of magnitude harder to get. So while I appreciate AeroMobil's ingenuity, I don't know who they hope to sell their "car" to.
* I think they should but that's another argument for another day.
Surely there's an accounting software package which does the heavy lifting for smaller online sellers where you plug in your sales figures and it spits out a list of national tax departments who you need to send a cheque to. And since any business selling stuff online would need some accounting software to keep track of sales and deal with their own tax department, having to deal with additional countries should not represent a large increase in burden.
US patient law really is about efficiency. The aim is to grant ridiculously broad patients to US companies and then use said patients to extort everyone else. See! Perfectly efficient.
Of course the ruling class, regardless of nationality, are always in favour of granting themselves ever more power over the citizens they're supposed to serve. But where does it end? And will they recognise that they've gone too far before the mob starts mounting heads?
Mortality is not the sole domain of the religions but I believe that arguing that something should (not) be done because it is (im)moral is the domain of the irrational, of which the religious are a subset*. When I read, "X is (im)moral", it translates in my head as, "I can't provide a compelling, rational argument to support my posion on X but I want you to take it as gospel that my position is correct."
* I know religious people who I consider to be good people but that's not the same as saying they're rational. "We shouldn't steal things from others because it creates an environment where thieving is considered acceptable and I don't want my stuff stolen", is a rational argument. "We shouldn't steal because God/Allah/FSM said so", is not. Nor is, "We shouldn't steal because it's immoral."
Thankfully we live in a secular society and thus there is no "moral" in our tax code. We don't have priests, or rabbis, or scientologists saying, "Well yes, you did pay the legal amount of tax but, from moral standpoint, you should have donated another x% to the church/synagogue/temple so you go to jail... directly to jail."
The dollar amount is pure nonsense. From the article in 'The Australian', "The FBI alleged a group of five hackers based in the US, Canada and Australia had stolen intellectual property worth $100 million-$200m."
They don't know what was "stolen". If they did they'd have a more accurate figure than, "Aww. You know. A hundred million. Or wait! Maybe it was two hundred million."
Maybe the reason they don't know how much it was worth is because it really was stolen - that is, the victims no longer have the files in question and thus are having difficulty determining how much the missing files are worth. That couldn't possibly be right, could it?
I do understand that he was charged under different laws the second time but it still reeks of the prosecution trying to circumvent the principle of double jeopardy - that you can't be charged for the same thing twice.
Well done to the people of California and Texas for having the distinction of voting in the one member of each major party who actually seem to have a clue.
How about the scenario where a Foreignland's intelligence agency spies on US citizens, US intelligence agencies spy on Foreignland's citizens, then they swap homework? If there's nothing to prevent that, then this bill is little more than theatre.
If they're up front about what data is collected and what triggers it, well and good, I suppose. You could code around it or choose a different tool chain.
The nightmare would be developing a child oriented program, to teach them math for example, then finding out that your software collects data on it's users in contravention of laws specifically designed to protect children from such things.
I've had a honest go at reading through their statements and T&Cs and am no wiser about what/how data might be collected about people who use software which you write using MS tools. Either they're being too vague or my ability to read 'legal' is not up to the task.
This could have been prevented with 80's era tech - a 286 hooked up to a dot matrix printer* and a fax to send out flight plans as required. As in, "put down the shiny toy and look at this white stuff with printing on it. It's called paper. It doesn't require batteries or wifi. It just works™."
* See BOFH 2013, #5. As an added bonus, when they work out who is responsible for this stuff up, they too can be fed to the dot matrix printer.
"What does that mean?"
It's easy to think of people who don't share your areas of knowledge as less intelligent. My point is that while they might not be as knowledgeable about certain things a you, it may well be because they've chosen to focus on other, no less valid, branches of knowledge.
"Because I need someone to build a house and they don't need to know any science, we shouldn't try and improve our education systems so that they know some anyway?"
And again, that's my point. You're equating "doesn't know astronomy" with "doesn't know science". There's a great deal of science that goes into constructing a modern building, it's just not the kind that gets taught in an astronomy lesson.
A carpenter, just to pick an example, does need to know science but they don't need to know if the earth goes around the sun or if our ancestors lived next door to a brontosaurus. And, according to the article, these are the questions being used to gauge scientific knowledge.
"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."
- Sherlock Holmes
I believe the above quote is relevant anyone who sneers at result like this.
For most people, most 'scientific' knowledge is irrelevant. Does knowing whether the earth goes around the moon improve the code which I write? Does knowing how many planets are in our solar system improve the work of the guy who services your car? Or that of guys who build your house?
Don't get me wrong. The scientific method is the humanity's best tool for understanding the universe and for testing our understanding thereof. However, it's simply not necessary to remember every irrelevant detail. Do you know the mass and age of the star third nearest to our sun? Or how many chromosomes your pet dog has?
Sneer all you like but you'd better write your own software (all of it), service you own car, and build your own house while doing it. And solve your own crimes too.
"It is almost getting to the point where posting anything useful is a waste of time."
You think too little of the commentards here if you think we get our knickers in a knot over a random downvote.
Look for pro-logic! You've completely misrepresented the complexity and nuance involved in the extensive corporate rebranding process. It's not just a simple matter of paying a $350k per letter removal fee. That just ridiculous!
NBN (formerly with "NBN co") actually negotiated Rebranders Inc* down to the perfectly reasonable fee of only $100k per letter but then there was the additional issue of organically certified, environmentally friendly whitespace disposal. I think we can all agree that "NBN[space]" would provide an unacceptable corporate presence so $500k for removing the space was perfectly justified. That you failed to consider the disastrous implications of that trailing space just shows what a total novice you are in the rebranding process.
* Full disclosure: The CEO of Rebranders Inc does have a certain similarly of surname with the CEO of NBN, and the 'logo designer' does share the same name as the three year-old son of Rebranders Inc's CEO but I'm sure it's coincidental and, to be fair, it's a very talented three year-old.
Was the only boxing match which I went out of my way to see.
It was before I was old enough to drive, so an hour by train to get to festival hall in Melbourne to pay $20 to watch it on a big screen.
There were a few hours of underwhelming undercard fights with me sitting in a non-air conditioned hall with a thousand, or so, other people on a stinking hot day.
There was a forty-five minute delay after the last undercard fight because the ref wasn't happy with one of Tyson's gloves. This involved his hands getting rewrapped, and the ref still wasn't happy, and on it dragged, and on I melted.
Then the announcements.
Then the fight... all 91 seconds before Tyson knocked Spinks out.
Then I left. Another hour on the train and I arrive home just in time to see the whole fight again in the 6pm news broadcast.
The courts should double the fine every time a guilty company appeals. The idea being to dissuade the practice of using appeals to 'fish' for a favourable result, or continually appealing because it buys time for inflation to eat away at the real value of the fine (ie. keep appealing until €210 mil is about the price of a beer at the pub).
There are good arguments why courts should not do what I'm suggesting but I'm over companies trying to buy the answer they want.
Yankee comedian Chris Rock made the point well.
Alcohol is made by white people: no problem.
Pot and cocaine made by brown people: illegal.
White people sell guns: no problem.
Black rapper says "guns": congressional investigation.
As for your pommie trader who made a packet by, so far as I can see, bluffing some of Wall Street's trading algorithms, more power to him I say.
With every AOSP ROM which I installed on my previous phone (galaxy s3), you had to install Google's app bundle separately from the ROM. I don't know which phone you have but if you're asking if it's possible to have an android phone without Google's apps (play store included), the answer is absolutely 'yes'.
Thanks for taking the time. My interest is not so much in the specific criteria so much as, given Google's huge impact on the internet, whether they're reasonably likely to promote their stated aim. From the list you've posted, it seems they are.
And for AC
"So you want the internet to look generic?“
Quick answer, yes.
That said, I think the ideal situation would be for browsers to be good enough to enforce the user's wishes. For people with sight issues, the browser display black, 16pt sans-serif on a white background. For people who don't like 'generic', it displays every character in a different font, colour, size, blink, orientation and randomly bolds, italicises, underlines and super- or subscripts.
It's an ill-defined phrase that gets tossed around a lot and I'm mildly curious about Google's idea of 'mobile friendly'.
For my money it would have the same characteristics as 'a well designed website' - navigation links across the top (like the Reg's mobile page) followed by simple HTML. You know. The kind which was fairly common till the marketing 'creatives' got the web designers high on latte fumes and convinced them what the world needs is cascading, multi-level, mouseOver-driven menus, along with auto-playing videos and sites that simply can't function without flash.
Rather than harming small businesses, I think Google's decision could well benefit those businesses that aren't large enough to have marketing leeches spewing their 'creativity' over their company's website.
It's a tangential thought but it's interesting how many devs (and I'm one of them) are annoyed by slow loading IDEs. Unless the code being worked on is going to crash the machine regularly (a faulty device driver perhaps), the IDE is only going to get loaded once or twice a day so it shouldn't much matter how long it takes to load... but it does!
Aye sir. My mother-in-law is building a house at the moment and, while her builders (friends of the family) have done a meticulous job, I know what you describe does happen. However it's not like it's standard practice for builders go looking for rubbish to fill up the client's house.
Imagine if construction companies behaved like this.
"Here's the new house you paid for. We've stuffed every room, floor to ceiling, full of garbage. Now instead of enjoying your purchase, you get to spend your time and energy doing unpaid cleaning work."
Yet phone manufacturers, telcos, and in this case, phone OS writers seem to think what I've described is commendable business practice.
This has the same problem as DNT - it won't provide any protection from the people who you really want protection from.
Apologies. That should have been "intentional exaggeration".
While I only skimmed over the AFR article, I assumed the "billions" quote was an international exaggeration as there's no way it could be factual. As Mr Chirgwin points out, Australia's online economy isn't that big.
"A suit pocket is fine at work, but what happens when you're wearing jeans and a tshirt at the weekend?“
Be a real man! A manly man... and put it in your purse.
Exactly! Sony thinks that installing a rootkit on their customers' computers is acceptable practice and there are still people out there who think giving this company money is a good idea.
Mr Smyth decided to play with a snake and I have no sympathy about him getting bitten.
Was sold to a private bidder late last year.
(Yeah. I made it up but would you be at all surprised?)
A politician taking policy advice from people who are knowledgeable about the subject matter, while certainly novel, is not exactly the crisis situation that you guys seem to think it is.
Flippancy aside, and as an outside observer*, I don't believe you blokes at El Reg have made a sufficiently compelling argument that corruption is the most likely explanation... not quite yet. Though a link between the white house and Google being made aware unpublished FCC proposals would, for my money, be the smoking gun.
* Living in .AU, I don't much care if Mr Obama is signing laws in exchange for "googly" suitcases of unmarked bills. And secondly, most Americans seem so partisan that the democrat voters would re-elect him anyhow - at least he's not named Bush, right? And the republican voters would chuck him out even if he cured cancer while creating a lasting peace in the middle east.
I keep pondering how Cyanogen is going to make money - their other objectives are irrelevant if the business itself is not viable.
I'm sure there's a handful on these forums who've played with it, or even use CyanogenMod as their primary phone OS but we aren't representative of the vast majority of people in user-land who will never install an app, much less an OS. And we, techie types aren't a big enough market to keep Cyanogen in business. So where is their money going to come from?
Your mention of China got me thinking though. I was in Thailand last year and there's a huge pile of cheap, Chinese-made phones to be had. Mostly knock-offs of the popular, western brands - Samsungs and iPhones and HTCs and the like - which look the part of whatever they're proporting to be but at quarter (or less) of the cost of the real deal (and a quarter of the specs too).
Now I'm thinking to myself, these phones will never get an update from their manufacturer. Could Cyanogen sell their OS to the people who buy one of those phones? $5 per year to keep your phone updated with the latest CyanogenMod. I don't know but I think it's a market where Cyanogen's product is easily superior and would be well worth paying for.