131 posts • joined 4 Aug 2007
Why is the western world so entranced by this idiotic idea that everything has to be representative of the demographics of society?
Surely the best qualified person is the person you want, not someone who is only there because they meet the criteria of an equality target? ie. Having been born with the right kind of genitalia.
Re: The whole extradition thing is just a red-herring
That wasn't good enough for Mr Assange, you know how he likes his dramaric endings, so he made it even easier for them "Nasty American Imperialist Pigs" by fleeing to the Embassy of a country that the US will find it even easier to extradite him from. Ecuador... land of the free... defenders of freedom of speech... .lovers of political dissent... oh and handily situated on the same continent as the US of A.
Re: it's simple
As the only thing I've stated is that it would be illegal for the Government of Sweden to guarantee Mr Assange wouldn't be extradited to the US, you must be claiming that the Swedish Supreme Court has stated that the Government of Sweden could provide a written guaranteee that is in breach of the Swedish constitution?
Care to provide us a link to that ruling, because I'd like to read it.
That'll be because the "conspiracy nuts" can't provide an explanation, because he would be safer from extradition to the US in Sweden, than in the UK.
Anyone reading the extradition treaties between Sweden <-> US and UK <-> US can clearly see that.
Re: it's simple
It just tells is that those who support the alleged rapist don't understand anything about law.
It's not like it hasn't been pointed out over, ...* and over again that the Swedish Government cannot give any such guarantee, it'd be illegal for them to do so.
So the interesting question is why do you all keep on chanting that same ridiculous demand?
* removed excessive number of itterations of "and over," for brevity.
Oh! I did love the ridiculous idea that the Swedish Government should piss away time passing a "speshul law" to protect Mr Assange, so as to guarantee he won't be extradited to the USA for certain offences.
Honestly the completely and utterly ridiclous lengths to which the supporters of Mr Assange are reaching is enough to make you embarrassed to be British. That we have such complete lunatics wandering around freely within our society... it's truly shameful.
IBM don't need to buy them though.
I wonder where the analysts of William Blair think the "cloud" lives though, if not on highly tuned disk based storage systems?
It'll be their entrepreneurial spirit
All them Chinese script kiddies dreaming of getting in on selling 'healthcare' solutions and making big bucks. They're only trying to steal your IP to get a a leg up.
I often wonder how much more effecient the world would be if it were run by accountants who seem to know the most effecient and cost effective to do everything... mainly I wonder if anything would actually work.
Re: Frame-breaking has legitimate uses
Lets home no malware authors, figure out how you break out of Googles frame-breaking code, eh?
"We've tested many of these links in the lab, and it appears that Google may be implementing code that defeats frame-busting..."
If that's true, then I should just like top say thank you Google.
"My iPad is more robust than most of the appliances in my kitchen never mind an enterprise data centre"
I got that far before it became apparent this was written by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the contents of an enterprise datacentre, or kitchen appliances.
@ Greg J Preece
"1 "feminist" is a prick != all feminists are therefore pricks."
I did point out in my second post that most women wouldn't have reacted as she did.
That however has little to do with my point about how the moment women get involved in anything, that entire thing has to change to be "inclusive" and considerate of the womens thoughts, feelings, opions and sensitivities.
If they're the equals of the men who were involved in whatever that thing is, that shouldn't be necessary. should it? Yet it is.
This is why we get to have crap like this spouted at us:
"Women in technology need consistant [sic] messaging from birth through retirement they are welcome, competent and valued in the industry,"
Men of course can expect no such treatment in 'the industry' despite apparently us all being equal.
Liek I said, there's no way to avoid the fact.
Seems to me that the passing of immature smutty jokes should be a perfectly acceptable thing for anyone to do.
I know women who partake in such activity, irrelevant of where they are, or who might overhear them.
However they know they can safely do so, because no man would ever bother publicly humiliating them, or risk their job for an impersonal smutty joke they pass with a friend.
Seems we men can't say the same.
Thank you the concern you've shown towards my social life, however I am fortunate enough to not need any advice in that area, so you'll have to forgive me for not taking aforementioned advice.
It seems to be saying that I'm not the only one who gets pissed off by the fact that the moment women get involved in anything the entire agenda has to adapt to suit their thoughts, feelings, opinions, and sensitivities.
I'm willing to bet nearly (if not all of those people) are pretty much like me, in that if this had been a case of some arsehole targeting her personally, by saying something to her, or about her within her earshot, we'd all happily call them knobs, and tell them they should be apologising most prefusely.
It wasn't though was it, it was some creepy woman listening in to a private conversation between two other people. Creepy because she wasn't overhearing it like we all would and maybe taking anything one of them said as something of personal note, you know the "Note to self - Hmmm he's obviously a knob" type opinion. No she was doing it because she is a woman, and believes she is thus 'entitled' eavesdrop and do whatever she wanted with whatever she overheard.
Which bit of "When two people are having a private conversation, it's rude to eavesdrop" is it you think she has trouble understanding?
Why do women do that eavesdropping thing anyway? I mean we all know they do it all the time, thankfully most of them are sensible enough to use any knobbish comments they overhear for no more than forming a personal opinion of the involved parties.
There's just no way to avoid the fact that the moment women get involved in anything the entire agenda/atmosphere of whatever that is must be adapted to suit the 'thoughts/feelings/sensitivities' of now present females.
Focus shift from whatever 'the thing' is to 'inclusivity/equality/sensitivity' just because there are woman involved.
If they're my equal why can't they handle being treated as I am treated?
Why should their feelings, thoughts ,opinioins, and sensitivities become as important as the primary focus of 'the thing' they've become involved in?
I can't say I've ever had to put the thoughts, feelings, opinions, and/or sensitivities of men first. Yet today we are expected to accept this as the norm for anything we are involved in, because there are women involved.
Anyone care to guess why the Western world is rapidly being caught up by developing nations who like our own predecessors focused their attention on doing 'the thing' they did, and not on pandering to the sensitivities and paranoia of a specific group?
And yes I know all you 'inclusive people and feminists' are going to fame me for this, but it's still true.
So presumably, Apple fanbois will be able to control their iGadgets with Google's `vision of the future`.
Our schools have high speed access to vast amounts of content, our students also have access to all that content when they're not in school. They have much better things to do with computers than learn to make them do things, like updating their Facebook and Twitter status, chat with the friends who they'll never actually meet or know, or listen to all their pirated music from their <insert cloud provider of choice here> account. etc. etc.
When students don't have access to all that distracting material, they have no other option than to make the computer do what they want it to. Better yet they can't even go and look up how someone else solved the problem, so they have to work out how to do it themselves... and learn some critocal thinking skills along the way.
It's about time all you hacks started telling the world the truth, loudly and very publicly. There is no privacy on the internet, there won't ever be again, because it's to easy to collect and coallate information about people. Then use that information for targeted advertising.
Even being `amanfrrommars` or any other pseudonym you can think of doesn't prevent them from grouping you, and if you really are 'amanfrommars' that group will be a very small one. So they'll gather fairly accurate information for their targeted advertising.
Joe Bloggs is out there listening to all you hacks reporting that people like Mark, and Eric care about their privacy, when you know damned well they don't.
Of course there's a cold spot. I'd bet if you carried out the same scan from the diametrically opposite position in the universe that the earth occupies, you'd see another cold spot diamentrically opposite that cold spot.
It'll be an imprint left on the very fabric of the universe from when God held up the source, (between finger and thumb) and created the big bang. His digits will have blocked some of the initial emissions, hence the cold spot(s).
That should keep the creationists happy :-)
Re: People still use Google?
How did all them users who used to think IE was the Internet find themselves using Google then? IE defaulted to MSN.
Please stop suggesting Google only have market dominance because of user stupidity. Those users had to choose Google, it wasn't a default on the PC they brought.
All search engines make money from footfall through their site being able to be mined to target advertising.
So you'll be wanting to dictate to all search engines that they must promote the services of their competitors before their own so that they're not taking advantage of the 'stupidity of' users' who will click the 1st hit.
I get fucked off listening to whiners who constantly whine on about how evil Google are for following proper business practice of doing their best to deliver the best they can to their users, and achieve the best turn over for their business.
As for 90% market share... that's quite an achievement for a company who have have that despite just about every single PC that has been sold in Europe (and the rest of the world) for the last decade, coming preinstalled with an operating system bundled with a web browser which defaulted to MSN/Bing.
You all might want to remember that next time you all come along and tell us about how Google got their market dominance by abusing their market position. They got it because the users you all think are stupid and incapable of deciding to use Google, choose to use Google.
Re: People still use Google?
Yep, yet even those of us who know this is the business model still use one or other search engine. I hear there are even some who understand it who still use Facebook.
People are odd.
You should complain to all those website owners who embed Google ads in their web pages, tell them they're being evil for using Google to get ad revenue from the web pages they're paying to provide you with.
That's nice, but as I've just pointed out searching Google for "Search engines" doesn't give you a 1st page hit for Google, it gives you a load of hits for their competitors.
If you're going to go making claims about how they're being anti-competitive please base them on reality.
Re: People still use Google?
All users of any search engine sign up to be data-mined.
An awful lot of them choose to let Google do that instead of a different company because Google offer a search engine/interface that they prefer. Not to mention the additions that Google have added like a decent maps system that is integrated with the search engine they made their business providing. etc.
If you search Google for Yahoo, Yahoo comes 1st, similarly Bing, Baidu, Altavista etc, etc.
If you search Google for "Search Engines" Google isn't on Page 1.
Google seems quite happy to give out other search engine sites details.
"In addition to materially degrading the user experience and limiting consumer choice, Google’s search manipulation practices lay waste to entire classes of competitors in every sector where Google chooses to deploy them."
Isn't that what businesses are meant to do? To do better in the marketplace than their competitors.
You don't hear Asda complaining that Tesco don't adverstise/promote Asda's products, or that there's some problem with Tesco's advertising/promoting their own products at the expense of other brands.
What is it with the idiots who manager tech companies that they don't understand the word "compete"?
How does one get to be stupid enough to ask lawmakers to draft law to prevent your competitors doing things that are perfectly legal for every other business sector?
How does one get to be stupid enough to think you should have laws passed to cripple your competitors in your favour?
Google have that market share because people choose to use their services.
If you want to compete with them provide equal or better services than them.
Stop asking for the entire system to be bent so that you can stay in business.
Re: This guy a Yank?
That definitely deserves an English upvote :)
Re: dead printer?
"Isn't it a pity there insn't some website that attempts to index the Internet, where you can enter a query and it will immediately give you pages of results, many invalid but many relevant. A fool's dream I know, but one lives in hope."
I found exactly what you're looking for.
Now all you need is a language course.
There's an entire industry built upon preaching to UK business that it should constantly strive to reduce the cost of everything it has to pay for. That reducing costs whilst maintaining operations is always a good thing. That every pound saved makes the company better because it returns a better bottom line.
There isn't a single company in the UK which hasn't had this preached at them by every source for years now. It's the basis of the current buzz industry "Cloud" the "you can do it cheaper by having someone else pay for the infrastructure/skills, and just renting the capacity/skills you need". Seriously the only reason for most businesses to put anything in the cloud is cost saving, not having to employ skilled IT staff to do the work themselves. We see it touted up here on El-Reg day after day. I'm sure it must be just me because I would have thought it was blatently bloody obvious what effect the drive to put everything it is possible to put into other peoples clouds would have upon the future of IT staff and skills in UK businesses.
Managers see everything done inside their company as a cost, they are constantly preached at about how the best way to run a business is to reduce cost. IT is just another cost, staff are just another cost. They don't have to care about long term viability of the company, they'll always just be able to contract someone else to do "it", probably cheaper, so they can get an even better bonus...
Purpose of internet must be removed
What did the lolcats do to upset the Gender EU equality fascists?
Re: @mmeier - @Hagan
Just as well someone wrote some FOSS code for IBM to get involved in and develop their OSS code on, wouldn't you say?
Which is surprising really considering that it was all so badly documented that it wasn't usable for proper work... like developing a commercial platform on... oh hang on...
Re: Popping Clogs
You don't need to hobble Vista to make it do that, it was designed in from the beginning.
This Flash obsession of yours is starting to make you say silly things Chris.
Replacing DRam (12800MB/s) with Flash (15 MB/s) isn't going to make your computer faster.
Syncing (I suppose mirroring in effect) DRam (12800MB/s) to Flash (15 MB/s) isn't going to work very well either.
The reason your computer only takes 30 seconds to boot is because cause it takes all the code from the slow storage (that's the Flash storage) and moves it into fast storage (that's the DRam) before executing the instructions.
If it was doing it all ( access to bits and execution of bits) at 15MB/s it might take a little longer than 30 seconds.
If you want fast you're going to have to stump up the money for a battery backed up DRam storage solution, Flash isn't fast enough.
How can any trial claim to be fair if the accused defence team aren't allowed to know what evidence is being used to try their client?
I would have thought the Kiwis wouldn't want to be seen dead, hosting a kangaroo court.
Nope I don't, said figures do exist I just can't be arsed to go find them.
As you'll see from so many posts before mine we have a particular problem in Britain with 'yoofs' getting tanked up and causing vast amounts of damage across large parts of Britain. The costings include all of that damage, as well as the cost f having numerous A&E departments in our health service filled with tanked up young hardmen, and their victims every Friday and Saturday night.
As a smoker who watched them come for my vice, I'm sitting here laughing at all you drinkers who are suddenly discovering the truth about how once you let them start interfering in what individuals can do, you're fucked, cause eventually they'll come for yours too.
My vice is taxed to death, but yours costs the country far more than mine ever has. I hope they right that wrong.
Re: I think someone meant to do that.
"that range of lengths was picked because the attacker knew a rule blocking them would crash the routers badly"
Wasn't it nice of them to explain the attack vector to all 'bad guys' everywhere.
I do wish the moderators here would stop all this personalised bashing of individual posters that is being targetted against specific individuals who post here.
Seriously. If you don't like what he says, the prove him wrong. If you can't do that, then don't bother commenting, about what he says. Your personal thoughts about him are irrelevant. All this ridiculous name calling just makes you all look like children.
Such as a solid satellite chassis? Sound will travel through solids too..
Assuming the nexus hasn't been mounted to the chassis with some kind of vibration asorbing/dampening technology, like say rubber or foam mounts, yes. The article doesn't detail how it's all fitted together.
The astronauts are talking into an atmosphere, which propgates the sound waves to the inside of their helmets. The helmet shell absorbs the sound wave and vibrates. Physically touching the helmets together allows that vibration to be propgated to the other helmet and thus into the atmosphere inside of the other helmet.
Whether the nexus screams will be heard will depend upon whether there is anyway for vibration to propogate between it and the device which is listening for the scream.
Re: Blue Pill? Red Pill?
Why is it cloud fanbois assume that you know nothing about cloud if you speak out about it being used badly?
You should avoid patronising people who express views you disagree with by implying they havn't got a clue what they're talking about, or sooner or later you might make the mistake of patronising someone who works in a cloud company.
Thank you for your advice, I am certain however that I understand cloud, so I shan't be rushing off to learn about it.
Re: This doesn't kill "the cloud" for me
I'll let you in on a secret, the managers in the company you've out sourced your compute function to, do exactly what you do. They look around the market place and employ the cheapest resource they can get away with. Sure they could pay vast sums to employ proper specialists, but like you they have targets, and budgets, and so want their bottom line to look good, so that they can get their big bonus.
All them people you don't want to employ because you don't want to pay for their skill are just like the people running clouds. Except they don't know or care about your individual infrastructure. Your individual infrastructure is just one of many they run, it's no more personal to them than any of the other infrastructures they run. When it's in a heap on the floor, they're not completely dedicated to getting it back up, they're still making sure they deliver on the other infrastructures they run. They have targets to meet as well, and delivering on all them other infrastructures, even when yours in in a heap, is part of their targets.
Cloud has a place, indeed it can be a very useful resource, but any place you put it, which could result in your company not being able to survive in the event of a failure, isn't a place where cloud belongs. From your earlier statement about how you've put your entire company IT into cloud, that's what you've done. You've delegated the responsibility for your companies survival to some third party supplier. Who as I pointed out earlier is employing exactly the people you don't want to employ, but putting them under much more pressure to maintain lots of different infrastructures. They know less about your companies specific requirements, they know less about your companies specific needs, and they care less about both than anyone you employ who would be dedicated to understanding and caring about those things.
Still it's cheap, and you don't have to worry about planning, implementation and running costs. So who cares. The staff at your cloud providers certainly don't, they'll keep their jobs no matter how badly your company fails, they have other infrastructures to run after all, so their jobs are safe.
Re: This doesn't kill "the cloud" for me
As someone who gets to pick the pieces up after such events as this, I can't help but disagree with all that you and cpreston have presented here.
I think cpreston summed up what cloud is, when he stated he didn't have to employ IT staff anymore. It's a non technical managers wet dream.
Now they get to sit in their plush offices doing less actual work (not managing them annoying technical people for example), pointing out to those who own the business how much money they are saving the company (by not paying for IT Staff, or equipment for example) whilst down playing the risks they are exposing the company to.
I think such people are deplorable, that they would be willing to gamble in some cases the very existence of a company, and all of the staffs jobs, so that they can have an easier life (not having those annoying technical people to deal with for example, no evaluations to do, no wages to pay, etc. etc)
The only possible way for any company to be able to ensure that data is secure, and available is to do it for themselves. That costs money, but it provides security for the existence of the company, and for the staff who rely upon the continued existence of the company for their jobs.
Anyone who is dumb enough to outsource the existence of their companies viability to some third party, deserves to fail. Any manager doing this for your company should be questioned very seriously about why they would want to expose your company to such risks.
Cloud is like the recent beef/horse food chain debacle.
Lots of managers looking around saying "Why would I want to pay to maintain a known chain of suppliers, a whole lot of equipment, and staff, when I can just buy it cheaper through a long chain of third party suppliers, and I won't have all that work managing all them things"... "think about how big my bonus will be when I deliver all them savings".
Re: I say...
So do I...
Only I'm not joking.
Re: Ideal scenario ... At the end of the day, if you're innocent, what's your problem?
The East German Stasi used to constantly monitor the people for signs of criminal activity, they just couldn't afford your preferred high tech CCTV Networked Camera solution.
Tell me what's it like to hold views which would have no doubt done you very well in such an organisation as that?
"Apple should work with it, not against it. They should just start nicking other people's stuff and wave lawyers at them if they get stroppy. Perhaps they could patent it as a business model."
I think they already have a patent on that business model, epsecially where mobile devices are concerned.
Re: Anyone else get a 'invalid certificate' fail on trying to install this update?
"Recommending to uninstall the old versions"
I did that weeks ago, and haven't missed it since. So I can't agree with all of your recommendations.
- Vid Hubble 'scope scans 200,000-ton CHUNKY CRUMBLE ENIGMA
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Apple to grieving sons: NO, you cannot have access to your dead mum's iPad