Yes, they could be that [dumb]
"Strange been programming commercially for about 32 years now and never heard that rule..."
So have I, and I've heard it. I also understand it.
205 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
"Strange been programming commercially for about 32 years now and never heard that rule..."
So have I, and I've heard it. I also understand it.
Entered from my iPhone 3Gs.
The good news: I already have a pair of newer (Android) phones on order to replace this and my daughter's. These work but are getting long in the tooth.
Am I the only one who just clicks on a URL in my favourites list?"
"It works best in English. Not so much in American."
True, but some of us benighted Americans have studied foreign languages such as English. It made perfect sense to me. I even gave it an upvote, generous person that I am.
Side note: "rubbish lorry" translates to "garbage truck" in American. In case any of my benighted fellow colonists were having trouble understanding the story.
"The ISPs say the plans are unworkable."
Which ISPs? The major incumbents who hold monopolies or duopolies in most places in the US?
"'...is the wrong path forward,' industry body CITA claimed."
Hey, he's absolutely right. The correct path forward is for incumbent service providers to actually compete by offering superior service, instead of abusing the legislature by bribing them to pass laws preventing competition.
And it would be nice if they didn't lock out any further competition. Open up their infrastructure and charge reasonable rates so other businesses can build on them.
Eh, may be too late. I've got Denyhosts running on a LAMP server and have noticed an uptick of lockouts from 10-25 per day to 10+ per hour. I'm guessing that somebody has infected a bunch of PCs and swelled the ranks of his Zombie PC army.
Dunno if this is the vector but SOMETHING has stirred up the anthill.
8 characters or longer? Doubtless this is the same bureacracy that only leaves 5 letters' worth of space for names like Wawrzyniakowski on their paper forms.
Um... you do realize this is The Register, right?
"Why should I spend a lot more for LED?"
I do because I find that CFLs don't last as long as their marketing claims, contain hazardous materials that require careful handling, and are easy to break. I find that LEDs are both more robust and easier to recycle. Even if I did manage to break one the cleanup would be easier.
Also, CFLs don't work as well in the cold, though that's not much of a problem here in Sacramento.
I believe LEDs are a better long-term investment than CFLs.
If none of those reasons appeal to you, then by all means, stick with CFLs.
Assuming T-Mobile isn't outright lying, it seems pretty cut and dried to me: Huawei signed a contract and then violated the contract. Companies allow others to rent their equipment all the time without expecting the renters to steal the parts and make off with the technology, and nobody considers it remarkable, and NDAs are pretty common. I've signed a few myself.
Noise about "they must have expected something because they put cameras up" is a red herring; when most companies put security cameras on expensive equipment people don't call it "entrapment", they call it "insurance premium reduction."
Part 2 is a bit less simple: how much should Huawei pay for this breach of contract? T-Mobile is naturally going to high-ball the number in the hopes that it doesn't get whittled down to nothing. It's up to the courts to come up with a final figure, right after they decide if there was a contract breach in the first place. It's what they're for, after all.
My only connection to T-Mobile is as a formerly loyal customer, now a pissed off ex-customer.
"Photographer can't cash in on primate pics"
Balderdash. Stuff and nonsense. The copyright office is not saying that the photographer cannot sell the photos nor gain from them in some fashion. They are only saying that he can't copyright the picture, and therefore has no monopoly. He cannot prevent anybody from using the photos and cannot require those who do to compensate him.
That is all.
"I deal with database backups - and restores - all of the time." ... "The point is, unless you test your backups, they are useless. How do they know if these backup systems are working if you never use them?"
Airplane backup systems aren't like the systems you're used to in that they're constantly running in parallel. These aren't offline backups; they're a separate set of instruments that are working at the same time as the computerized versions. A glance will tell you if the standby instruments are operational, and standard pre-flight checks also require they all be working.
Yeah. Our wonderful Congress is looking out for us by putting band-aids on bad laws rather than... I dunno, say, fixing those laws?
Well, at least it's better than nothing.
If you define "Traitor" as "Edward Snowden", then yes, Edward Snowden is a textbook traitor. Which is pretty much what Mr. Andreessen is doing by metaphorically using Mr. Snowden's photo as the definition.
Then there are those of us in the real world and don't redefine words to mean whatever supports our latest madness. If you use the actual dictionary definition -- or, better yet, the US Constitution's definition -- it may not be so simple.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
(I'm not claiming that the Constitution's definition is necessarily superior to that of a dictionary. It's just that it's the definition that Snowden should be prosecuted (or not) over, and would be if our government weren't being run by a bunch of [string of expletives deleted], seeing as how Mr. Snowden performed his actions as a US citizen.)
"Your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with," Roberts told Aereo attorney David Frederick, reports Deadline Hollywood. "There's no reason for you to have 10,000 dime-sized antennas except to get around the Copyright Act."
Balderdash. Technologically it's nonsense, but the entire nonsensical effort was made solely to try to fit into existing laws. If making an effort to stay within the limits of the law is obviously an attempt to circumvent the law, then our entire legal system is a sick, sadistic joke. Either it's legal or it isn't, and there's no excuse for trying to argue that it's illegal because it's legal.
This isn't a free speech issue. Their first amendment claim is part of a shotgun approach, where they're just throwing a bunch of legal arguments against the wall to see what sticks. (OK, sorry, mixing my metaphors.) Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want to anybody you want at any time you want with zero consequences, and it's not blanket permission to do whatever you want.
And, ignoring the validity of the patent claim for the moment, this isn't actually a patent issue. Manufacturing and selling a product that infringes on somebody else's patent is a patent violation. Using such a product is not. The end users are not liable for the patent violation. The fact that MPHJ is bypassing the manufacturer and suing the end users is a pretty clear sign that they're just a bully threatening to beat up kids for their lunch money.
Of course, the fact that they're a non-practicing entity with nothing but a large patent portfolio and making all their money by suing the crap out of anybody they can was a pretty big clue, too.
East Texas, whatever other flaws or virtues it may have, is a typical venue for such suits because they have a track record of favoring the trolls.
MHO. IANAL. YMMV.
Only obvious to humans who have learned these things. At 3yo I doubt I'd ever heard of a savannah or the stock market. And were he told an airplane had a nose, my 3yo self would likely imagine a real flesh-and-blood human nose, complete with nostrils, attached to the front. It's easy to dismiss learned facts as "obvious to anybody" when in fact they're only obvious if you know them.
Been there, done that. See "core memory".
Closed is the new open.
Actually, I bought this refurb 3Gs because I needed a decent phone but I'm on a budget, and it was cheap enough for me to afford. I never wanted an iPhone, and there's plenty I don't like about it, but I've not regretted the purchase. It's kind of grown on me.
@Sir Runcible Spoon:
"I mean, if I use my car in a ram-raid, and my the insurance company is making money from me using that car 'they are receiving proceeds from a crime when that car is used for "illegal" purposes"
Oooh! I know this one! Also the money the DMV (or whatever appropriate motor vehicle authority applies) receives for registering the vehicle is also tainted. As is then whatever percentage of the salary or other compensation the clerk received for processing the application. And when the clerk spends that money, not only the money but the goods received are also tainted. Then the store uses that money to buy stock, or pay its employees...
Once money is tainted, it is contaminated for all eternity. It cannot be used again but must be destroyed. Oh wait, the destruction would mean the component molecules will eventually be used to make something else and contaminate that. Even if you throw it into the sun, the resulting burst of sunlight will be tainted as well... we must make a place to store all contaminated money and goods where it cannot be retrieved, re-used or in any way re-enter any cycle of life or manufacture.
Ridiculous? Of course. But at what point does this chain go from reasonable to ridiculous? Right at the start, or just wherever the authorities find it convenient for the buck to stop?
My father claims to have attended one of her classes, and described the bits of wire she carried around.
I know. Nobody cares. But it is a personal connection for me, if indirect. Only two degrees.
"And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation..."
And if you are, then it's contractual, which is already covered by separate law and doesn't require lame-ass copyright law extensions brought about by regulatory capture.
The only reason for locking a phone in the first place is vendor lock-in, which is what you do when you're too stupid and selfish to understand how customer loyalty works.
It's the last refuge of the incompetent.
Anyway, while I'm glad to see that the White House has managed to pull its head out for a little while, it would be even nicer if it did something a bit more proactive. So far it's just smoke.
If you really want to go overboard then get one of the £300 Topre based ones that pretty much fellate you whilst you are typing.
I have to ask. How would that work in the case that one were of the female persuasion?
...long extension cord for your car charger. Less convenient than the aforementioned UPS but probably cheaper. :)
The US is SO much better. All we have to do is wade through 55 minutes of commercials for an hour show, and those 5 minutes of actual programming are free! Go us.
This just in: Apple sues Microsoft because they have employees, too!
... Let's see. Poor coverage causes poor reception. Poor reception induces your cell phone to boost its signal. This reduces battery life and... Oh!... increases the radiation levels surrounding the cell phone.
I don't know how wide a proximity that affects (that is, other people in the same room) but your kids are going to grow up without parents because you died of cancer before you reached 40. Because that cell phone in your pocket is blasting its signal into your hip at full power. Could be doing interesting things to your potential future children, too. Congratulations.
Why isn't there a tin-foil hat icon? This needs one of those.
Actually, according to some sources, duct tape was not invented for taping ducts. In fact, it's not very good for taping ducts. I know -- I've tried. Totally and completely useless for taping air conditioning ducting, for example; it falls off in about 10 minutes.
There's some disagreement about its origin but some claim that it was called "duck tape" because of its resemblance to cotton duck, which is a type of fabric.
No waterfowl need apply. But the point is that there's no unquestionable source proving that "duck tape" is incorrect.
As for "ariels", try "aerials" instead. If you're going to split hairs about spelling, first make sure you have your ducts all in a row. Er, I mean ducks.
It's a nice, clean way to automate your backups. I've been using it for years. Finally switched to removable hard drives as my backup medium when my 5th tape drive died -- DDS3 is so last century.
The key here is "automated". People are lazy, only the most dedicated (or paranoid) will regularly run backups by hand. By automating the system you get to set it up once, then just monitor and tweak it once in a while, swapping media every so often.
Retrospect does well for this.
What's more is that it's cross-platform. I can (and have) backed up Windows, Mac, and Linux clients from the same server. I just wish they'd cut prices a bit on their multi-system licensing. Raising prices sounds like a great way to make more profit, but in the long run it may just lose you customers. And aside from creating CDs and packaging (which is dirt cheap) it's not like the software is a finite resource. Make it cheap enough and hobbyists will buy it in droves, not to mention small businesses.
I was disappointed when I heard that Retrospect 8 was canceled and EMC was talking about dropping it altogether. I'm glad it's still around, and hope that Sonic will do something with it besides let it collect dust.
Anyway, enough babbling! MHO, YMMV.
... Oh wait, never mind.
Nice little titties. Thanks.
Some of us don't consider nagging three extra times before renaming a file to actually be better security. It's just the ILLUSION of better security, and Top Security Firm seems to have been hypnotized into believing the illusion.
It also doesn't add to security to nag people so incessantly that they get into the habit of reflexively answering "Yes" to every prompt just so they can get things done. I wonder if this report took that into account?
... Not that I have any love for Windows 7. I just dislike it fractionally less than I dislike Vista.
"...new laws designed to protect the music, film and software industries."
Um, and why do they need protecting? They've proven quite able to beat up customers and cheat artists on their own.
Or are we protecting them from their own reactionary stupidity? I'm not sure I need my tax dollars being spent on that. "Adapt or die" is for everybody, not just the dinosaurs.
(Though in this case it's not my own tax dollars that would be spent, seeing as how I live in the U.S. of A. Consider it a metaphorical statement.)
"...and with who they share this information with."
Um, try: "...and with whom they share this information."
A philosophical question: does calling myself a Grammar Nazi in a comment invoke Godwin's Law? O_o
Read The Fine Article. It said he'd emptied his accounts (and his apartment) PRIOR to the heist. That means "before". So, no, he didn't rip off 11.6m and then pause to do anything.
I happen to like the Sidekick, and until a few days ago I was considering buying an LX. I miss a lot of nice features on my old SKII, starting with the keyboard.
And for the record, I haven't been 13 for 38 years and some months.
Just because you don't find value in something doesn't mean nobody else should either. Thinking otherwise is just arrogant presumption.
How ever am I going to find thepiratebay.org now?
The Secret Service are required to treat ANY death threats to the President as potentially serious.
That's spelling, not grammar. Though you might be able to make a case for punctuation.
And it happens on humans, too. Then there are those who through birth defects or accident have fewer than the norm. However, the NORM for cats is to have five claws up front, four in back, per paw.
Otherwise the real number is "indeterminate". "If not... well, they have some indeterminate number of claws, naught or more - and know how to use them" just somehow doesn't have the same impact.
Because shopping mall names in South Philly just don't have the same ring.
People: It's "viruses", not "virii", fer cryin' out loud!
...and many others.
*grinds teeth in frustration*
And BTW it's "waive", not "wave". Sorry, this one's not intended to be a rant, just thought I'd mention it.
@Michael C: You know, buying a virus scanner subscription is not the only way to secure a system. And it's not the only way to clean up an infection. In fact, installing a virus scanner after-the-fact is generally useless for any virus worth a damn.
Wiping a system clean and re-installing the OS is VERY affective at removing a virus and does not require a purchase. How do you take a screenshot of that?
Throwing away a system and buying a new one is just as effective and doesn't require the purchase of anti-virus software.
There's also ClamAV.
I find it interesting that your scheme considers proof of the effort to be superior to the actual effort of cleaning up. Beware of unintended consequences, my friend: people WILL game the system. Adding more rules to prevent it will just make a mess of things. Apply the KISS principle here: if you can detect an infection, you can detect when it's been cleaned up. Giving people an "A" for effort is all very friendly but doesn't solve any problems, because the infection is still there, and it complicates the situation by requiring elaborate methods for providing proof and locks out some very effective eradication methods. If the customer wipes out his OS and starts over, and his infection goes away and he stops spamming or botnetting or whatever, by your scheme you would continue to charge him!
What if he decides never to acknowledge your E-mail? He gets a free ride.
It's also a very elaborate scheme for making the ISP keep detailed logs, provide hands-on analysis, notify, verify, and so on.
I think your heart's in the right place but I think you're over-thinking this one. By bending over backwards to give the individual the benefit of the doubt you've put a tremendous amount of effort on the ISP and made it impossible to employ. Don't be so concerned about the rights of the individual that you forget the rights of the community.
"I have WGA running on 3 computers here and to be fair it is invisible to me, even when running off the net. Its not like it was disabling my computer or bugging me for clicks. It seems to me that to sue over it you have to prove some kind of harm. Probably that's why those suits are going nowhere."
Yet another person with the arrogance to assume that if something works for HIM, the problems 30 million other people have cannot possibly be significant.
Hey, guess what? MY notebook battery hasn't blown up. All you folks missing limbs and suffering third degree burns are just whining about nothing.
...They don't have a leg to stand on.
Boy have you got the wrong end of THIS stick.
What you've just told everybody, in essence, is that once a crime has been committed you think it's OK to arrest and question anybody, anybody at all, that you think might have possibly committed the crime, even if there's no evidence. "I think that guy did it, he looks shifty. Let's arrest him and impound everything he owns."
What's that sound? Oh, it's the sound of habeas corpus flushing down the toilet.
"but why on earth would he try and destroy the Best excuse not to get up in the middle of the night !!!!"
How's that? I used to get up and bring the baby in for her. What excuse would that be, again? Oh, "I'm too friggin' lazy and selfish to help you raise this child." THAT one.
P.S. The use of four exclamation marks is obviously the sign of a sick mind. You should get help for that.
"He says, "It's OK" and touches both eletrodes together sending a shower of sparks into the air in front of his face. He could have quite nicely killed himself in front of me."
By swallowing the battery, maybe. Unless UK car batteries produce a much higher voltage than those here in the US, there's not enough to hurt him.
Yes, I know, it's current that kills, not voltage. If you apply Ohm's law you'll see that for a given resistance, the lower the voltage, the lower the current. 12v isn't enough to kill you. It's not enough to hurt you. You can hold one terminal in each hand all day and not feel a tingle, except the part where your arms go numb from staying in an awkward position too long.
If UK car batteries run at 96v, though, there certainly is a danger. 48v not so much though you might feel it. Maybe if your hands are wet. Skin resistance varies and I haven't done the numbers but I think 48v wouldn't be more than uncomfortable. Maybe somebody will correct me if I've got that one wrong.
Those sparks, now, are impressive. I always love watching movies where they torture the hero with electric shocks, and show you how nasty it is by first stroking the wires together to make those lovely sparks. THAT is high current through a near-zero-ohm connection, and said hero won't feel a damned thing unless they apply it to his tongue. Or other mucous membranes. Normally they don't show that because the other mucous membranes are X-rated. Well, not the nostrils.
The biggest dangers in hooking two car batteries together are 1) sparks igniting battery vapors (or fuel) and 2) exploding batteries or burning out circuits from hooking them together wrong. Hook up the ground last and hook it to the chassis. Make sure you know which terminal is grounded.