14 posts • joined 10 Sep 2007
Re: Which PC's don't have TPM
"given that's the only thing they *actually* do"
So you have a whole TPM chip and you _know_ what it *actually* does, despite half of the functions being officially not documented and who knows how many functions totally secret, the NSA segment?
Nice idea, borders to being gullible.
Re: If car manufacturers were to do the same...
"But the idea that any change in a computer desktop paradigm is automatically bad seems a little extreme."
Yes. But we are not talking about "any change", we are talking about totally new paradigm, like changing the car controls to ones taken directly from a submarine: Not many of those would make any sense to a car driver. Let's see:
"Depth" ... WTF is this? "Speed" .. OK, I know this ... "Direction: 330" ... WTF?... "Flaps: 33" ... "WTF?"
And this, this is the issue here: Throwing every familiar element there was, away, and replacing those with _no elements at all_. You basically have some tiles and no (visible) controls at all.
UI with swipes is quite absurd on a PC when you have mouse and keyboard and huge amount of screen space. Add injury to insult when you try to swish your hand around 24" touch screen whole day.
"Yes, as long as it passes the technical requirements."
"Yes, but no" to put this bluntly.
It will never pass the "technical" requirements as those are made up on the fly, whenever necessary.
Everyone is a criminal
“The effect, cynically, is that if I want to catch you, I will be able to find a law somewhere that I can do it with.”
And how does this differ from anything that is going on in so called "free countries"?
From my point of view, China is at least 40 years behind in this kind of legislative dictatorship and in EU/US everyone already is a criminal, you just need to find a correct law. EU alone introduces 10 000 new laws _every year_.
EU comissars are thoroughly bribed
"The European Commission proposed the Directive, which would have harmonised many aspects of consumer law."
Yes and we all know what "harmonisation" means to Commission: Lowest protection is made mandatory and maximum allowed to everyone. Even the word "consumer" implies that there shall be no rights whatsoever for those: "Citizens" have rights, "consumers" don't have.
" It was opposed in countries, including the UK, where it would have reduced consumer protection."
And what happened? Commission made some pretty rewording without changing the contents at all and ordered Parliament to accept it or even worse will happen.
Just like Central Committee in USSR.
Miscavige is just a thief, nothing more
"Miscavige described Anonymous as a group of "mask-wearing subversive and anarchistic internet denizens"."
Maybe, but that's not a crime. Stealing money and property from people is.
And that's the major function of scientology, everything else is an excuse for primary function.
ICO will do whatever they can to remove the last pieces of privacy
"The Information Commissioner plans to appoint a panel of experts to advise his office on new technologies, following criticism it has been caught off-guard by emerging privacy threats."
And very convinietly _all_ of these "experts" are police officers or corporate spies, ie. the people _directly causing most of the privacy threats_.
By the best practices of the ICO.
I trust that ICO will do whatever they can to remove the last pieces of privacy anyone may have and this is just political newspeak to hide that fact.
"Heating water is extremely expensive energy-wise and the fact that most washers do it several times. After all, what's the point of washing clothing in dirty water."
No, they don't and it's _not_ a fact, but a blatant lie.
Why would they when one washing cycle is definitely enough.
There are several rinsing cycles but those are done with cold water.
As mentioned above: 0.94kWh/washing@60C. That's quite far from "extremely expensive" as you put it, your PC (or mine) will use that amount of energy in the same time you've used to read all the comments.
Would you call that "extremely expensive"? I wouldn't, unless I got paid for it.
Why people who have no idea how their washing machines work insist of throwing a lot of BS into discussion, tell us?
"safety" cameras don't affect to safety at all
"Although they are far too lenient (amber means stop, idiots)"
No, it doesnt'. It means, literally "Be prepared to stop (if you can do it safely)."
Thus making yourself an idiot.
Red light means stop, but even that is conditional: If there are one traffic light post before crossing and the other after it, _you may leave the crossing against red light_.
So even red light doesn't _always_ mean stop.
Another example: There's an ambulance approaching and you stand at red lights. You are obliged to make way to ambulance (or fire truck or police) and again red light means nothing.
No doubt a camera will fine you in both cases, money must flow (from your pocket to government coffers).
MS cash cow, not much more
"...shows that the vast majority of 16 popular utilities analysed fail to support either DEP or ASLR."
It costs money and needs a NDA to MS. Labour and design costs of course on top of those.
MS can't design anything which isn't a cash cow for them so no-one is willing to pay.
Data exist for making profit, that's reality for you.
"They tend to email you, letting you know about changes so you don't need "constant monitoring".
"They're also unlikely to let too much private information slip out incase they get legally screwed... "
"Unlikely"? In what reality?
Any company can sell whatever they want and not even get a slap on the wrist for doing that. _If_ they get caught.
That's current reality and it's called capitalism: "If there's profit in there, do it and don't get caught."
Cameras are a road killers
"The thing that most idiots don't get is that each camera costs the safety partnership a fortune to run and they don't make a penny from it. So they must think they work."
Every camera pays itself back in three _months_. If the operator is not getting their share, too bad.
No sympathy for them from me, I'd say just: Hang them high.
Because cameras create more accidents than they prevent, as they prevent none and increase (fatal) rear end collisions by 22%.
Highway safety independent study, quite valid and also fits in the reality.
"I can't help thinking that it was in the main interest of Microsoft to demonstrate that an OS's consistency and reliability are more important than innovation, especially after the headaches of Vista."
Well, no: They hadn't any choice but sell yet another repackaged version of NT. Vista was and is a nightmare, so you sell yet another vesion of XP with DRM-kernel from Vista. That's Windows 8: Old pieces, new version. Not really innovation, but repackaging. An art by itself, I'll admit.
If you rip off unnecessary cruft and eye candy (=classic look), what is the fundamental difference between 7 and NT, besides DRM and some drivers (easy to write to any OS) ? Yet another version of ActiveX?
I'd say there aren't any, except 64-bit version. But even NT had it (not on intel-platform, but that's another story).
Err ... what?
"Because there was no such thing as an "mp3" format 10 years ago!"
Winplay3 v2.0 is dated 28.10.1996. How do I know? I have that and there was a lot of mp3's available then. Format itself is older.
" And cellphones were, well, cellphones. Even stuff like "digital cellphones", "SMS" and even "Caller ID" were either premiums or nonexistant.""
Really? Nokia 3110 was released 1997 and it's a GSM (=digital) phone with SMS-capability and Caller-ID display as standard, at least here in Finland. 2110 is even older.
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Android engineer: We DIDN'T copy Apple OR follow Samsung's orders
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- VMware reveals 27-patch Heartbleed fix plan