Re: All thats missing
"Too late now, just sit back..."
It isn't too late. It only takes 350 MPs to fix this. They need some courage (to ignore the Tory and Labour whips) but it's their duty. That's why there's a Renew party.
798 posts • joined 11 Jan 2008
...the first serious argument for Brexit. Marginally less risk to privacy. Not that it's enough to counteract all the Brexit lie and fantasies, of course.
"Cisco may argue that it never had monopoly power or a dangerous probability of attaining monopoly power..."
Well, they may argue that but it's ludicrous; they were very close to a monopoly for many years.
How do you explain the completely different UK and US positions on use of Huawei equipment in broadband networks?Because the UK has no significant networking vendors to protect, and because they and Huawei were willing to go the extra mile to demonstrate the absence of backdoors. And BTW Cisco has sold a lot of kit in China, with features required by the Chinese government. So the American position is unfair as well as anti-competitive. The Australian position is incomprehensible, so is presumably just a matter of sucking up to the Americans.
> Exactly why do ICANN exist? Should be replaced by ITU.
I have to disagree there. ICANN should never have been set up under US jurisdiction, but equally the DNS should never be handed over to the ITU. Have you any idea how little the ITU understood the Internet in 1998, when this was a serious option? And have you any idea how they would mishandle the DNS today, in an organisation where totalitarian governments have the same voting rights as democracies?
ICANN should become an NGO in a more neutral jurisdiction; Switzerland and the Netherlands are still the obvious choices, as they were in 1998.
> Exactly why do Registrars exist? Should be done by National Comms regulator.
If you're talking about country-code registrars, their oversight is indeed a national question, and the answer will be different in each country. But registrars for the non-country-code top level domains need to be under multi-stakeholder oversight. Unfortunately, today that means ICANN.
It's greed. It's Thatcherism (or Reaganism in the case of ICANN). Or if you prefer, it's Carillionism. A public good (the national namespace) handed over to private industry.
A very black day indeed.
Tannin is correct that this problem needs to be handled in the user interface. It's simply not possible to fix it in the DNS protocol, or to a large extent in DNS registration policies. Technically, the problem is pretty much indistinguishable from "Don't be evil."
Consider that human writing systems have evolved over thousands of years, and none of them was designed for the Internet. There isn't space in this box to write a technical essay, but here is a sequence of such essays if people want gory details:
It seems to me that with the money she has in the bank already, her most rational approach to the future of IBM is to not give a flying f**k. That's the basic trouble with the grotesque amounts of money these people are paid; if they're not internally driven, why bother about another year's bonus? They already have several lotteries' worth under the mattress.
Actually IPv6 is up to about 20% (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) but you're right, deployment of new stuff as basic as a transport protocol takes many years. As with the French Revolution, it's too soon to tell.
Yes. I somehow failed to stop my wife's box from updating to Firefox 57 and there's been nothing but trouble since. Waterfox is your friend, for now, however. Must make sure updates are thoroughly off in T'bird. Maybe somebody can fork off a Waterbird?
I think you'll find that Canada is part of Five Eyes, and a lot of Canadian traffic runs through fibres that are south of their border with the US. So while the post was carelessly phrased, it's basically accurate. Nortel was under the same pressures as any US manufacturer.
"Its difficult to see where the IBM board of directors expect any future business to come from."
They're not there for that. They're there to ensure that Ginni and her best friends continue to buy back enough stock that their holdings and options keep them in the excessive luxury to which they are entitled. I believe it's known as "shareholder value".
Of course, eventually somebody will turn off the money tap at the mains.
And that's the point. The Leave campaign's predictions were about the effects of Brexit, not the effects of the referendum. And so is this report.
We've already seen the effects of the referendum: a large drop in the £, which also means that the stock market hasn't gone up in real terms. And many companies preparing their exit from the UK. This report is about what will happen in 2019+.
They would have to (a) grant him citizenship and (b) give him a diplomatic passport. But then he could only go to Ecuador...
"it was morally binding, if not legally so"
No. If it had been based on an honest, factual, unemotional campaign by both sides, that might have been arguable, even for a 52% vote. But since one of the campaigns was based on emotional arguments, lies and fantasies, no. Also, since Corbyn's lips muttered Remain while his body language said Leave, a fair number of Labour voters were conned into supporting UKIP. Also, it is well known that many of the Leave votes were in fact simple protest votes against the Cameron regime.
The referendum was discredited by the time the votes were counted. (And if the vote had gone 52% Remain, that would still be true, but it wouldn't matter as much; we'd simply still be dealing with UKIP as a political force, instead of planning to uninstall our international trade.)
Thanks for making it clear that we should stay in the EU, in order to improve safety standards for everybody.
The good people of Kent are looking forward to the day when both the M2 and M20 southbound are fully parked up with lorries waiting to clear Customs. The northbound lanes will be delightfully clear. Somewhere, a junior programmer will be puzzling over a faulty program written in something called RPG II that can't calulate the duty to be paid on a lorry load of HP Sauce...
He was a sole trader so... Nothing can be done until probate is sorted outHe probably didn't care. Not his problem.
As for the main story, nobody does bureaucracy and compliance as well as the British. And for some reason we've always been the most zealous implementors of every EU rule. Why do I think it will get worse if Brexit proceeds?
How you got any up votes beats me:
1) Islam isn't a race, so how can she have been suspended for a racist tweet?That really is nit-picking; the law seems to be about hate speech in general, not racism.
2) There's no such thing as "hate speech", only free speech a Lefty wants to ban.Rubbish. As others have pointed out, the German government, and the parliament that passed this law some time ago, are hardly left wing. Hate speech can come from left or right; it's speech or writing that incites hatred or prejudice. Historically it's probably been used more by the left than the right in the last 100 years, when you include the Soviet Union and the Peoples' Republic of China; but basically it's used by all kinds of rabble-rousers.
Actually her question is a very valid question: Exactly WHY is an official German police site tweeting in Arabic?Perhaps because Germany has been good enough to host a large number of Arabic-speaking refugees from war zones and wants to make them feel welcome? It's well established that countries that make refugees feel welcome and respect their culture do better at integrating them into society.
the problem is the vagueness of any definitionI think Germany has some very clear experience in this area. Yes, like pornography, there is no indisputable line, which is why some kind of judicial review is need for disputed cases, but that doesn't mean that a civilised country should just allow everything.
There are nasty bigots in most religions, no need to single out X.That's the whole point, of course. And it doesn't need to be a religion; any type of human group you care to mention would fit - nationality, gender, skin colour, language, political party...
There are nasty bigots using most programming languages, no need to single out Pythonistas.
Nevertheless, it was the neo-liberal doctrine aided and abetted by the FCC that failed to ensure local-loop competition in the US, and failed to encourage local competition between ISPs. So the US, land of the free, actually ended up with predatory regional monopolies for Internet service provision. And that wasn't the Republicans' fault at all. It goes back to the Clinton administration.
Chiming in late to observe that technology may not be political, but the way we apply technology is often highly political. So I don't think El Reg can or should avoid politics. What it should do is clearly separate news from opinion. That sometimes doesn't happen (and I criticised several of Kieran's ICANN stories for that reason). But this article is so clearly tongue in cheek that I don't see it as problematic. Not as funny as John Oliver, but in that category.
Correct. Gerstner actually understood that he was running a technology company, and listened to technologists. This did not apply to Palmisano and does not apply to Rometty. Hence the current death spiral.
Gerstner was a bit fortunate in that some of the old-style cash cow products were still viable in his time. He did try to bring on new technology, but Palmisano went the "services" route and, as you say, seemed to believe that human resources could be cut off the roll by the metre, regardless of skills and experience. Rometty learnt from him.
"Under Sam P, they cut expenses to the bone..."
Sam it was who said something like this to a collection of senior technical staff:
You don't need a PhD in Computer Science to understand the business model, a liberal arts degree is fine. Execute to the plan and we'll make the numbers.The plan of course included cutting expense and making sales. Couldn't be easier, no messy technology knowledge needed at all.
Isn't it obvious why they worked very hard to keep the share price and dividends up by buying back oodles of shares? Just look at how the senior execs, including Ginny, are compensated. I won't spell it out, because that might be libellous.
And behind this, you have to realize that your precious ICQ, HTML or whatever, is sharing all those connections with a lot of content streaming that is overwhelming a network originally conceived for discrete, discontinuous communication.Well yes, which is why the existing network neutrality provisions don't disallow traffic management mechanisms, such that capacity can be shared appropriately between streaming services and interactive services. What they forbid is discriminatory or predatory traffic management that prevents fair competition. And as others have hinted, it seems that the alt-rights now in charge don't see unfair competition as a bad thing.
It isn't a question of moral authority. It's a question of knowing what they're talking about. There are hundreds of less well known people (including Yes Me) who also know the facts of the matter and therefore agree with the letter.
The US very painfully broke up Big Oil and later Big Telephone. The capitalist lackeys (and I mean that very precisely) now in charge of the FCC seem intent on actively helping Big Cable to build and abuse a monopoly position in which they can legally discriminate against competitors. It's perhaps not surprising, but it's very wrong.
The Blair government supported evil action in Iraq, and didn't deal with increasing inequality at home, but on the other hand it didn't wreck the country's economic future and seriously threaten the future of the Union. So yes, the May regime is the worst (and my memory goes back as far as McMillan).
Get rid of her soon, please, and rescind the Article 50 letter.
@boltar: Why is it that so many Brexatics can't spell, as well as failing to understand the benefits of migration for innovation and economic growth?
"then the UK really will have gone off the rails"
It has, as far as I can see. If the Commons had the slightest inclination to act on facts and evidence rather than on beliefs and fantasies, the No Confidence motion would have been passed months ago. There's renewed hope that the Irish impasse will blow away the DUP 'confidence and supply' agreement in the next few weeks. Even a minority government led by Corbyn would be better than what we have now, but a cross-bench coalition would be much better.
In any case, they will have to keep RIP aligned with EU law - this is the sort of condition that will be attached to any conceivable future trade agreement if (despite everything) Brexit comes to pass.
There's plenty of evidence that a secret court (like the US FISA court) will rubber stamp pretty much anything. So be careful what you wish for.
Yes. That's probably because of what I noticed in my first week at IBM many years ago. Revenue per employee was way less than for the then NASDAQ leaders. A lot has changed since, but if they keep on firing people that ratio keeps on getting better. Until the day everybody competent to support customers has left, of course. Then it can turn bad very quickly indeed.
So... when should I sell my shares?
(Several years ago, is the answer.)
> ... why is it so badly-done?
Well, it's better done than IPv4. (RFC 791 would be regarded as absolute rubbish if proposed for standardisation today.) The complexities and difficulties around IPv6 are all connnected with the unavoidable problem of dealing with legacy services that don't have native IPv6 access. And these are very messy problems, as was known even before IPv6 was designed. The way out is for those legacy services (and legacy ISPs) to switch on IPv6 access.
If you have the chance of experiencing an IPv6-only network, it's very pleasant compared to this NAT-infested rubbish we have to face daily.
Don't worry, we won't let him, or his family, get near it. Paris is welcome, though.
> IPv6 deployment is *easy*
True. But, to echo Mr Fawlty, now for the hard part: coexistence with IPv4-only services (such as El Reg itself). That's always been the hard part, ever since the first IPv6 interop demo and the first commercial product (in 1997). However, the fact today is that (for example) 21% of Google users are on IPv6: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
It's a done deal except for the laggards.
CERNET, the Chinese academic network, was a very early *deployer* of IPv6 and they have contributed significantly to ongoing work on the standards. So has Huawei.
"CERNET", the name, was recycled from CERN, whos first in-house network was called CERNET in about 1975. http://cds.cern.ch/record/879330
Yes, the lorry park formerly known as South-East Kent will be pretty jammed if things proceed as unplanned. It would be quite entertaining if they had to go to paper-based forms while waiting for the final bugs to be ironed out of a system that hasn't even been specified yet.
Using it as an interface to SMTP mail was also a nightmare. As an IBMer I had to run two mail user agents, Notes for corporate stuff and something that worked (Netscape Mail I think it was called then) for external collaboration. Some very senior people tried to use Notes for external email and boy did they get ridiculed for the formatting and other errors that the gateway introduced. That was mainly because Notes started out as a sort of X.400ish thing running over the Domino distributed database mechanism. Sadly, it never recovered from that difficult infancy and childhood.
Notes and Domino came from Iris which was owned by Lotus which was bought by IBM. For a while, Iris was a great place to visit, Silicon Valley in Massachussets, until the IBM Mind Control System discovered it and spoilt it.
Brokenwood? Corny, cheaply made, ham actors, stories even less plausible than Midsomer Murders. Mind you, no storyline has ever been as ridiculous as Top of the Lake 1.
Even today, IBM stock options are valuable if priced low enough. When a senior person leaves IBM with unvested options, or even with stock acquired under specified conditions before leaving, IBM can claw them back - a major financial impact of breaking the non-compete clause. My guess is that that's the area where the settlement lies, since otherwise non-compete is pretty much unenforcable.
"They are all wrong !"
Wrong. They are all approximations. Every scientific theory is an approximation; the question is how good (or bad) an approximation. Newtonian mechanics stood until Special Relativity came along, and Special Relativity stood until General Relativity came along. General Relativity and quantum theory are both very good approximations, but since they are inconsistent with each other, they are in fact both wrong in exactly the same way that the IPCC models are wrong - because all approximations are wrong, by your definition.
Climate models are hard - much harder than relativity and quantum mechanics, in a mathematical sense. So it's no surprise that they are less good approximations than physics.
As for the universe, yes, if it turns out that we're in a freaky area where matter predominates, then eventually we'll annihilate with another freaky area where antimatter predominates. So what? You'll never know about [bit stream suddenly ends]
"you don't have to delete what's on the backup tapes but on a practical level you'll have to think about keep a copy of the deletion requests since the backup was taken so that you can re-delete it if the backup has to be restored."
Yeah, right, that will never go wrong.
"Why do you need simulate all atoms in a star..."
You don't, if all you care about is one pixel down here. But you do, if you care about how the star works internally in detail. However, it's a pretty uninteresting question in terms of what is actually possible.
Actually it needs a computer which is exactly the same size as the universe. The universe is, existentially, an exact simulation of itself. That doesn't mean the paper is wrong. Those electrons don't exist in isolation; because of entanglement, it's quite artificial to separate them from the rest of the Universe, and if you do so, you're going to have simulate the effect of the rest of the Universe on them... so you're going to have to simulate the whole Universe anyway, which of course needs a simulator that contains more bits than the whole Universe, even if it's a quantum computer, and even if quantum theory is the true theory.
All we can ever simulate, even in principle, is an approximation.
Er, we can negotiate to become an associate member, and the other members can say no. But there's no sign that the UK 'government' is able to understand such subtleties of the real world.
Anybody who knows anything about large projects knew better than to believe a 2014 date for exothermic ITER. It's well known that you have to provide dates that are near enough to make a politician wet their pants to get budget for this sort of thing. It's also well known that controlled fusion is a hard nut to crack - we've been trying since ZETA in 1957, after all. And yes, there are surely materials science problems, which is why you have to contain the plasma electromagnetically so that it never touches the vacuum chamber's walls. That's been understood since 1957, as well. And that's the tricky part. The problems aren't physics, the physics is well understood - it's all engineering.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018