Re: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
May I suggest looking at Tresorit (pronounced 'treasure-it'). Swiss based, encrypted, works for me.
378 posts • joined 23 Jan 2008
May I suggest looking at Tresorit (pronounced 'treasure-it'). Swiss based, encrypted, works for me.
I would like to have it on record that Disney's representation of Pooh is an utter travesty of the character as written by AA Milne and as drawn by EH Shepherd. Shepherd's drawings are definitive, and Disney's transmogrification deserves to be exiled to a hell of hard radiation for all eternity.
@ninjaturtle 'Why do you call it 'smearing'' - I think others have already adequately answered your question.
@ninjaturtle - Funnily enough I know all about that. I am more interested in the motive behind your apparent attempt to smear Ubuntu with the loaded and disingenuous nature of your comment.
@Ninjaturtle - Always pays to check your facts before splurting on t'internet for everyone to see.
There truly is nothing new under the sun - in this case an appreciation of what 'numbering the people' is likely to lead to given what we know about human beings and their behaviour.
Just to add a little frisson of numerology and a pinch of apocalyptic: '16He required everyone—small and great, rich and poor, free and slave—to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. 17And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name. 18Wisdom is needed here. Let the one with understanding solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.c His number is 666.' - Revelation 3.16-18.
In the numerology of the writer '6' is the number of humanity ('7' is for the divine), and a triple six indicates a human antithesis to what 'God' is seen to be all about - which is the practice of love.
In other words, here is someone setting out the idea that numbering the people is a means of controlling the people, not for their well being and freedom, but for their enslavement to a purely materialist narcissistic ideology that has no room for anything as dangerous and freeing as 'Love'.
Whatever we may think about 'the divine', we should all think very hard about what kind of world we wish to create with the power we have, especially given our long history of power and wealth in the hands of the few being used to oppress and control the many.
Give it up MS and just get on with your raison d'etre - ruthlessly making money for your shareholders.
Exploit them by all means, but please don't bother trying to reinvent wheels that have been invented better elsewhere.
You seem to have the idea that the UK is in tip-top shape and all ready to make the weight in the heavy-weight division.
But we're not, are we? Our politics are a shambles, largely populated by 2nd and 3rd raters; our social justice is a mess and has been for years; our economy is heavily weighted towards services, i.e. our tangible exports are mostly easily substituted by other nations, often cheaper, and (in the case of the rest of the world) often nearer.
The UK is by no means a hopeless case, but it is not fighting fit, is definitely in the middle-weight division, and really really needs to demonstrate some humility, AND has a hell of a lot of work to do getting it's house in order.
We may well cut ourselves adrift from the 'wicked EU', but it's clear already, through the 'Brexit' shambles, that there is no coheren,t intelligent and realistic plan and no sign of one emerging. So, all we are doing is exactly that - 'cutting ourselves adrift' - and there are people within and without who are only too willing to take full advantage of that, and to hell with the consequences for everyone else.
@codejunky - There is an old saying which applies perfectly to your post: 'Cut off your nose to spite your face'.
You're right, the UK can sit and wait until the clock ticks down. Who do you think will be the biggest loser? It is not going to be the EU, they are a little bit bigger that us and quite able to absorb the ensuing losses, although I am sure that they would prefer not to have to do that.
@ Phil O'Sophical - If the UK was on an economic and population par with the EU then your point might be well made, but in reality the UK is a light weight when standing alongside EU/China/India/US. In other words they get to call the shots, just like we did when we 'ruled the waves, and waived the rules'.
No doubt there's plenty of wiggle room if the UK can come to terms with the reality of its position. The EU doesn't show any sign, and it is not in its interests, to treat the UK with contempt, but it must be getting increasingly difficult not to have that attitude given the blustering chaotic clown show the UK Govt.(TM) has been putting on to date, in lieu of actual well formulated long term propositions - with a dash of humility thrown in to grease the wheels.
As mentioned further up Matrix looks like a far more pragmatic and user friendly solution for anyone who has the slightest interest in being in control and maintaining at least a semblance of security/privacy.
'Fair enough. The majority of Brexiteers harbour no delusions about the future of the EU, we're simply aghast at the stupidity of Remain.' - should I assume that you do not understand that 'Brexit' has nothing to do with leaving the EU in a considered, well supported manner involving comprehensive planning and with clear and substantive evidence as to why leaving will be so much better than remaining - that might be a perfectly rational and intelligent thing to do, but we don't know, that discussion and exploration has never been had.
So far as I am aware very few 'Remainers' consider the EU perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. They generally seem to feel that there is far more to be gained by constructive membership than by leaving in a chaotic and ignorant manner.
'I do find it saddening that so many people refuse to even consider that there could be a better future, and are happy to leave everything in the hands of someone else. It's almost a religious attitude' - that may be what you think, but back in reality the vast majority of 'Remainers' harbour no such delusions, they are simply aghast at the stupidity of 'Brexit'.
'Brexit' - how to leave something functionally useful without a plan, without a clue, and without sufficient support to make it viable without years of backbiting, recrimination, undermining and sullen refusal to co-operate.
'Brexit' is an object lesson in how not to leave a massive trading bloc in which one has been intricately entwined and involved in running (for some divisive insubstantial nostalgic self-serving dream).
There's quite a bit of complacency and misunderstanding being expressed by some posters here.
It's not really about 'ID Cards' per se, as some have already expressed, properly done they serve a badic and useful purpose.
The problem is the associated 'database/s' - what info does it hold and why; who has access to it and why; what are the security measures, are they credible, are they effective; what recourse does the private citizen have in the event if error or abuse, is the recoursr timely, affordable and effective?
These, and similar fundamental questions, were almost entirely unable to be answered in ways that demonstrated a genuine ability to protect individuals from mistakes and abuses in the Labour sponsored scheme - it was rightly dumped.
'...no one is more successful at it than the USA is. No one else even comes close.'
Ah, so it is just a willy waving contest after all. Another bitter disappointment to add to the growing pile.
Re: 'I see two things going wrong with the Unix philosophy...':
a) Nothing is perfect, but the KISS principle has generally proved a useful way of mitigating that inconvenient fact.
b) Suggest a better alternative default than 'do one thing and do it well'.
4) Leave the planet
5) Failing that move into a local prison.
Probably best to leave 'God' out of this. If all 'this' is simply a desperate attempt to 'prove' that God is not then it really is a monumental fraud. If it is a genuine attempt to understand what is (within our abilities to perceive the reality we are part of) and to understand how that 'reality' works then 'Hurrah', a very worthy goal.
But, the 'God' question is a whole other matter, that quite properly remains open to anyone to explore - regardless of intellect, education, money, or power, and long may it stay that way. It's bad enough having the religious institutions trying to monopolise the space, not to mention monetise it in some instances, without having 'scientists' attempting a land grab.
There may be one functional universe or billions - doesn't really effect the basic questions facing us all: 'How shall I live, and why?' The reality of 'God', or not does impact our answers to those questions, but if 'God is love' then in quite an interesting way. Anyway, we each get to decide: how I shall live, and why.
... they'll keep the whole shambles grumbling along for as long as humanly possible without actually ending up with kit on the deck in the hope that something will turn up that will just make it all go away.
Project Taranis perhaps. Another money-making scheme waiting in the wings.
@Alltheshizzle - I think you were replying to what was in your head rather than what I wrote. Try reading it again, I have no particular axe to grind either way. It all comes down to what people want to do with the resources they have - for better or worse.
I can say that in our Trust most of our essential patient focussed systems are web based, e.g. 'Lorenzo' for patient notes; 'CAYDER' for real-time bed management, etc. As for all the office type tasks we run W7, but they could also just as easily be done through web based applications.
That leaves us with certain specialist administrative software (there may be non-Windows/web based alternatives); and device based software, but I would imagine most of that is non-Windows based anyway, but there will be notable exceptions.
Overall, there is plenty of potential for getting out from the Microsoft hegemony, but who is going to make the calculation that doing so is more cost effective than keeping with the devil we already know, and avoiding the monumental scream-fest if people have to cope with a particular screen no longer looking like it did before. We've just been through that shifting to the Lorenzo system. It all died down of course and the new is now normal, but the piteous wailings that ensued something to behold - some people just don't do change, except at the point of a gun or threat of dismissal, and even then they take it hard.
I'm sure you are right, but the question is: what constitutes a 'terrorist'?
And, seriously, who is going to answer 'Yes'?
In fact such a question is brain-dead idiocy, and any country demanding an answer to such a question fully deserves all the mockery and contempt that is heaped upon them. They make themselves look ridiculous, and do nothing at all to uphold national security.
Just highlights the complete bullshit of the demand and the neurotic paranoia that lies behind it. No different to asking: 'Are you, or have you ever been, a terrorist?
This kind of imbecilic bureaucratic thinking is no different to asking 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'
If the US wants to operate at this level of stupid they really don't deserve to have anyone visiting the 'Land of the Free' (TM). There are far more worthy places where I can spend my time and money, even if only in transit.
I now travel via the East and have done for some years, initially to avoid the 'failed state' while they persist in their arrogance and stupidity at the border, but now because the experience is simply so much more civilised.
Yes, it's the potential torsional stresses, esp. in turbulence, because of the independent tails that also bother my non-engineering brain. Anyone here got the technical know-how to say why this isn't going to be an issue?
The word you want is 'moot' (open to debate), not 'mute' (unable to speak).
May none of us ever stop learning. :-)
'Sovereignty' is one of those bullshit words beloved by politicians and nationalists. In the end we have to live with and accommodate our neighbours, or go to war. Europe (incl. Britain) has a long blood soaked history. human beings have not changed, even after slaughtering millions in two European led world wars. The 'EU' (we'll use that label) was and is primarily an attempt to avoid repeating history any time soon. To date it has succeeded. Get rid of it and we'd better come up with a pretty good alternative, tout sui!
Personally, I think we're probably better in than out, but I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. What has really yanked my chain is the current manner of leaving - 'Brexit'! A shambolic clown show with added mendacity. No plan, no clue, arrogant self-interest from the most ardent advocates, and no mandate worth paying attention to. The fabled 'will of the people' in the case of Brexit' is exactly that, a fable. There is no 'will of the people' for Brexit, the country is effectively split down the middle. The whole Brexit shambles is an edifice built on sand, lies, and a hopeless vainglory. Then of course there are the vulture-capitalists lurking the shadows who aim to make a killing unless some wisdom and integrity at last manage to take hold.
Whether we stay or go 'Brexit' is shit, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing ourselves to be railroaded by stupidity into such a shambolic exercise.
Lets just keep it simple. Out in the open ocean there is a choice: am I going to be an orca amongst my pod working, competeing - living together, sharing the risks and the benfits; or, am I going to be an orca alone?
England/Britain is not exceptional, it is just another middling sized country, relatively very wealthy, but with significant internal problems of social justice. Taking the world as it is today, what are the odds of being better together with others, than going it alone. And what will 'going it alone' actually mean in reality (we are no longer an imperial power who can call the shots - others have that power today)?
Most nations of the world today, that are economically active and successful, belong to trading blocs of various kind. Absolute 'sovereignty' does not exist. Whether we stay or go we are going to have to work in the world the way it actually is (increasingly how others, rather than us, choose it to be), regardless of how we might wish it to be.
The EU is not a panacea, but like the orca pod it has a great deal to offer for those who are willing to make it work.
your arguments would make sense if we were starting from scratch as a newly formed independent state floating far out in the Atlantic. But we're not.
The argument you should be making is why leaving the large trade bloc we are already in (and have influence over) is going to be so much better (not just ideologically but practically) than staying with what we've already got.
If you can make that argument stick you will do a lot of doubting people a big favour. So far no one has even come close, in fact people seem to actively avoid trying to make a cogent case, resorting to vacuous and laughable 'trust me' arguments instead.
PS - Please remember that many/most of the problems besetting the UK currently are of our own making (little or nothing to do with membership of the EU) and within our means (legally and economically) to deal with, if our politicians and ourselves have the guts to tackle them.
@AC - 'But if I write 1000 lines of unique code but incorporate 10 lines of GPL I don't see why I should be *forced* to make mine free as well.'
To be blunt, you're being a whiner. Why did you choose to incorporate 10 lines of GPL code - you knew the deal (and under the law ignorance is not an excuse). You deliberately chose to flout the intent and spirit of the GPL, and now you're complaining about the GPL!
Attitudes like that are exactly what the GPL is designed to confront, expose, and defend against for the sake of people who put time and effort into creating code that offers genuine freedom to contribute and share.
True, but then we get other 'zealots' jumping up and down on the GPL like it's the devil incarnate, when in fact it's just another way of 'doing software'. No one is forced to use it, and if they encounter it attached to software they really want to use in a way that denies the spirit of the GPL, well that's just tough -- the same as with any other licence when it doesn't suit a would be 'user' (abuser).
There is never anything stopping someone going off and writing their own code, if it really matters that much to them, and then they can stick any licence they like on it.
@ Charlie clark - '...the GPL is for many developers becoming an anachronism.'
That perfectly captures the complacency and lack of understanding of those who take for granted something they depend on, but have never given any thought to why it actually matters.
The GPL isn't perfect -- nothing is -- but it does pretty well capture and uphold the principle of 'freedom' as applied to the generation, use, and transmission of software, in the same way that we all breathe air without anyone being able to lay claim to the lungful that I just breathed in, breathed out, and allowed someone else to draw on.
If I am involved in research or development I might find proprietary code 'good enough', but I may easily find that I need to be free to build on someone else's work, but in a way they never needed to or thought of, and then someone else is free to do likewise with the code that I have passed on.
The GPL is not a replacement for proprietary code, it's not even much of a competitor, but it fills a role that that proprietary code at best fills only partially and at worst fills in a toxic and destructive way. 'Open source' licences fall somewhere in between, but in the end they fall short in what they offer when it comes to 'freedom' to use, adapt, and pass on, but it requires a generosity of spirit that 'business' struggles to share.
@ Charlie Clark
When someone is a slave, the meaning of freedom becomes important. Stallman didn't 'lose' the argument. The fact the argument exists is enough. The fact that the concept of 'software freedom' exists is enough, it's the irritant that constantly reminds the money grubbers and the wall builders that their ways are not the only ways, and they can never claim that they own the field of play.
Yes, it's going to keep stonking quantities of cash rolling in for as long as the program lasts; slightly let down by the fact that everyone can see it happening. Just got to hope the politicians and other needed actors are now so far in they just can't withdraw until the very last drops have been squeezed out. In time for a better plan to slip into its place.
Try Wire. Works well for me, and for my old Mum on the far side of the planet.
Ring is an interesting distributed-secure setup, but still a bit raw for non-user users, if you know what I mean.
what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun' (Ecclesiastes 1.9).
Way back in the dark ages, when I started by IT career, everything was done off-site by 'bureaus'. The only difference now is the reality of the 'internet'. Back then one of us had to carry the tapes up the road for processing.
Then suddenly it was possible to keep all our precious data on-site, and everything changed.
In the end it's all about knowing the right tool for the job, which involves actually knowing what the 'job' is.
and common sense about human behaviour tells us that regardless of what is said or written those in positions of power will always find ways to access and use information that is useful to their purposes.
Any data about you will be used in evidence against you (or used regardless of your permission) if it suits the powerful to do so, and they think they can get away with it.
The only question is, how willing are other powers to enact and uphold the spirit of laws intended to limit the overweening powers of 'the state' (and any other entities)?
'I've been always surprised how much Linux punters advocate "choice", "freedom", but they hope to have only one kernel and one OS to rule them all. Good-bye then to to any choice and any freedom.'
Personally I've only come across that attitude amongst the immature 'script kiddy' end of things. Most people I know who prefer Linux to Windows don't want Linux to replace Windows, they just want such a shonky toy of an OS as Windows is to disappear into a corner, die if it must, but otherwise just be there for anyone who is interested, just so long as it ceases to have any relevance in environments where 'real computing' gets done, and where the people concerned need to have access to and control over what their chosen OS (Linux or whatever) is doing.
As for the great unwashed who can just about find the I/O switch, they deserve better too.
will of course automatically take steps to protect the integrity of their important data. Just as we always ensure our data always exists in at least three separate locations, so we ensure that should we 'lose control' of the device we are currently depending on for access to our data, either temporarily or permanently, that our data remains uncompromised.
Performance below this basic standard, whilst perfectly understandable, is naive and is to be pitied.
IOW, given the reality of the world why would anyone in their right mind assume that their data is 'safe' when crossing national boundaries, entering foreign jurisdictions, and is in any way exposed to parties beyond the control of the data's 'owner' - at home or abroad?
'Skynet it ain't: Deep learning will not evolve into true AI, says boffin' - well who'd a thunk it?
'AI', one of the great hypgasms of the early 21stC.
When a putative 'AI' can decide it 'can't be arsed' to do what it's told, can put 'moral sensibility' ahead of 'empirical determinism', and generally be awkward then I may begin to be impressed.
Hollerithevo, interestingly you have omitted to engage with any of the points on my actual post, i.e. the impact of a verifiable 'proof' of 'God' (even though many would argue very persuasive evidence already exists, for those who wish to interpret it that way); and the trruth about real 'Love' as an indicator of why things are the way they are. But, you are certainly free to make your own choice, and to live with the consequences, as we all do.
Depending on your understanding of 'God' that particular viewpoint may indicate a complete misunderstanding of the nature of 'God'. OTOH, it may also indicate how wilfully blind human beings can be even, or especially, when 'evidence' is staring them in the face, it just happens to not be the 'evidence' they want to see.
Lets add to the mix by asking, assuming there was 'evidence' that satisfied you as to the presence fo 'God', what would that actually mean to you. Two possibilities come to mind (no doubt there are others): one is a loss of agency and freedom that could be psychologically crushing, the other is 'well fuck you God', I'm going to carry on as though you aren't there because my life belongs to me, and no one, not even 'God' is going to change that.
So, maybe there is a very good reason why God's presence is not 'provable' in any meaningful empirical sense -- true love set the beloved free, it does not compel.
We are also free to decide that God is not. Either way we get to be responsible for our choices and the consequences that flow from them -- no scapegoating or whiny excuses for why we live the way we choose to.
the entertainment value has gone through the roof. There simply is not enough popcorn to see out this festival of idiocy and incompetence. It doesn't matter though, the audience will die laughing; running out of popcorn is the least of their worries.
but it won't be 'The America's Cup', just another '...dirty little regatta'*.
The AC, meanwhile, is what it is, and there's nothing else quite like it, thanks to the 'Deed of Gift'. The gift that just keeps on giving as it scuppers the plans of mighty men (mighty women too maybe one day) to own the AC.
The AC, as long as the DoG continues to hold sway, will remain simply a yacht race, boring as that may be to the uninterested. A yacht race between monied people willing to throw their money away on technology and muscle power for the sake of holding a very ugly piece of silverware, but one that represents a long and gloriously turbulent tradition. Long may it continue.
* Mr. Grant Dalton's terse put down of the Coutts-Ellison attempt to turn the AC into yachting's version of 'Formula 1'.
Let's face it, the vast majority of people (commercial and private) only use Windows because they have no choice, think they have no choice, or they don't think at all because they just don't care.
Microsoft exploits it's 'monopoly' to extract as much financial benefit as it can, because Microsoft's business is making money. Software development is simply a means to that end. Add to that any 'arrangements' it may have to look after the needs of other 'interested' parties, and we can see what should come as no surprise to anyone: looking after the best interests of their customers/users/victims (take your pick) is only of interest to Microsoft insofar as doing so supports it's primary goal of making money, i.e. they will attempt to get away with as liitle as possible, for the least possible cost (to them).
In short: caveat emptor -- it's a very old story, but in the case of multi-national corporates you are generally treated as a host for their parasitic practices. Assume the worst, you are unlikely to be disappointed, but may very occasionally be delighted by customer care that is somewhat higher than mere irresponsible exploitation.
OMG!!! How has humanity survived for all these thousands of years without CCTV, and being able to watch it all on the 10pm news afterwards?
Funnily enough, good security does not, and never has, come from treating everyone as criminals that just haven't been caught yet, nor from spying upon the everyday activities of as many people as possible.
'Terrorism' is a miserable fact of human life, and always has been. The whole point of 'terrorism' is to become the focus of attention; to become the tail that wags the dog; to terrify 'the people' and 'the leadership' into the naive belief that they can 'stop terrorism', if they just try a bit harder, pry a bit more closely, lock down a bit more tightly, become just a little bit more like the monsters they are frightened of, then it will all be okay---no more people will die. It's a lie.
And meanwhile, hundreds and thousands die premature deaths by other means, but that's okay, we can live with that.
have a proper general purpose operating system on our phones, to go with all that lovely memory.
Or, are we just going to fill it with selfies and cat videos?
Evidently it is not the latter, i.e. 'a delicious sense of the ironic and the absurd'. How disappointing.
And, for anyone who hasn't encountered David Low's 'Colonel Blimp', I think the esteemed Wikipedia offers a decent insight:
'Blimp issues proclamations from the Turkish bath, wrapped in his towel and brandishing some mundane weapon to emphasize his passion on some issue of current affairs. Red faced with rage and emotion, his pronouncements are often confused. Blimp's phrasing often includes direct contradiction, as though upon starting the sentence he did not know how the sentence was to end. His initial words were always a part of an emotional catchphrase. For instance: "Gad, Sir! Mr Lansbury is right. The League of Nations should insist on peace — except of course in the case of war.", or: "Gad, Sir! Lord Bunk is right. The government is marching over the edge of an abyss, and the nation must march solidly behind them." Blimp is usually depicted speaking to a cartoon version of David Low, the cartoon's creator, and Blimp's comments are not infrequently directed at the opinions of Lord Beaverbrook, the owner of the newspaper in which the cartoon appeared.
Blimp was a satire on the reactionary opinions of the British establishment of the 1930s and 1940s. The cartoon was intended to criticize attitudes of isolationism, impatience with the concerns of common people, and a lack of enthusiasm for democracy. These were attitudes which Low, a New Zealander, considered as being common in British politics. Although Low described his character Blimp as "a symbol of stupidity", he lessened the insult to the British ruling class by adding that "stupid people are quite nice".'
I find, "Gad, Sir! Lord Bunk is right. The government is marching over the edge of an abyss, and the nation must march solidly behind them." particularly apropos. It seems that some things never change.
maxfm, I'm sure you are trolling because you sound exactly like a blustering jingoistic xenophobic Colonel Blimp. I think it's the 'They need us more than we need them' that really gives it away. Such a quixotic backward looking view can only come from someone who is completely delusional, living in some invented reality based on the myths of an imperial past (now quite long past), or by someone with a delicious sense of the ironic and the absurd. I do hope it is the latter.
Daughter working as TA at a decent secondary school (~1000 students), while waiting to move into her first 'proper job'.
Only the Head of IT knew anything about IT, all other teachers dragged into covering, but basically knowing nothing, e.g. one describing the base units as 'the CPU' -- this to the whole class, repeatedly!
Daughter has a degree in Eng. Lang. (but a personal interest in IT -- builds her own machines, basic knowledge of scripting, etc.). Instantly becomes 'essential' teaching staff to the Head of IT, as the only other member of the teaching staff who actually knows 'anything' about IT, and can usefully deliver the curriculum. And this is in a school well regarded locally and by OFSTED!
Daughter has just left her TA post; Head of IT disconsolate; students - high and dry (apart from the ones who teach themselves).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018