* Posts by Gilbert Gosseyn

8 posts • joined 14 Feb 2008

Apple iPad

Gilbert Gosseyn

Missing the point..?

Thing is; it's not a netbook, doesn't pretend to be a netbook and isn't trying to do a netbooks's job. Most of you fail miserably to understand it from an ordinary person's point of view.

You may all be happy formatting drives, typing commands and installing drivers, but the vast majority of ordinary people simply have absolutely no interest in all that. Because of this they appreciate more than you realise the advantages of something as simple as the iPad: no moving parts or flip up lids, an interface that you can learn by trial and error, the overall "it just works" experience.

It's much easier to leave this device lying around the living room or under the sofa with the remotes, and I'm sure the vast majority will be used simply for sofa-surfing.

Contrary to popular opinion here, ordinary folk are really not stupid enough to spend £500 on a device simply because "it has the apple logo". They're annoyed they have to spend £500 on the only device on the market that does what THEY want without all the downsides of laptops, netbooks, touch screen phones etc.

Apple have tapped into the crowd of people who, just as they wouldn't consider re-gassing their fridge, don't consider typing "convert C: /FS:NTFS" acceptable.

Having said this, I can understand where you're all coming from: A device that "just works" and doesn't need someone to dictate "convert C: /FS:NTFS" over the phone every few weeks, puts you out of a job.

I know you all hate me now.

City Police still using Terror Act to bother photographers

Gilbert Gosseyn

No, no, no...

Someone said...

"So, if the photos the pro was taking were commercial in nature and featured recognisable shots of a private building (imagine having someone next to the gherkin snapped from down low etc) then I'm afraid the security guard would have been within his rights - and no doubt told to enforce this by the property owners"

How can the photos be "commercial in nature" whilst they're still in the camera?

It's perfectly legal to take a photograph of absolutely anything that isn't considered "sensitive" for the purposes of "national security" (and these things are specific and stipulated), as long as you are standing on and can see it from public ground. How you subsequently use the image is another matter.

You can not, for example, stop someone taking photos of your house and its occupants from the public pavement outside. You could, with the aid of a sympathetic judge and a lot of money for lawyers, prevent the publication of the photos.

Use as art or for documentary and news purposes is almost always allowed without having to obtain permission. Commercial use, like illustrating a (non-news) magazine article or in an advertisement, almost always requires permission.

Don't let anyone - plod, hysterical parents, celebs, royalty, etc - tell you otherwise: Just tell 'em, "I'll see you in court" and carry on photographing. If anyone physically restrains you, sue for aggravated damages and assault.

I realise this is easy to say, and much more difficult to go through with under most circumstances - but it looks like a few photographers are going to have to take on the plod, hysterical parents, celebs, royalty, etc in this way to prove a point and get some publicity.

Anyone? Anyone..?

F*ck you, thunders disgruntled fanboi Apple user

Gilbert Gosseyn
Jobs Halo

There's a Linux penguin, a fanboi, and a Windows luser in a plane...

...and the pilot says, we're carrying too much weight, one of you has got to go, and the fanboi says, well, I can't jump because the landing will spoil my beautiful face. The penguin says I can't jump because it'll take too long to change into my jumping-out-of-an-aeroplane skin. The luser says I'll jump - you land, drop off the penguin and the fanboi and swing back round for me. I won't have progressed from where I was when you left me behind, the gas and bloat will keep me up and I cam amuse myself flipping through this spreadsheet or colouring up a flow-chart.

Weak passwords stored in browsers make hackers happy

Gilbert Gosseyn
Jobs Halo

Could this be why ordinary folk don't take their passwords seriously?

Just done a quick count up.

I have 233 passwords, along with their associated login names, user names, screen names and email addresses noted in the text file I'm forced to use cos my brain doesn't have the capacity to remember the necessary random bits of snippets that aren't related or traceable to me or my life.

I also have notes of 22 verbal passwords I'm expected to use when talking with various service providers on the phone.

14 PINs

3 gate/door pass numbers

5 physical descriptions of key rings on which are kept various friends and neighbours house key emergency copies

3 anti-theft codes for in-car hifi

and a separate file with 61 software registration or installation codes.

Why do I have to create an account to...

buy something?

see a price?

access some types of (otherwise free) information?

"recommend a post" in a discussion?

contribute to a discussion?

look up a phone number

look up a postcode?

subscribe to a newsletter?

obtain software updates?

report a bug?

download free stuff?

get tech support?


PS: For those security experts freaking out right now: Said text file is encrypted with a fiendishly long and complex passphrase, kept on an encrypted partition of a USB key drive, plugged into the back of my Mac and attached to the wall behind it with a sturdy sink plug chain! Every night the encrypted partition is backed up to an off site server. Not absolutely fool-proof, I know, but it's the best balance of ease of use and security I could think of.


UK.gov biz department wonders if Twitter is worth the effort

Gilbert Gosseyn

£668 x (100/0.2) = £334,000.00

They say, "Taking into account the grades of the individuals, the total the cost of this staff time is estimated as £668 per month."

£668 x (100/0.2) = £334,000.00 per month? Exactly what "grade" is this individual?

'I can see dinosaurs from my back porch'

Gilbert Gosseyn


The reason we non-/un- religious people get a bit uppity about faith is that faith is just someone telling you what to think and your thinking it unquestioningly. Faith only teaches that to have an original or radical thought of your own or question something you have been told is a reason for shame and guilt.

If the world had to get by on faith alone, then we'd be stuck in the dark ages and there'd be no scientific progress. The scientific progress you religious folk rely on to keep your cholesterol down, cure your indigestion, and replace the insulin your perfectly created bodies no longer produce.

The reason we get uppity at all with the pious is that you, too, are atheists. You don't believe in Titan, Zeus etc. Well (to paraphrase Dawkins) we just go one god further. Your hypocrisy upsets us.

And, another thing... PZ Myers is an el Reg reader! How cool is that?


Gilbert Gosseyn

Evolution is only a theory?

Anonymous Coward said... "Evolution is a theory with holes in it. These holes may be resolved over time but I'm sick of it being thrust on us as a fact, which it is not."

The "evolution is only a theory" argument is a very old and tired one. The theory of gravity is as much a theory, but I dare you to deny there is such a thing as gravity.

Gravity is real, evolution is real, now it's your turn to get real.


Human rights group pleads for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Gilbert Gosseyn


Stupid, primitive, superstitious idiots. It's intensely worrying that these people are planning to go into space and develop advanced technology; they're children.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019