It's an article on a Microsoft technology. And you're damning it for using the word Microsoft?
4573 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
It's an article on a Microsoft technology. And you're damning it for using the word Microsoft?
I couldn't have put any of that better myself. Great points. Airships and nuclear power are too of the technologies I would ardently love to see more of.
Less left for greener pastures and more given his marching orders. He's legally forbidden from telling anyone why he left (not sure how they managed to swing that) so we don't know the specifics but a fair guess would be that either (a) his not towing the line on climate change offended the powers that be, (b) new ownership / directors wanted to put their own person in the top-slot or (c) major disagreement on direction with the owners. Whatever the reason, it was less pasture and more stun-gun to the head from what I gather.
Shame. His long tenure at El Reg were a good period for the site and we lost their best writer on all things military and one of the few remaining editors that would run a piece that contested parts of AGW. I've noticed a subtle shift in tone since he left. You get a few more Kieran-style click-baity polemnics for example.
Beer icon for Lewis wherever he is now.
>>"The next gen fighter jet wont have a meat sack inside, so it will be significantly cheaper, faster, and better."
I agree it's now time to replace pilots in military aircraft, but I don't think it will be cheaper. I mean pilots are certainly expensive but as a part of the TCO (R&D, manufacture, maintenance, profit margin), they're a small part. Where automation will make a difference is the willingness of our politicians to engage in war against non-equal parties given the reduced political fallout from lesser risk of bodybags returning home to be photographed by the media. But reduced cost...? Not unless a war with an equivalent power forces the government to lower profits for the manufacturing companies.
Indeed. It's articles like this that make me miss Lewis Page. We'd have had a nice angry article frothing with such details in his day.
Software doesn't need to be from the MS Store to be signed. As this story shows, Classic Shell normally is signed and a different and quite clear warning was displayed for the pirated version.
The determined greed to have the cake and eat it is losing me as a customer. I avoided Google services for years because they market me as a product and get from me every drop of data they can in exchange for free stuff. I am happy to pay for what I use and so I went with Microsoft.
Now MS want to have Google's business model on top of their own. Well no, you can't. You can ask me to pay for your product or you can ask me for my usage data in exchange for it. But you can't ask me for money and then take my data as well. I wont tolerate such double-dipping.
And don't ever contact my friends or colleagues on my behalf using my image or name.
Thanks for the response. I didn't know that. But can I use Edge without being signed into Bing with any account? Because the issue is that I don't want Bing/MS building a running profile of me in my online activity and whether I am signed in with one account or another, that profile is still being built and is easily attachable to me as a real person at any point they feel the desire to do so, given the wealth of personal details, account settings, IP addresses, locations and times included in such a profile. The browser is only acceptable to me if I'm not signed into Bing / MS at all.
You're getting the thumbs down because there are a lot of partisan posters here and your post is extolling the good things about Edge.
I personally like Edge a lot bar two things - firstly, no full screen like I had with Metro IE (which was absolutely great and is sorely missed) and no way to stop it from signing me into Microsoft when I start it, which is a pretty major deal to me and the reason I had switched from it to IE11.
>>"When I ventured onto the 'Linux scene, I actually had to spend £200 on a pcmcia card to get an internet connection, as the winmodem on my laptop was not likely to ever work in the near future."
Good grief - I had forgotten about WinModems. I remember I was lucky in that I managed to get some GNU/Linux driver working with mine. I expect there are still a few angry diatribes from Younger Me out there on the subject somewhere.
>>"They're trying to hit the 'shiny shiny' consumer tablet market, while maintaining support for corporates with legacy applications (or, as it is otherwise known, 'technical debt')."
That's not what "Technical Debt" means. Technical Debt is a software development term referring to the accumulation of future troubles by shortcuts taken today. I.e. you could properly re-code the API to account for the changed requirements but instead you put a nasty little re-write rule into the Apache config so that it works again, knowing full well that at some unspecified future date, this is going to come back and bite you. That is what Technical Debt refers to. It's not referring to legacy support.
No, I think most people have largely woken up to the fact that Google are now a "Bad Guy". The key task that still needs to be accomplished is to get people to realize that this doesn't make anyone else a "Good Guy". People love their vendor vs. vendor arguments... They need to realise - it can be neither.
The chief difference between offering new versions of the OS and just having continuous evolution in Windows 10, is that in the former case the customer can refuse to update. In the latter, it just happens whether they wish it or not. In a technical sense, there's not much difference between how updates are done.
>>"Used to get very long delays with this sort of functionality when Ubuntu Unity had it's web search activated (at least you could always turn this off on Ubuntu)."
You can turn it off in Windows 10 as well. The things you can't turn off are things like sending of telemetry data back to Microsoft (which by default includes things like when you're using the system, what programs you're running and for how long).
>>"Thing is: I've read too much "success" stories already about Office 365 users being completely unable to work (at one point this even lasted a whole day) while my old-fashioned-but-still-working Office 2010 just started without any hassle (and without any Internet)."
That doesn't ring true to me. Office 365 is the subscription model. You can still have downloadable versions of the software included in that (and I do). They work fine without an Internet connection just as with Office 2010. You might be confusing Office 365 with the online web-based Office software in which case, yes, they obviously don't work when you're not online.
I think there are plenty of good points in Windows 10. It's just that the flaws are critical ones. I.e. the Edge browser you cannot separate from your Windows log in if you're using an MS account. The closest you can get is to enter private mode every time you start it and then it can't remember anything between sessions. Basically MS saying: if you want normal browsing experience with this, you WILL tell us who you are so we can track which websites you visit. Other things are reversible but only against MS's wishes - e.g. the lowest you can switch the "diagnostic" feedback to is "Basic", but you can actually turn it off by hacking around with the registry and disabling standard services. But that's neither reliable nor suitable for most users, so I class it as a critical flaw. I have gone back to GNU/Linux after years of using Windows (switched to it part way through 7 when I found it had actually become a decent OS).
I think Windows 10 is good if you don't care about controlling your own computer or your privacy. But for many of us, those are non-negotiable.
You're suggesting that Kapersky did this ad for the exposure resulting from the "controversy". I find it far more likely that to the Russians this was just good natured humour.
Are you sure? The third back looks definitely Chinese to me and others are not exactly clear-cut.
Seriously, you think a humorous ad suggesting people take a date to the cybersecurity conference has "destroyed their credibility"? This is a company that has consistently scored almost higher than any other anti-malware vendor for percentage of issues caught (Trend Micro matches them) and which exposed the Equation Group's work (NSA) - some of, if not the most, sophisticated malware we've ever seen? You think this ad "destroys their credibility"? I don't know what you're assessing Kapersky on that you think this, but it's certainly not the quality of their researchers or their product.
I find the Lynx commercials far worse than what Kapersky has done here. Honestly, I didn't have any negative reaction to the picture at all. Yes, it happens to be a guy surrounded by women who want to meet him but I didn't get any impression at all that the message was "women can't fix a computer" and more "women will be impressed if you're smart and go to Cybersecurity conferences". Which honestly, I found amusing. None of the women depicted are swooning damsels spilling their tits everywhere whilst an heroic male swoops in and undeletes their selfies for them. They look pretty smart, various and, well, depicted as people. Not as desperate sex-objects like in a Lynx (Axe to Americans) advert.
Seriously, I'm usually pretty sensitive to how women are depicted and viewed in the IT world, and all this ad says to me is "take a date to the cybersecurity conference - you'll attract smart, capable women". The ad is fine.
Shame to see you being modded down for what is an accurate comment. Probably about one in a hundred people is homosexual. No one group, no matter how vocal in the media, represents all those people. Or even, quite frankly, a majority of them. As you say, sexual orientation is an arbitrary thing. Why should a small affiliation of advocacy groups get to control who can and cannot register a domain under .gay. If another gay person wants to register a name, why does a group get to declare they represent him or her and decide on that because they happen to share a particular biological quirk together? And what if someone who isn't gay wants to register a domain under such a name, Why again should their not having a particular sexual orientation mean they're subject to another group's policies on that?
You can make cases for restriction of domain selling based on clearly defined groups and meaning and ICANN does in such scenarios. But being Gay, as you point out, is not like being a registered company or a member of a political party. Nobody gets to tell you they represent you because you both fancy the same sex, nor are there absolute hard boundaries to what lets you count as one orientation or another. The only fair way to handle this is to treat .gay like any other open TLD and allow people to register what they want as they want. Not to hand it over to some non-elected group with an agenda and say "you get to decide for everyone now. All yours." I mean ICANN are a non-elected group but at least they have had some reasonable strictures and pressures applied to them during their tenure.
What is being asked here is wrong on principle, and it's a shame to see you get voted down for pointing out that sexual orientation is an arbitrary thing that doesn't define who you are or give others the right to decide things for you.
A BOFH wouldn't have got worked up in the first place - they'd just be slacking in the server room and blinding any manager who tried to call them on it with a barrage of technobabble and excuses the manager wasn't qualified to refute.
To do something like this person did, you actually have to care about your job.
>>"it's a weekly column in which I talk bollocks in order to provoke readers into commenting. It seems to be working."
If the aim is to provoke people into commenting, why did we have to lose Lewis Page? :(
>>"Because you don't understand how people can spend money on a hobby that boggles anyone who doesn't engage in that hobby?"
That's not what the OP said nor what they were getting at. Playing a game - understandable for a variety of reasons, surprise, challenge, humour, story, whatever. Paying money to do so, therefore likewise understandable. What was questioned was where someone pays real money for achievements. You can earn coins or equipment etc. in game but many games will also let you buy those things with real world currencies. That short-circuits the entire process and is basically just a way to fire the synapse in your brain that says "achievement".
Such a game model (often the game itself is free) is basically providing the minimum necessary to define success for the player (I've got X weapon, I own 20 pigs, etc.) and then getting people to pay money to get that success without doing the necessary playing / developing the relevant skill level.
And THAT is what is wrong with it. If the achievement is detached from any entertainment the game itself delivers in getting it, then it is utterly arbitrary. You're paying someone real money to have a message on screen saying "you have 20 pigs". Or again, whatever you collect in that game.
If a purchasable extra to a game delivers additional "game", like a DLC expansion pack for a role-playing game, then that makes sense - it's essentially gradiating the price of the game according to how much you play. But paying to avoid having to play - that's deeply flawed and basically just manipulation of the brain's reward modelling.
>>"You forgot to mention that the cop wasn't white, but is a Hispanic officer named Jeronimo Yanez."
Only in the USA are Spanish people not White. :/
What we need then, is an Open Source equivalent to Facebook.
Porn is a very subjective thing. A picture of a naked person might not be porn, but another person might view it and think it is. A baby breast-feeding shouldn't be porn, but some people freak out if they see it as some offensive thing. I wouldn't be the slightest surprised if some people viewed food in a sexual manner and created a "porn" website dedicated to sushi or somesuch.
So what determines whether or not something is "pornographic" or "offensive". The person doing it / sharing it, or the person viewing it? Or a third party (Theresa May) deciding that both parties should think it is even if they haven't seen it themself?
>>"Personally I'm waiting for the announcement of the formation of GooFaceMicroTwApple which will then be followed immediately by "The Singularity"."
I think in that eventuality, we might as well just use the more traditional "Black Hole".
>>"You do the math, and please don't attempt to excuse black-on-white violence as somehow "justified," because it isn't. Besides nearly all black shooting victims are shot by other blacks, and that rate is far higher than for any other race."
Have you correlated for poverty and education? Because those two (linked) factors seem to be far more significant than race, to me.
>>"Labour, pre-Blair, was on a loser."
So it's a bit like that scene in the Lord of the Rings movie where Galadrial has to choose if she should remain herself and fade away. Blair's "New Labour" is basically showing us what would happen if Galadrial chose the ring.
>>"You do not understand the issue. There is a big difference between a bureaucrat who works for the NHS and a commissioner who works in the EU"
You both shifted my terms and I also addressed the latter in my post as well. Firstly, I referred to appointees. I didn't use anyone who works for the NHS as my example, I used the Chief Executive who is appointed by the Health Secretary (an elected MP). These are the "Unelected Bureaucrats" that we have in both Britain and the EU and it's the only workable system as we can't vote for everybody. Some random manager HIRED by the NHS as an employee is not what is being referred to as an "unelected bureaucrat".
Now if by "unelected bureaucrat" you're trying to refer to EU commissioners as you appear to be, then those are political leaders, no more "bureaucrats" than May, Gove or Corbyn. I covered those in the post you replied so I'll just repeat - the executive body is a second house of the EU parliament much like we have the House of Lords. It exists not to take away power from the member countries, but was created at the insistence of the member countries so that each had the ability to put a direct representative in there for their country, appointed by the elected government of that country. If you like, it's a bulwark to preserve individual national sovereignty rather than throw everything open to pure voting by an undifferentiated European population. That is very far from the impression created by throwing around the phrase "unelected bureaucrats" which implies that the 28 Commissioners are not politicians but faceless bureaucrats and got there without being put there by our own elected governments - one for each country.
And on some remote chance you're trying to refer to the entire commission including its civil service, then I wonder how on Earth you think the UK government functions? Or is it okay for the UK to have a civil service but EU commissioners are supposed to be omniscient and never sleeping?
In short, when you're throwing around Faragisms like "Unelected bureaucrats" you're referring to one of three things:
1. Political appointees - which we have in the UK as well (e.g. Chief Executive of the NHS)
2. The EU commissioners themselves - politicians not bureaucrats and nominated by national government as a measure for sovereignty and have parallels with the two-house system in many countries including our own.
3. The civil service of the EU Commission - which unless you expect the 28 commissioners to do everything themselves is an entirely reasonable and necessary thing.
In short, complaining about "unelected bureaucrats" is at best misinformed, at worst wilful misrepresentation.
"Democracy is a process of trial and error."
Don't worry. With Theresa May as PM, we'll soon be putting a stop to trials in the UK. They wont be needed anymore.
>>"I'm not sure that our Commentards personal experiences of debating points amongst both Left and the Right-leaning people is borne out by the UK's more reliable yardsticks of political thought along this single axis: the daily rags."
Well the subject is about methods of debate between people, not newspapers, so you're off-topic. Plus newspapers are primarily read by older people so not the best "yardstick" for active discussion between people today (old people are generally more insular than young people). However, I'll take up your comment and dispute it. The majority of papers sold (The Sun, the Daily Heil) don't construct arguments in the first place - they tell the reader what they should think with the occasional editorial throwing in some soundbite reasons. The standard is extremely low. Of the papers that do attempt to actually argue their points as if to an unconvinced reader, I would pit any of The Times (right-wing), the Telegraph (it's nickname is the Torygraph so...) or the Financial Times (de facto Right-Wing just through correlation of interests) against The Guardian - the pages of which have contained such delightful arguments as how a US judge shouldn't make their decisions based on evidence but on what feels right.
Honestly, I think only the Guardian can pretend to be an intellectual paper on the Left and my impression would be that it is noticeably more likely to descend to label-arguments than The Times or the FT.
>>"You may be familiar with a phrase from the past... "no taxation without representation"... the very essence of why the EU is a failure; un-elected bureaucrats dictating to people what they can and cannot do."
The rallying cry of the Brexiteer: "Unelected bureaucrats!"
We have those in the UK. Tonnes of them. Did you vote for the director of the NHS? No? How about the chairman of the Bank of England? Or the person who monitors fishing quotas? None of these? It's the same process in the EU. You vote for representatives who appoint these people because direct voting for every "bureaucrat" is neither desirable nor feasible. Of course there is one notable difference with the EU - you have in addition to the elected house, a non-elected house (a bit like the Lords). And they are there because individual nations didn't want to yield total sovereignty and wished to appoint their own national representatives. Which we do.
I'm tired of reading "unelected bureaucrats" from people who think that's some odd, tyrannical system.
>>“I can disagree with conservatives. They don’t like it, but they’ll say other things that are interesting. But on the Left, it's almost impossible to disagree. If you don't buy every single part of their agenda, you’re an outcast"
The above is for the most part my experience, too. I argue with people on both the Left and Right (about different things, and occasionally about the same thing ;) ) and as a general rule, the Right-wingers try to refute me based on individual issues. The Left-wingers usually try to refute me by slapping some label on me. The reason being, so far as I can tell, is that they consider the label itself to be the conclusion of the argument. Once you've proven someone is X, they think that this is 'job done'. And if you try to push on whether X is actually wrong, you tend to get a "It's not worth talking to you if you don't understand that X is wrong".
It's not exclusive to the Left Wing but it's a pattern that I recognize in the author's words. I think it's because so much of Left-wing debate is an echo chamber, taking place in particular academic circles or certain forums, that establishing one's intellectual superiority (the primary goal of most in both Academia and online forums), that it becomes this aggressive scramble to who can look down on who and for what. Primarily determined by what labels one can get to stick to the other. When that cyst bursts and those within flood out into the real word, you get this interaction the author speaks of - a refusal to work on an issue by issue basis, but on a camp by camp basis. Right-wing hierarchy is determined mostly by results and turning out to be right. Left-wing hierarchy is determined largely by establishing moral superiority.
A right-winger will usually try to prove you wrong on something. A left-winger will usually try to prove you are a wrong something.
Of course, the more educated they are, the fancier that will be dressed up. ;)
>>"This thread is completely loaded with feminists. Nay, 3rd-wave-female-chauvinists that even feminists disavow. 'Nuff said."
I think you're seeing what you want to see. I'm a feminist (check my posting history here on El Reg if you want to see plenty of evidence) and I'm not defending Hilary's actions.
Should not the FBI be obliged to prosecute criminal activity in the case of government? Allowing them to just drop charges when it is politically inconvenient (i.e. it's your likely future boss) is just an open invitation to excuse corruption.
Who are the Internal Affairs of government?
>>"From what has been written it sounds like he had a long history of drinking and mental health issues combined with a somewhat fiery temper"
Honestly, based on the experiences of friends, I'd be inclined to extend him some benefit of the doubt. After the police have beaten someone up (and that happens often enough) then any media attention is usually followed by rapid and aggressive character assassination toward the victim. We've seen that many times with numerous citable cases.
>>"Surely 'bae' is not a derivative of 'baby' but a truncation thereof? "Contraction" is a less-precise possibility."
Phonetically it is a contraction, but we are in a written forum talking about a term used overwhelmingly in a written form. (I have only ever heard "Bae" used in a real-world conversation once). Therefore neither contraction nor truncation are appropriate, but derivation is correct.
I would add the "</pedant>" closing tags, but to be honest, I never am not in pedant mode.
Also, "waifu" in English means something other than your Japanese definition as it is frequently applied to non-fictional people.
Derivative of "baby" and usually used by male Internet users to refer to women they'd want to date. See also "waifu".
Yeah, having a recruiter call me "their bae" would creep me the Hell out and not end well for said recruiter.
I may just be square and unhip, but the last thing I want with my work environment is to go to an after-party and play beer pong with any of them I have my own circle of friends and I keep my work life professional.
It's my experience of work parties / social that they want you to pretend to be all relaxed and "yourself", but they don't actually want that - the politics carries on. And if you do let yourself be yourself that tends to be remembered in the morning (especially if you're a woman where social and work standards tend to differ even more).
The Internet-phrasing is just silly to be. But the idea that I should be professionally introducing myself to a company I want to work for by playing "beer-pong" is just down-right off-putting.
Some women might not, but it's pretty understandable why others of us don't like this. Turning a tech event into a strip club is not welcoming to women. Strip clubs are about sex and titillation. Not wanting to be forced into such a setting with a group of strange men you don't know and wouldn't necessarily want to be around in a sexual context anyway, that's not good. A few moments thought from a woman's perspective on this should make the reasoning clear as fairly supportable.
>>"I'm beginning to believe that, after several Home Secretaries have made the same fundamental error about what can be achieved by legislation w.r.t the Internet, that there must me an underlying reason for this degree of ineptitude."
There are actually four reasons.
Firstly, it gets a slight vote boost from people who are anti-porn and ignorant of technology.
Secondly, it provides the opportunity to funnel cash at mates in business and to lean on ISPs to make them do what you want because you can make things a real hassle for them.
Thirdly and most importantly, it's not about pro-active enforcement, it's about being able to charge people with something when they become inconvenient or annoying. Can't nick them for anything you want to nick them for? That's okay, you can get them for "viewing illegal pornography" and "bypassing the protections that block foreign and often extreme porn". (note the weasel words in there).
Fourth, and not much less important, it's one more backdoor through which intelligence agencies can force through surveillance and tracking of people. One of the (un)holy grails is to ban VPN usage by any non-business. I.e. the public.
>>"Do you PROMISE on Cameron's grave that you're 18, cross your heart, hope to die."
But show me Blair's grave and I'll promise pretty much anything you want!
Well maybe if this law passes you'll have the "right" to 10Mbps in your village but there's nothing about cost still. So what does that mean? They're forced to offer it but can charge you thousands for a dedicated line? They're not allowed to offer packages less than 10Mbps? Those seem to be the only viable interpretations of this law and neither really makes much sense. Maybe if you're an ISP you're required to offer 10Mbps to anyone who wants it. Which is a great way to keep out new competition as only BT, TalkTalk, et al. could absorb such costs. Again, as a law this makes no sense?
And what the Hell does this have to do with mandatory age checks, too? Another way of putting that is anyone visiting such sites legally must supply personally identifying information. Yes, that's exactly what you should not be putting into a porn site. Nor should the government be snooping on it.
There's metadata. Presumably the company can see who your connections are and when you have sent and received messages from them. They also, as I understand it, gain total access to your address book when you install the app. Neither wholly take away from your point, but both are valuable and sometimes incriminating sets of data.
>>"The sole reason why we are in a position where a service with end-to-end encryption has been provided worldwide is the artificial separation of telecoms and information service providers by the FCC in the USA. USA has allowed the latter to skip a lot of requirements including legal intercept"
There's a difference between how the two are handled, yes. But I don't think it should be resolved in the direction you seem (possibly) to think. With old phone systems, people needed the phone companies to handle the implementation of communication for them. Nobody could whip up a quick communications protocol and implement it independently over the wires. But today data and bandwidth are commoditized. Not only do we not need BT or AT&T controlling how we send messages to each other, they cannot control how we send messages to each other.
Unless Authority declares there shall be no unapproved types of data transfer - that everything must be in pre-approved formats that they can read, then any of us can whip up a communication system in a week which they cannot scan.
So what's the proposal here - companies are to be fined for doing things that members of the public can do for free? Commercial entities are put at a technical disadvantage over free alternatives? Neither seems fair to me.
Along with the other article on El Reg about Facebook being blamed for deaths in Israel because they didn't pro-actively spy on their users enough to satisfy the Israeli authorities, I'm actually, -gasp- finding myself defending Facebook this week! (A bit ;) )
>>"I think it's based on the perceived implausibility that someone would take steps to secure something and then forget how to get to it when they wanted"
I've got a dozen old GPG keys, encrypted partitions and what-have-you that I can't remember the passwords for or that I've lost the key for. I could pull any old hard drive out of my filing cabinet and odds are there's something on there I can't access.
This is an unjust law that runs against the principles of innocent until proven guilty and of no self-incrimination.
As long as Israel continues to pursue the foreign policies that it does, I should think sustainable is assured!
>>" What could the manufacturer possibly do to protect you from yourself in that scenario?"
In my case, sell me a TV that is a dumb output device. The lack of one available is why I don't currently own a 4K TV.
As far as I'm concerned the words "Smart TV" translate as "something on my network that I can't patch, can't configure and for which proper support will probably be dropped within a year."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018