* Posts by h4rm0ny

4573 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Docker hired private detectives to pursue woman engineer's rape, death threat trolls

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Re: hmm

Well yes. Comes-ons from people you find attractive who know how to come on to you, are received differently from people you don't find attractive and whose come-ons feel kind of threatening. If a good-looking guy says something flattering to me and seems confident and casual about it, I'm usually okay with that. If an unattractive guy who has clearly been planning out the scenario of coming on to me - typically with a transparent disguise of trying to do me some favour to show what a good friend they are to me - for the past two weeks does it, I react differently. Especially if it makes me uncomfortable to the point I think it's going to be a growing problem with someone I have to work with.

That's how flirting works. Different reactions are given to different people.

So anyway, anecdote time if we're doing this. My general impression, as I've said before on this topic, is that most men I've worked with have been entirely decent nice people. I think it does vary by sector and country. In Germany, I have never encountered discernible sexism ever. I'm sure it must exist, but nowhere I've been. Absolutely great. In the UK, I've only a couple of times encountered real sexism in the IT sector. And in both cases, the attitude of everyone else in the place nipped the sexist people's behaviour in the bud (for which I was very grateful). Amongst Marketing and Sales people, incidences of sexism has been much higher. I think that is a general symptom of the kind of sleazy circles and old-boy network environments of this sector. You get a lot of sexism in marketing and sales departments or companies. The worst sector in the UK, ime, is the financial sector. Here sexism is high and especially, in my brief overlaps with it, in The City. There is a long way to go in eradicating sexism there. But in IT departments in the UK, mostly fine imo. Good, in fact.

The USA has more of a sexism problem. In fact, outside of the Middle East, I think it's the worst. MOST of the people I've worked with in the USA have been alright, but it's definitely a much greater incidence of sexist attitudes I have found there and I've worked in a couple of places where the sexism is very real and has very definitely adversely affected women's career opportunities and earnings. I'm sorry to say it, but I wouldn't particularly want to work for a US corporation again based on some of my experiences there.

Anyway, all the above is anecdotal and only ONE PERSON's experience (mine). So please only take it as that. (Paris, because she's the only discernibly female representation we have in the icons. ;) )

13
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: @Meldreth -- Utterly unacceptable

Why should Docker share the results of private investigations? Aside from the fact there's a good chance it would do little good, there's a significant chance it would do a lot of harm - naming people who weren't guilty, prejudicing cases against those that were...

It seems like a very positive thing to me that Docker took additional steps to try and deal with this problem. I'm more concerned about the fact that we're entering a situation where corporations have to take care of law enforcement for their employees rather than the State being able to provide this service.

14
0

Jaron Lanier: Big Tech is worse than Big Oil

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Employment: well, yes and no.

But Amazon might finally be making in-roads to get rid of even you. RDS is coming for your job sooner or later.

0
0

Ten years in the clink, file-sharing monsters! (If UK govt gets its way)

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Actually, no

>>"More on the torrent thing...the example given is people distributing 2500 films. Now I have been on torrents with 12,000 people on, so -instead of 2,500 x 1 file- we're looking at 1 x 12,000). "

This is misleading. They weren't given the sentence because of the number of films they participated in torrenting. They were given it because that was the number of undistributed films they managed to be amongst the first seeders of and their stated goals as a team were to obtain and be the first to pirate these movies and get the torrenting started. If you had read the reference in the proposal you would have seen this. If you're going to try and clarify things for people, research your facts, first.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Alert

Re: Actually, no

So let's begin with the obvious. I've made the point, with examples of actual UK legal history, that this clickbait suggestion of ten year sentences for domestic pirates is inaccurate. You've argued against my posts and I've asked you for any counter-examples in UK law of your own. You have none.

You claim you can't give me examples of ten year sentences because this law hasn't been written yet. But I'm not asking for that and already addressed this. We can sentence someone to 4.5 years right now so you're entirely able to give me the examples of multi-year sentences for domestic downloaders I've asked for. Well, assuming they exist. Where are they?

You claim the courts will abuse this ten year maximum but you can't even find me examples of abusing the current maximums! In fact, I'll go one better. In the Surfthechannel case they were prosecuted under Conspiracy to Defraud, which has a maximum sentence of ten years (same as this proposal) and the defendant received a sentence of four years. And THAT was a case of someone making £30,000+ per month and filtering the money through foreign banks to hide it. Yet you are promoting this idea that the domestic downloader is going to get ten years in prison for it.

>>Isn't the entire point of the proposal that the most you could do online copyright infringers for was 4.5 years by using fraud laws?

No. This is about rationalizing online and offline penalties. Is it fair that someone who commits fraud online should be penalized differently from someone who does the same thing resulting in the same harm offline? I mean you attempt to argue that this should be done later on and I'll get to that. But it's plainly wrong. The law needs to keep up with technology and here is an example of it doing so. So, no the entire point isn't about upping it from 4.5 years, it's about making the law consistent with itself. Now lets talk about the 4.5 years and the fact that it's gone up. It's also about making the law more readable and clear - also good things - because there are many cases where the CPO has dropped cases because of the confusion with the existing laws. If somebody ripped you off you would be most unhappy if the CPO came back and said "sorry - the law is too complex to prosecute".

>>"I would suggest that physical piracy is far more likely to involve a commercial element. For a start you're going to want to recover the cost of the blank media "

People make hundreds of thousands of pounds from advertising on piracy sites. And you're talking about pennies! So firstly, since when did reduced costs become a factor for making something less likely to appeal to criminals? Think over what you've just argued! Secondly, when you've answered that, tell me why it should matter what methods of crime are most popular to the case of prosecuting some individual for their particular crime. If it's not relevant, then don't bring it as a counter-argument about proposed laws.

>>"plus cash exists and you have to physically meet to exchange media anyway, so no extra arrangements need be made and no extra risk needs be taken"

Oh yes, meeting dodgy people and moving around unmarked smuggled boxes is a great incentive over sticking up a website. Sure it is.

>>"Now online infringement can be monetised; but you need to add a mechanism to do that and that is always going to add significant risk."

It's called advertising and adding it to your site is easy. As is telling the advertisers where to put the money. "Significant" is really a lovely vague term, isn't it, btw?

>>"Well, I'm in Spain; where there is a tax on blank media and the rights groups get a payout"

Well that might explain why you're repeatedly able to support your points about UK law. Regardless, a tax on blank media is a terrible, terrible idea. Why? Firstly, you're forcing people who don't pirate to subsidise those that do. Secondly, profits are divvied up by big rights organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA who take a nice fat cut of that for "administration" and independent and small artitsts are fucked as well. Thirdly, it's deeply out of touch. Do you honestly think that all those people torrenting movies and MP3s are busy sticking them on plastic discs? No? Then don't offer this stupid law up as a justification for piracy.

"When it's hands-down the most popular method of downloading large lumps of data and when that method intrinsically means that you are technically making that data available to large numbers of people, then fuck yeah, it's a weakness"

No. Laws citing specific technological methods of doing things rather than aims and results is always a bad idea. Do you seriously want a scenario where copyright law was re-written for Betamax and VHS and vinyl and cassette tapes and then CDs and then DVDs and then Blu-Rays or MP3 players? Have you seen the mess the US patent system is in when it focuses on specific bits of technological method rather than general principles? Would you like international law to have lots to say about mustard gas but nothing about Sarin or nuclear weapons? Well-written laws have to be written about aims and results, not about specific stages of technology.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Actually, no

>>"You're saying that with a confidence that I don't share. You appear to be expecting common sense from the law; whereas -not only do I not expect it- but when you think a little bit about recent legal history scope creep; RIAA maths and so on, the exact opposite is what will likely happen in practice."

I've been citing actual cases of multi-year convictions in UK legal history and showing the level of wrong that had to be committed to achieve that. They are rare and extreme cases, all with massive distinctions between them and domestic piracy that others here are discussing. You accuse me of confidence, well yes - I'm basing this on actual cases. You declare vague hints about "RIAA maths" and declare that the exact opposite will happen. Well then put your money where your mouth is and do what I have done: cite some actual cases and lets examine them. Show me cases in the UK where people have received multi-year sentences for piracy in the UK and we'll take a look at whether these are domestic pirates or are actually some non-representative case that has special reasons for it. Go for it - show me cases where people have got multi-year prison sentences in the UK for this. And don't make the mistake of saying you can't because this is a new law because this is a rationalization existing law to remove discrepancies between the same act taking place online and offline. Multi-year sentences have been possible for piracy under UK law for a long time. Cite me some examples of this that support your case as I have done for mine.

>>"The proposal has 2 serious flaws: The first is that digital copying is not the same as physical copying"

If someone hands me a cracked copy of photoshop on a pressed DVD or if they send me the file via Dropbox, the fraction of a penny difference in plastic is not the concern. Similarly, if I stole a retail copy of it and then applied a crack, do you really think the pennies of difference and pressing of an extra copy is the concern to Adobe? Or that it's the copy of the software that is their concern. No, the distinctions you are attempting to make are not the relevant ones here. Steal a piece of plastic with the information on or steal it via a torrent, it is logical and correct that the law shouldn't have wildly different sentences and guidelines over these. That is simple and correct. Attempting to say "but in the former case, they no longer have a piece of plastic that someone might have bought" when the plastic is just another medium of transporting the real thing of value, is knowingly trying to dodge the important elements here.

>>"The second is that torrenting is technically making files available; potentially to a large -instant industrial scale- number of people and I see no mention; exemption or even knowledge of that in the proposal"

Well, I'll resist the urge to suggest you don't participate in massive distributed attempts to defraud people of the product of their labour and point out that (a) you haven't seen the actual draft law itself yet and (b) there is indeed a response addressing proportionality of response. Several in fact. Amongst them they highlight previous cases for guidance including one where people got two years and that this wasn't for simply obtaining the movies as domestic downloaders, but people who aimed to be the initial seeders of content that wasn't yet generally obtainable by torrent and did so for over 2,500 movies.

Generally when laws cite specific technological methods, it's a BAD thing. Such laws rapidly become out of date. You are now effectively arguing it's a weakness in the proposal that it [I]doesn't[/I] do this. The point is addressed by multiple citations of existing history in this area so you're wrong that it doesn't cover it. It just doesn't cover it in the way that you think it should be done but would in fact be very problematic and short-sighted to do so.

Now, back to you finding cases in the UK that actually support your belief that domestic pirates are going to get ten year sentences over my actual examples that indicate they wont...

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"But isn't that only because of the persistant fear and scaremongering that exists now thanks to the ilk of the Daily Mail, et al."

I wouldn't have thought so. Sex with a prepubescent child is intrinsically damaging to that child and equally is inescapably taking advantage of a child through one's greater power over them. It is not arguable that sex with a child isn't both harmful to the child and lacking in even the pretence of consent. It is inherently wrong. Anyone who was a good person and found themself sexually attracted to children is going to suffer distress about their urges. Hence why any good person who finds themself suffering from this would want and need help.

>>"Do you tell everyone about your sexual attractions? Do you tell everyone that you're a heterophile? Homophile? Podophile? Zoophile? Whatever attraction floats your boat? No, probably not."

I tell anyone who asks that I'm heterosexual because I am. However, having seen the distress homosexual people have suffered historically (and may still do today with their families), I can see how having to keep a sexual attraction, even one that is harmless like homosexuality, can cause immense distress for the person who has to live the lie.

>>"You mean child molestation? By that logic, what's stopping you, a person with an attraction, from raping every person that you meet?"

Well I have no penis, so I guess lack of the necessary equipment for a start. But you're badly failing to comprehend what is being said to you which is that sexual attraction can lead to horrific outcomes. Which it can. I didn't say that someone who is a paedophile necessarily will - that part was covered by the suffering in my first part. But I do go on to say that unaddressed paedophilia is a risk. I would think a lifetime of any unfulfilled sexual desire would have a high chance of leading someone towards giving in at some point. What's up for debate in that? So again, the OP wasn't unreasonable in saying they need help. You're being unreasonable in contesting that.

>>"For the purpose of Devil's Advocate though. [...]"

No. You're arguing against points I didn't make through your own inability to understand. Additionally, this is a massive distraction from what the article is actually about. What is happening here is plain: you have some particular issues with paedophilia and having seen an off-hand reference to it in someone's post are now going into some death spiral of arguing about it for your own reasons. I'm satisfied that the points I made are clear and reasonably uncontroversial to any bystander so I decline to derail this forum discussion any further for the sake of your issues. I am done on this.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>[citation needed]

You really need a citation that if a generally good person found themselves attracted to children they wouldn't feel distressed about that? Or that keeping your sexual attractions secret from everyone you know wouldn't lead to suffering? You genuinely question whether a sexual attraction to prepubescent children can lead to horrible outcomes?

You're a moron.

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: So disproportionate

>>Someone on TorrentFreak's comments posted this link: http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php to a list of the current maximum sentences.

Okay. Let's examine this:

>>Walk into Piccadilly Circus with an AK-47 - 7 years.

Carrying a firearm. Not shooting it, not killing anyone, not murdering anyone... just carrying it unauthorized in a public place. Our prisons are pretty over-crowded anyway, isn't seven years fine for this? Is carrying a firearm without actually attempting to use it or evidence of planned murder (both of which could bump it up to Life) inherently worse than causing millions of pounds of lost profit through software piracy (real example of a multi-year sentence).

I mean you're example is really incredibly stupid. Simply 'possessing or distributing a prohibited weapon' carries a maximum of 10 years and a minimum of 5 years whilst 'Possession of Firearm with Criminal Intent' carries a maximum of Life. You're contriving a situation in which someone legally owns an AK-47 in this country and then without any criminal intent carries it into a busy public place just so that you can try to show the penalty is 'only' seven years.

You are, quite plainly, being dishonest in your attempt to misrepresent proportionality here.

>>Have sex with your 12-year-old daughter - 7 years.

There's a boatload of crimes that would be committed here, not least of which: "Sexual intercourse with girl under 13" - which can carry a life sentence and rape, which can also carry a life sentence.

You've skipped over these very deliberately in your list and then gone down to find attempted versions of the crime. So yes, if a person tried to seduce a twelve year old girl, they might get away with seven years. But if they have sex with her complicitly or uncomplicitly, those crimes carry life sentence maximums.

Again, you're misrepresenting things deliberately. You're lying, in fact.

>>Download some films off the internet - 10 years.

False. You'd get a fine. We've never had a 10 year sentence for this in this country. Even case of someone trading fifty million in pirated software as a commercial business only got seven, iirc.

If you want to lie to rile people up and get them angry about something that isn't true, your post is going about it in the perfect way. If you want to actually deal with accuracy and fair argument, you've badly lost your way.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: In other news...

>>A few moments of research revealed that... "All ORG materials, unless otherwise specified, are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license."

That's ORG materials. ORG members are also private people with careers and contracts. I would not be surprised if more than one of them worked in software and depended on copyright law for their income.

>>"Perhaps next time one should do some research before one spouts?"

Given that you didn't actually answer the GP's question...

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>>>Paedophiles need _help_

>>Why?

I guess because it's a sickness and left unaddressed leads to suffering and potentially horrific consequences.

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Pint

Re: His (her) Master's Voice

>>"Frankly Oriowski I wish you would piss off."

And I am very glad he's here as he actually backs up his articles. I can also spell his name!

Whenever Orlowski posts in the comments on El Reg., I always picture him as George Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life: standing in front of the mob when there's a run on the bank desperately trying to explain how the system works as people keep shouting for their money.

Beer for our resident IT masochist.

3
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: You COULD NOT...

>>"If you really wanted to harmonise the sentencing guidelines then you could lower the penalty for the physical crime."

Yes, you could resolve it either way. But in the case of someone who was pulling down £400,000 from advertising on the back of other people's work and funnelling that money secretly via international banks to hidden accounts in South America (not a hypothetical example but one of the rare cases of someone in the UK getting a mult-year prison sentence for this kind of stuff), should it be lowered? Frequently cases like this are not prosecuted simply because the complexities in the law have made it difficult to proceed. This clarifies and rationalizes the law and that's a good thing. If you want to argue that industrial-scale fraud should have its penalties lowered to inline with what some home torrenter might get (a fine), then that's going to need some support.

>>"It is perfectly reasonable to use stronger laws (fraud etc) to prosecute the more serious cases."

Discretionary sentencing is a valuable tool in the British legal system. Without it you get an inability of judges to be lenient. and cases being thrown out because the prosecution picked the wrong gradient of the crime. E.g. dangerous driving can be anything from a fine to two years in prison. And if you kill someone it can go up to fourteen years. What happens if the prosecution pick the variant of the crime and don't meet the necessary burden of proof for the ten year dangerous driving law, but would have met it for the eight? And it leads to US-style plea bargaining.

Discretionary sentencing is, if not vital, certainly very important.

>>Sorry. I fundamentally disagree that you could be locked up for 10 years for sharing an ISO.

You wont be. The article has misled you. If you're talking about sharing some popular movie, you'll get a fine, same as you always would. This is about commercial-scale piracy which your example certainly doesn't meet the criteria of.

>>And I disagree just as strongly with the way that policy was created.

Public consultation followed by vote by elected MPs? What would be your preferred method of enacting and removing laws?

1
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"So, this is legislation for a problem that has already been solved?"

No, because previously the same crime was handled differently depending on whether it took place online or offline. This rationalizes the law on the subject so that there is no double-standard.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Disproportionate

If someone slapped or punched me, that would be assault and a "crime against the person" as you call it. Would that inherently demand a harsher sentence than if I'd had spent two years working on a computer game and then that same person took it from me and shared it online costing me tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of pounds and wasting two years of my life? Because that's what you've just argued. And then you've declared that only "a cretin" would think otherwise.

You should review what you've written here. You've allowed this (admittedly very biased and one-sided article) to lead you into thinking this is about ten years for occasionally downloading movies. It isn't.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: So if you wrote a book...

Bullshit. If you spent two years of your life working on something, e.g. a computer game, and then someone took it for free and shared it to the world free, you'd be livid. You'd want them fined to get recompense for the lost sales and I'd lay pretty good odds that you'd be angry enough to want them to go to prison as punishment.

3
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"Piracy hurts only big fish in distribution, don't even try to give me the shit that it hurts artists. Artists get peanuts from MAFIAA for their work"

It hurts everyone involved in the music and movie industries. If you work in the movie industry - whether you're a caterer, a carpenter or a movie star, you're hired on the basis of expected profits and paid by investors who look at returns on previous films. Anything that reduces profits on a film impacts investment in future films. Which knocks on all the way through the system.

1
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Actually, no

Thanks banks weren't lying (generally, that we know of). The ratings agencies, e.g. Standards and Poor, were lying. They rated packages as AAA when they knew they were no such thing. And the reason for that is almost undoubtedly that the banks wanted them to. So in fact, there was wilful deception involved. The film The Big Short which came out recently is worth watching on the subject.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Actually, no

>>"It's not a persecution complex or paranoia if they actually are out to get you."

That's the point, they're not. You're not going to get ten years for torrenting a few current movies. This whole article is click-bait and I'll happily debate the author on it and tear their argument apart piece by piece if they'd like to engage me on it.

>>"On a related note; what's the penalty for defrauding billions with sub-prime mortgages and causing a global depression? Yeah, I fucking thought so."

If you're now using Goldman-Sachs et al as a way of making yourself look moral, you need to raise your standards. A lot.

1
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: His (her) Master's Voice

>>"If i steal a warehouse of cd's and dvd's they're gone, i nicked em and made a profit selling em. I have deprived someone of real things. If I copy a mates mp3 via bluetooth on my device, no one has lost out."

Both are methods of depriving the content producer of payment for their product. Unless for some incalculable reason you think the primary cost of producing a movie or album is the plastic that goes into the DVD, then it really makes no difference how you take it without paying for it. This is a fact.

>>"I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so no loss of sale."

This is you deciding unilaterally the worth of someone's work and depriving them of a say in it. You declare it's not worth £10 but is worth £0, so it's therefore okay for you to take it for £0. Trade depends on both parties being able to negotiate on a price. If the seller prices it too highly, you choose not to buy. If you find it worth the price they demand, you do choose to. Taking it at a price that the seller does not agree to is theft, even if (especially if) that price is £0. The customer always wants everything cheaper, that's why they don't get to set the prices of it unilaterally.

Also, utterly absurd to argue from a position that piracy doesn't cost sales. Whilst the comments sections of IT news sites seem to be filled with people who pirate nothing that they would ever buy, the real world contains people I know who absolutely use piracy as an alternative to buying, renting or cinema.

And before I get the utterly predictable retort that this doesn't mean that every pirated good is a lost sale, let me point out I haven't made such an argument.

All of the above is fairly straightforward logical progression from supportable premises. You're trying to justify piracy and doing a piss-poor job of it.

>>"And now they wanna lock me up for 10 years."

No, the article is misleading you. They want to slap a fine on you and say "don't do it again." Unless you happen to be engaging in large-scale software piracy for profit which is more what this is about despite the frothing rant that has just attempted to pass itself off as journalism without so much as pretending to consider the opposing view.

5
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: You COULD NOT...

>>"Just checked - you get less for Manslaughter with anything other than 'Low Provocation'..."

And here come the silly comparisons. Though it's usually driving offences that are preferred, car analogies and all.

Presumably everyone outraged by this also thinks that when an ISP promises "up to 100Mbps" that's what they'll get. Or that because you can get up to two years for dangerous driving, you'll get two years for accidentally going through a red light.

This is about harmonizing offline and online penalties so that someone producing knock-off DVDs gets treated the same as someone transferring ISOs online. It's not about upping the penalties.

Let's look at actual prosecutions resulting in multi-year sentences in the UK. To recall two, we had a guy who traded in $20million of pirated software and made a very handsome profit on that. He got seven years, iirc. The other multi-year sentence I can recall was someone running a piracy site and he was channelling about £50,000 advertising revenue per month through Latvian banks to South American-registered companies. I don't recall how long that person got, but it was less than ten years.

If you're someone at home distributing some movies via BitTorrent, you're not going to get a decade inside, you're going to get a fine, in all but the most exceptional cases.

Discretion in sentencing is a thing and exists for a very good reason. Meanwhile El Reg. and Ars Technica go into a feeding frenzy of click-bait profits whilst freetards go into moral outrage and complain about comparisons to manslaughter. Well home torrenters aren't going to be sentenced the same way as people committing manslaughter and if you throw out all historical evidence from this country to the contrary, and refuse to acknowledge that maximum sentences are not the be all and end all of how you assess a law, then you're wilfully [b]trying[/b] to be outraged because you enjoy it.

7
18

Microsoft, Google bury hatchet – surprisingly, not in each other

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Following up on the patent truce story

Spurious claims by who? As someone replied to your previous post on this, MS were making lots of money from the patents that Android infringed on. It's free money to them.

Also, isn't this rather shoe-horned into this topic?

1
1

European Union set to release anti-competition hounds on Google

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Thank goodness this is nearly over.

We'll have left the EU soon and then we can negotiate with international corporations as a small independent nation rather than a large, powerful trading block. I'll be glad of the extra protection that Theresa May and David Cameron give us once their hands are no longer tied.

15
7

Furious customers tear into 123-reg after firm's mass deletion woes

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
WTF?

I can't believe this.

I accept that the company has actually issued these statements and I accept that El Reg is reporting it. But I honestly find it no easier to believe than if I saw a cow begin to levitate in front of me.

A company could just not be this incompetent. It just doesn't compute in my brain.

11
1

Idiot millennials are saving credit card PINs on their mobile phones

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Windows

And pre-Millienials were tech savants?

Can we ditch honing in on "Millenials"? I'm sick of every bandwagon news site suddenly starting to throw the word around every other article as if it has some actual significance. If anything, I would have thought "Millenials" probably have a higher average IT knowledge than older generations.

Maybe they just don't care because there aren't any well-paying jobs and there's nothing IN their bank-accounts except ten grand of student debt, did you think of that?

Grumpy icon for grumpy post ----------->

EDIT: And yes, I read the article. If they're five percentage points higher than the previous generation likely to store the numbers in their phone, I suspect that's more to do with smartphone ownership and use of online banking than tech expertise.

47
8

How to not get pwned on Windows: Don't run any virtual machines, open any web pages, Office docs, hyperlinks ...

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Sad pretty much not being able to use the PC

>>"Yet somehow your phone and tablet can be on the Internet wherever you go all day long with nary a twitch. It's almost as if there were a specific software vendor involved in all of this PC malware mess."

I'd lay good money that you would also be critical of the Windows Store. In fact, given that this is Mikel, long-time poster on El Reg. noted for virulent anti-Microsoft posts, I'd say it's almost a certainty you've been against it. Yet you compare Windows (open and free to install what you want) to locked down systems like iPads and Windows RT. If you can't see the relevant distinction between an iPad and a Windows OS machine is not vendor but user privileges, you're wilfully blind.

Oh, and you should check out Android sometime (the most popular OS used for phones) which even at one's most charitable could not be described as having "nary a twitch" when it comes to security.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: How not to get pwned on Windows...

>>"Security bugs are a fact of life in all software - the bigger the code base, the more you can expect. Saying "my OS is less likely to get pwned than your OS" is just stupid."

It's not stupid. There are actual variations in security flaws between different OSs. Back in pre-Vista era, Windows was inherently less secure than GNU/Linux. That's no longer true. Windows is probably slightly more secure than GNU/Linux these days. And maybe that will change again over time - who knows. But it's not right to reject comparisons between OSs. It's useful. If nothing else, it keeps different vendors trying hard to compete in the area of closing down vulnerabilities.

>>"We all know that the "many eyes" theory spouted by the OSS hardliners is complete bullshit."

It's not "complete bullshit". It's a valid argument that Open Source benefits from people being able to inspect the source and find flaws. The problem is that the more complex the project, the more specialized you have to be to notice flaws. I can find a flaw in the MySQL source code. I can't find one in Firefox source - I simply wouldn't know where to start with their code base. But that doesn't mean that other people can't or that it's "bullshit".

The biggest security advantage of Open Source, though, is not guarding against accidental flaws, but against deliberate ones. It lets you examine the source for deliberate backdoors by the vendor. That has a lot of value, imo.

0
0

Flying Spaghetti Monster is not God, rules mortal judge

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Pastafarianism is under attack!

What's the feminine form of Pope. Is it Popess? Or Popette? I quite fancy being a Popette.

Hail Eris! She what done it all!

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Excellent

All I know about Jehovah's Witnesses is that the one I worked with never mentioned his religion in the entire time I worked with him (I found out from someone else) and he was one of the nicest and most helpful people I worked with, going out of his way to help and patiently dealing with some extremely trying situations.

I don't know how much of that was because of his faith, but I can conclude that one shouldn't judge people's character by their religion.

6
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Excellent

>>"So which religion isn't based on a work of fiction?"

In Discordianism, you actually have to be fictional to attain the higher levels of sainthood. The reasoning is that fictional people are more able to approximate the perfection needed to be a greater saint. If you're a real human being (and not a cabbage or something) the best you can get is level one saint, even if you're Emperor Norton or similar.

We make no distinction fnord between reality and fiction because effect is what matters and one can be equally inspired by Captain Yossarian as by a real person.

Personally, I'm more concerned in this case as to why the prisoner is being denied books of any kind. Is knowledge and learning withheld in US prisons unless you can justify it as part of your religion? Fiction or otherwise, let them have their books. Hail Eris!

6
1

Cinema boss gives up making kids turn off phones: 'That's not how they live their life'

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

EMPs are fiddly to create and require explosives to properly generate a pulse which is both noisy and requires a fairly unwieldy length of coil that you'd have to lug around and into the cinema.

Bullets are superior in every way.

7
0

Line by line, how the US anti-encryption bill will kill our privacy, security

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Unwanted consequences

US Intelligence has previously been known to pass on Airbus's confidential information on big deals to Boeing. This is known in the EU. So turnabout is fairplay, I guess. Even if it's self-inflicted on the US part.

8
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: The government [of USA] can lead by example...

>>"Or perhaps it's simpler: Feinstein, Burr, et al are insane."

Simpler than that. They're interests just don't align with the publics. Nor has a farmer's interests ever truly aligned with the chickens. They might both want to keep the fox out, but the farmer still wants to keep the chickens in.

17
0

GCHQ is having problems meeting Osborne's 2020 recruitment target

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Ethics

>>"everyone who posts on this forum is already on a watchlist"

Good. When everyone is on a watchlist, a watchlist is meaningless.

2
0

Not Bitcoin, but close: Red Hat and Microsoft bite into blockchain tech

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: tracking ownership of digital products

>>"Have you ever read the EULA for a piece of digital software?"

Silly question. No-one has. Have you ever read the "EULA" for a piece of digital music, say an mp3 purchased from Amazon? I have. I own that MP3. The file includes (usually) metadata from my purchase identifying me as the owner as well in case I distribute it. If you don't understand the difference between ownership of copyright and ownership of a product, then you must go through life very confused. For example, whenever someone says they bought a car and it blows your mind that they think of it that way even though they don't have ownership of the patents needed to produce it.

>>"I suggest you learn more about digital copyrights and ownership, rather than down voting the people who tell you how it is in the real world."

Yes, I have multiple accounts and all those downvotes are just me logging in and out of the Register just to downvote the response to me.

Idiot.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: tracking ownership of digital products

>>"The way our society works, the "ownership" of the digital product is with the artist or their agent. As an end-user, at best what you have is ownership of a limited right-to-use."

You can own a product. You can own copyright on something. These are different things. If I own a car, I own it. Even though I don't own the patents that would allow me to manufacture copies. If I own a book, I own it. Even though I don't own the copyrights that would allow me to print copies. And I own a number of digital products. Even though I don't own the copyrights that would allow me to distribute copies. Again, there is nothing inherent to a product being digital that requires the model to be different. So hopefully my question can be answered rather than just have people pontificating on their views on copyright. Especially when even in your own post you concede that what I say is correct.

>>"Airlines could make airline tickets transferrable. They choose not to for the same reason."

Yes. And they did that when you had paper tickets as well. I own several products that I am free to sell on if I wish. So what I am interested in is whether this technology can be used to track ownership. It's a pretty simple question asked genuinely by someone interested in this technology for this purpose.

>>"Yes, such rights could be transferrable. This doesn't require a blockchain: it just requires that the real owners are happy to have transferrable rights, and any way to record that."

This is incorrect and why I am asking my question. With a digital product, reproduction is trivial. If we want to sell a digital product under the same model as a physical product, we need two further things to do that well. The first is to be able to prove legitimate ownership in a scenario where there could be two instances of the same thing (unlike physical goods where if B gains, A loses by an equal amount); and second is for a third party to be able to follow it in order to enforce copyright law. It seems to me that this technology could meet both of those needs very effectively, but I'm hoping that someone who knows about this will reply to me rather than a couple of soap-boxing freetards who conflate ownership of copyright (creation and distribution rights) with ownership of a product.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: tracking ownership of digital products

Nothing inherent to digital products requires that the right to use be non-transferrable. So yes, you can own digital products. Nor that they be "domestic personal use only". Just like you can own a paper book, you can own an ebook. In neither case does copyright allow you to distribute copies of it.

So, to get back to my question...

4
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Assets

This seems to be a generalized approach to tracking ownership of digital assets. Could it be used for tracking ownership of digital products such as movies, music, ebooks, etc? That would make it more viable to resell digital products which is an unsatisfactory area right now.

3
0

Just how close are Obama and Google? You won’t believe the answer

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Downvotes?

All the way through reading this article, I kept having Human Leagues' "Don't You Want Me Baby" running through my mind. Something about "I put you where you are... And I can put you back down too."

5
0

Microsoft lures top Linux exec from Oracle to Redmond

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: And as a side-note ...

>>"And I'm sorry for genius Dave, but like many, he too confused the forest with the trees when it comes to understanding the UNIX model."

How so? Back that up.

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: For shame!

I think you mean Stallman. He's the one that - for better or worse - has always been self-consistent in his principles and doesn't waver.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: They have hired top Linux people before

>>"Windows server hell"

See, I could accept an argument that MS's GNU/Linux involvement is a rear-guard action and wont see competitive support. I don't think that's true, but I could see it as a supportable argument. But then you go off on one about "Windows server Hell". There might be people who feel that way if they're a GNU/Linux shop and they have one odd Windows server needed for some piece of critical software and they don't really know how to maintain it or have processes to manage it. An odd inconsistency in your processes is always a PITA. But Windows as an OS is pretty solid. And it has a lot of very good enterprise tools to manage it. So I conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.

12
4

Tracy Emin dons funeral shroud, marries stone

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Hand fasting.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: It wasn't me

Doesn't your name mean "stone stone". Your parents had a sense of humour. :)

0
0

William Hague: Brussels attacks mean we must destroy crypto ASAP

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"Mr Hague should go back to delivering barrels of beer in his beloved Yorkshire."

We don't want him back. You keep him.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Hague was the one that led the case for British bombing of Libya to try and sponsor their foreign-backed "popular uprising" (that popular uprising that involved importing troops from Qatar and foreign Special Forces). Libya is now exporting terrorism around the world. Whilst terrorist bombings like we've recently seen aren't a right response to our involvement, they are in significant part a response nonetheless. First Hague wants us to get involved for the sake of British oil interests, then Hague wants us to give up all privacy to the government to deal with the fallout.

No matter that the bombings are terrible, I remain more afraid of the government than I do the terrorists.

16
0

Come on kids, let's go play in the abandoned nuclear power station

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

@LucreLout

That was interesting. Do you have a blog or anywhere you write stuff like this? If so, I'd certainly be interested in that as well.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Re: Steel Fuel Tubes

I wonder how many people who don't understand MSR either modded up your comment just because it said that we (the British) know more about MSR than you do (the USA).

More than one, I suspect. ;)

1
0

Brits shun nightclubs and CD-ROMs for lemons, coffee and woman’s leggings

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

That's just the marketing and justification. I know at least one person who uses them just because they're cheaper so they can have more.

And I think some others use them because it lets them pretend they're healthy whilst still getting their nicotine fix.

1
0

State should run power firm spam database, says... competition watchdog

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Oh for crying out loud

There's only one form of competition regulation I'd like to see out of these people, and that's to regulate wind power so that it isn't massively subsidised by my purchase of electricity from other sources. If this body is so keen on competition, let's have some.

(N.b. to carbon fanatics - I'm pro nuclear).

16
0

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018