* Posts by h4rm0ny

4539 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Siri, you're fired: Microsoft Cortana's elbows into iOS, Android

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: When do we see an Windows phone with Android?

>>"That their pushing for Secure Boot could certainly be regarded as anti-linux."

Secure Boot is not "anti-Linux". It's useful technology that protects against actual threats in the wild right now. GNU/Linux can just also take advantage of it - it's a UEFI technology, not a Microsoft one. MS are a member of the UEFI consortium but then so are a dozen others including all the big hardware players like Samsung, Lenovo, IBM, et al. There's no conspiracy here. The Windows 8 requirements even mandate that for an x86 device to be certified the user must be able to disable Secure Boot if they wish. Which is a simple option in UEFI as easy as switching the boot device. Secure Boot has never stopped anyone from installing a Linux distro.

The hysteria about Secure Boot was massively overblown and a lot of people fell victim to FUD about it.

4
7
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Make mine Mac

If Apple ever make a table it will be 2" high and the tech news sites will praise it for its thinness.

9
0

$17,000 Apple Watch: Pointless bling, right? HA! You're WRONG

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

@ !Spartacus

>>"How to you make a manifesto to please a libertarian free-marketeer like Worstall and an ex-Labour northern working class lefty/protectionist?"

This is easy. The former are interested in actual policies and details and will read them. The latter are interested in positive sound-bites. This means you can easily please both groups. You must have noticed that whilst UKIP is populist in their image and slogans, their backers are largely wealthy and upper-class. The dichotomy is unnoticed by the masses and useful to the party backers, and thus is consequently deliberately perpetuated.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I'll pass on the expensive version

Perhaps they could do a lady's model with David McCallum.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Perceived value

>>"I don't think he's arguing that you "should" do that. I think he's arguing that people "do" do that."

But he's also arguing it without any context of whether it is a good way of advertising ones wealth or not. The point was made earlier that nature is filled with frivolous resource usage to attract mates - the example of peacock tails was given. However, human beings are the most intelligent animals we know (cynical jokes can be inserted here if you wish). Even when we are extravagant we require rationalizations for ourselves. Someone could demonstrate their wealth by setting fire to $17,000 dollars in front of other people. That would not earn them respect, they'd be derided for it and considered crass by the huge majority of people including other wealthy people.

When someone orders a £500 bottle of wine or spends £5,000 on a TAG watch, it's accompanied by some waffle about how great and brilliant the quality is in some way. This quality may or may not justify the actual expense but there is a rationalization that is used. Even if the fig leaf is quite small sometimes.

The point is that yes - conspicuous consumption exists, but it is best done in a direction where society will be impressed because you are obtaining something that most of the rest can't afford but would like. Spending it in a direction where the rest can't afford but don't care - that doesn't net you the same returns. And it is my contention that the iWatch falls into this category. It blatantly does not compete with true luxury watches as a luxury watch itself. Similarly there are other products out there that are better than it as a fitness device (Microsoft's Band is demonstrably better in this regard) or a wrist computer (the Android devices have the edge here, imo). That leaves design aspect and as jewellery, it very definitely loses out to more classic luxury watches.

TL;DR: You could demonstrate your ability to throw around money by buying a Segway to ride around on, but rich people don't try to look cool by doing this. It matters not only that you show off your wealth, but how you do it.

5
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

What has happened to Worstall recently? I used to agree with mist if his articles but the last three I've read have all been a pile of conjecture back-up with post-conclusion analysis.

Yes, displays of wealth can help a man get laid if that is what he's after and he feels the need to pay money to obtain this. But that does not mean all displays of wealth are good investments in that regard. Apple are not a brand name for luxury watches or jewellery. An equivalently expensive traditional watch with an appropriate brand name would display wealth more effectively and look a lot more high-status. The $17,000 iWatch looks more like Chav-bling style wealth display. Which might work in certain circles, but not outside of them.

To everyone else it looks like you spent $17,000 on something that will be obsolete in two years time. I suppose it could convey that you have cash and are easily parted from it... But that's mire likely to make you appeal to conmen than women.

5
2

Should online pirates get the same sentences as offline ones?

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: 10 years...

>>"May Huey Lewis, and Devo haunt you for eternity for your blasphemy against the 80s."

They can moan and rattle their chains all they like. Just so long as they don't sing.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"In the US Constitution, it states that copyrights should only be for a brief limited period of time!"

Ah that would be why people primarily pirate older stuff rather than the latest releases - they're

protesting against the copyright terms being too long.

>>"Putting a person in jail for 10 years because he copied a movie that he paid for is a crime against the people"

Firstly, the 10 years isn't for a casual download of a few movies, it's for major league and probably commercial piracy. The typical pirate who is convicted gets a fine. Secondly it's your contention that most pirates are downloading things they've previously bought? Because that's rubbish. Before making arguments based on someone receiving 10 years in prison for downloading a movie they've already bought, see if that matches up to reality, because that's not what's being talked about here.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: 10 years...

Logically any artist that is "pro-piracy" can forgo signing a contract and just upload their music for free. If they believe that unrestricted public sharing is the best thing for them, current law doesn't prevent them in the slightest. The converse, if piracy is tolerated is not true, you're removing the ability of artists to choose how they want to sell their work.

TL;DR: an artist being in favour of free distribution is not an argument in favour of changing anything - they already have what they want.

2
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: When is theft not theft?

>>"It might not be the best definition, but there's still an important difference between depriving someone of a thing they have (theft) and potentially depriving someone of something they might have otherwise had, but currently don't."

The thing someone "might have otherwise had", is called "income".

2
7
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: When is theft not theft?

>>"You are correct when it comes to everyday usage, but in a Court of Law, the legal definitions of the words are important and cannot be ignored"

One thing we can all be pretty certain of, is that El Reg. is not a court of law. ;) Here the definition works as follows: pro-piracy, "theft" does not include copyright infringement. Everyone else - familiar with the common English language meaning and gets it.

4
8
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I'm not a big believer in prison.

>>"Do just the management go down or are all the shareholders also guilty of profiting from the crime?"

Management unless it can be shown that investors knew they were funding illegal behaviour. Which is as it should be. Would you like to buy some shares in a company and then go to prison unexpectedly a couple of years later?

But prison is rare - generally the company is fined which again, is beneficial as that way you get restitution and prison usually only serves to drain our taxes and harden people. You have to do something like fraud to get the prison sentence usually. Licence violations rarely produce such a result. Which is pretty much the same as personal copyright infringement. It's an odd case you'll get a prison sentence for downloading movies - there would have to be some special circumstances attached. Generally you get a fine, same as the companies that do it.

2
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"You distributed to 10,000 people so it should be dealt with the same as selling 10,000 physical copies."

Obviously this would be bad. Or maybe it's not obvious, so the reasons it's bad are broadly speaking (a) you are not the only seeder / participant. It's a collective act you are participating in so if 10,000 people downloaded from you, you're still not responsible for 10,000 actual distributions. You have facilitated that number so you still share a portion of the blame, but it wont be one for one. (b) It would be trivially easy for someone to go far beyond their ability to provide redress. A £5,000 fine is a very nasty thing but it's something you can overcome. Even for those on low-income. Courts set repayments at a level that typically you can afford. You'll be regretting it every time you pay your £15 part-payment, but it's not going to destroy your life. Charing 10,000 x £15 per movie - yes, that would. And what you want to achieve is stopping people doing this and some restitution for damages, not destroy lives. So just like your participation in the piracy was only a part of it, so your part in repayment should be only part of it.

And I think, to some extent, that's where we're going. The talk of ten year sentences is highly unrepresentative. That's for massive commercial scale piracy, really.

>>"It is like allowing all your friends to copy the CD you just bought from the market stall, but on a larger scale"

And that's essentially why things are changing. Piracy types used to be some Del Boy type at the market flogging home copies... And it was fought as such. A copper might nick the seller, they'd get a fine typically. Wash and repeat. But now you get people able to do the same thing from home on a vastly larger scale and sometimes not even thinking of it as theft. Actions which are only mildly damaging when done occasionally, can be a major problem when done on the large scale. People used to have home fires in London when their were fewer houses there. As times changed, London became so bad that you got "pea soupers" where people would actually die prematurely from how bad the smog was. So the law shifted and you got the Clean Air act. It seems to me that piracy law is settling towards punishments being worse than shop-lifting due to the distribution aspect of torrenting, but not crippling in degree. Though obviously the ceiling is pretty high for the big commercial pirates or those who are First Sources for content.

3
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Pretty much. If you are some regular, small scale home downloader who logs on, gets a movie they want and stops their torrenting afterwards, you'll likely get something a little bit more than going into a shop and stealing those movies. Your first instinct is to think that the fines you've heard of are a lot more but then realize that when was the last time you heard of someone only ever having downloaded one movie or song, instead of a dozen or more? Twenty... thirty movies. That actually adds up to quite a lot of shoplift equivalents.

But in the example you talk of, seeding a library of movies 24/7 on a fat pipe, sure - you could well find yourself facing a £5k slap down for it because you've been effectively distributing, not just stealing.

h4rm0ny "what is this kidding you speak of?" uh... h4rm0ny.

1
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: When is theft not theft?

As with many things, technology results in old definitions no longer being the best definitions. When that definition was created, there was no such thing as digitally reproducing content exactly the same, because there was no digital content. The "permanently deprive the owner of it" was simply a way of distinguishing it from cases where the taker was going to or did return the property afterwards. Something that I don't believe ever happens with illegal downloads. This hang-up some people have with the word is pretty much only done as a deflection tactic from criticism.

Also, the word predates legal definitions. If you want to pretend every time someone uses a word they're using a term from English law, go ahead. But you know that they wont be.

4
10
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

You ignore the second part of the paragraph where the artist says despite repeatedly issuing take-down requests, their material keeps getting put back up by people and shared.

If their sales were down AND their material were not being pirated, that would indicate interest had dropped. If the sales drop and piracy of their material has risen as in this case, that indicates something else. Not every downloaded song or movie is a lost sale, but it's absurd to suggest that many aren't and that active piracy of a piece of content doesn't indicate interest in it.

5
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Depends how you do it. If you download a copy from some site the damages will be calculated according to the price of that item, plus similar fines as you would get for physical. But if you torrent it, you are also distributing it to many other people and aiding others in piracy. That is where the difference creeps in.

2
7
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: 10 years...

But the vast majority of cases will not get anything like that. That upper limit is for big commercial scale pirates. Whereas for manslaughter you're not going to find the majority cases result in a fine of a few hundred or a thousand quid.

One of the largest piracy convictions ever was the owner of iBackups.net, Nathan Peterson who got 7.5 years. He was running a massive online operation which traded around $20 million dollars in pirated software alone. 7.5 years. So it's not accurate to make casual comparisons between manslaughter and piracy based on the maximum possible sentence - that's Daily Mail style journalism.

6
10
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: The term "pirate" is a propaganda coup

The same reasoning would lead to burglary being a civil matter where the victim should bring charges privately against the thieves (which they presumably tracked down themselves), It's only your personal views on intellectual property over physical that lead to you drawing a distinction - logically your reasoning would actually apply to both.

And investigating and tracking down pirates is very difficult and many times more difficult still when you're a private entity rather than law enforcement who has the investigatory powers needed. Do you want only giant corporations to have the power to track down and seek redress whilst small content producers are powerless?

9
31
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: 10 years...

>>"Yeah, but as we know from the 80's, home taping is killing music"

It's a little hypocritical of the 80's to accuse anything else of killing music. They did a good enough job of it themself.

22
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

I'm not a big believer in prison.

I think it doesn't work as a deterrent, and it doesn't improve people. It's legitimate purpose is to protect society from the dangerous, and that's not likely to be your typical pirate. Usually when people want prison or capital punishment the motivation is revenge and I don't see that as a good thing.

Fines seem the appropriate punishment to me. They take other people's stuff, you take theirs. Simple, clean and costs society a lot less than housing someone in prison. Also, it gives them a chance to improve rather than condemns them to what is effectively a training program for crime.

22
3

Bulk interception is NOT mass surveillance, says parliamentary committee

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

"Yes it is"

--Everyone else.

16
0

Apple Watch: Wait a minute! This puny wrist-puter costs 17 GRAND?!

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Waterproof?

>>"All the 'stuff' in a regular £20 watch takes up space equivalent to a pea (or less). An iWatch is probably chock-full of stuff, does that make it harder to find space for better water-proofing perhaps?"

I could be wrong, but I think the waterproofing goes on the outside.

5
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: BBC thread

Some of the comments that I've seen before they are censored have to do with Apple avoiding tax, so some of the removals may be due to that. The BBC, I think, try to steer clear of content in the comments that they think might be litigious, maybe.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: BBC thread

You're right - I just had a look over there and about a third of the comments seem to be moderated out! I just put in my own comment just to see whether it would be censored or not. Even amongst the surviving posts though, this seems to be getting a largely negative reaction.

This is fascinating. Oddly enough, I pretty much NEVER criticize modern tech. I argue a fair bit on these forums but (and people can check if they don't believe me), it is almost always in defence of something rather than actively criticizing someone's hard work (which most technology is). About the only exception that comes to mind is systemd.

And yet this iWatch is a rare exception. Technologically, I guess it has its impressive aspects, but honestly, I find I just don't like it. I think it's badly misconceived and flawed.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

I'm buying one! I'm going to wear it with my Google Glass and with the Zune clipped to my waist.

I will look so cool!

20
0

Obsolete – and IP-baring – Anon tool linked to feminist blog DDoS

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Self-victimization

>>"2. Launch a lame DDoS-like attack against your blog/service!"

Yes, because a feminist blog is not at all likely to attract idiot misogynists - we must look for another explanation!

Btw, LOIC isn't by itself a DDoS attack. It's not a botnet. I.e. to perform a DDoS attack, lots of people have to run it. That's why it was popular in the early days of Anonymous and 4chan - it was lots of people all downloading the software so they could do their part from their own machines. I always knew that I was both a feminist and a l33t hacker, but I never realised the two were causally linked! Clearly there is a conspiracy of feminist script kiddies out there all targetting feminist blogs so we can establish ourselves as "martyrs".

8
3

Microsoft chucks patent sueball at Kyocera over Android phones

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: 1997

Well you can't directly tie it into cost of the research in any proportional way. Suppose I spend a few years with my team and several million pounds and come up with a slightly different take on asprin. It's not really any more effective but it's a new drug so it's patentable. If you factor the lifespan on cost, it would last a long time. Whereas suppose in a flash of brilliance one weekend I suddenly come up with a new encryption algorithm. Something brand new and five times harder to brute-force than AES. Based on cost, that would have very little lifespan but is (probably) vastly more valuable and not only that, it might be something that no-one else would have thought of.

That's why it needs to be determined by multiple factors. And on the basis of most important factor, rather than all additive. So in pseudo code something like this:

Lifespan = K * MAX(researchRequired, innovativenessRequired).

If it is something that would take a lot of research / testing to create, that counts. If it is a unique insight unlikely to arise as a natural extension, that can count instead. Both are extremely problematic of course. Note that I wrote Research Required, not Research Done. You don't want to reward inefficiencies nor allow people to pad things out by including irrelevancies. Similarly, many things that are genuinely innovative look obvious in retrospect.

Fundamentally, we have one great glaring problem in creating any working and fair patent system - you need to be an expert to judge a patent's merit and there are few to none independent experts.

Maybe we can re-purpose academia as patent consultants? Most academics are lousy at actually getting anything done but they're great at critiquing and understanding stuff. Perhaps that is the resource we should be exploiting for this.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

1997

We probably need to take a fresh look at patent terms in the modern age. Technology moves so quickly now that what was once a suitable time period to recoup one's investments and rewards can actually cross a whole generation of technology and into the next.

The Java patent in the above article was filed in 1997. About eighteen years ago. If you were the person who invented the lightbulb (I don't know who that is, I just suspect it wasn't Edison), then eighteen years is quite frankly probably too short a time to be properly rewarded for such a novel and useful creation. But whilst the Java patent was probably a clever little programming solution back in 1997 and maybe even novel and patent-worthy, we have seen an entire generation of technology rise and fall in that timespan and today such a patent seems merely to hold things back. It overlaps with too many other parallel approaches invented since then.

You can't make them too short - it can take years to bring a product to market: Hololens has things in it that are patented I'm sure and it's been in development for a long time. It would not be fair for all that research to expire just as the product was coming to market so that others could simply rip off all the hardwork and copy it for rival products that had no R&D costs to recoup. But equally you can't make them too long. And there will never be a one size fits all perfect value.

Probably we need a more sophisticated approach that considers what is actually being patented and calculates a period based on time to market, level of research required to produce and the level of innovation.

Each one of these things is dangerous because it starts to bring in subjectivity. What is the "level of innovation" on a scale of 1-5? Some things are likely to be invented over and over again. The Java patent might well be clever. But when it's "steam engine time" (i.e. the conditions are right) someone else would have come up with it in the intervening 18 years in one form or another. Whereas something else such as a new encryption algorithm or some of the things going on in materials science are things that would have a very good chance of nobody else coming up with them in the same time period, because they're very distinct ideas.

The first thing to do with patent timescales is to acknowledge that whatever you set is going to be an approximation. Only then can you start to work out a more nuanced approach. Whatever we come up with is not going to be fair, that we know. But this does not stop it being an improvement on an absolute and arbitrary value.

6
0

Is there a cure for cancer sitting at the back of the medicine cabinet already?

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: the market doesn't always work

>>"Of course big pharma and right wing economists will scream about market distortions and unfair competition"

Only the extremists. I don't judge all on the Left wing by the Socialist Worker's Party, nor are all on the Right wing unfeeling monsters. I'm fairly Right wing and I am very much in favour of the occasional government intervention in cases like this where we're trapped in a local minima.

All highly complex systems, even well-designed ones, benefit from the occasional nudge.

3
0

Grab your pitchforks: Ubuntu to switch to systemd on Monday

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: oh well

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://media.giphy.com/media/5xtDarAgrjoOrBxSVYk/giphy.gif

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: read around...

>>call anything to do with Linux "GNU/Linux",

Hey!

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"Secondly Poettering and co. seem to have taken a liking to the Windows registry and are hell bent on imposing that way of working. i.e. the binary logs and so on."

Ha! It's far worse than that. What systemd does is create an inferior version of the Windows registry. Top that for a bad idea! :D

MS have had two decades to hammer the registry into something serviceable. It ties into Windows ACLs for security and it's also optional for developers as .NET applications have an XML format for their configuration that is (I think) preferred. Poettering is trying to create a Windows XP version of the registry! Think about that for a moment and feel afraid.

To me it's like Saruman looking across to Mordor in envy and trying to create his own little dark tower in emulation. The only difference being one continues to wear the white robes of Open Source whilst they lock everything down and breed orcs. "One startup process to rule them all, one startup process to find them..."

6
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"How does this change affect users like me who aren't likely to be overly concerned about what's going on in the background as long as it does what it's supposed to?"

It may well not affect you directly as an end-user (though it would make debugging your system yourself much more tricky). But it drags everything in that it touches making itself a requirement for more and more every month. It's now pretty much reached the point where it's a core and unremovable component. And that's dangerous. I forsee it becoming a big and ugly tangle that does GNU/Linux considerable harm in the long-run.

5
1

Shove off, ugly folk, says site for people who love themselves

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>"The horribly grey area involving bigotry / discrimination legislation, IMO. If they specialise in interests or activities then fair enough, but when they specialise purely in physical characteristics, it does start to skirt dangerously close to existing discrimination legislation"

No it doesn't. Not unless the government has started to mandate who we are attracted to. (They haven't, have they?)

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: That's Life.

>>"The post I replied to was from an AC.....Did you click the box by mistake? Otherwise how am I to know the post was from a highly ennobled, Rt Hon siver badge winner? *tugs forelock respectably*"

I had the page sorted by Newest First and mistakenly thought your post was a reply to my own. So consider the rest of my post to be valid but the part about opinions only to apply to me. I don't post as an AC. I did once years ago, for a joke where someone said they were posting AC in case their wife read their comment and I posted an AC reply pretending to be that wife posting AC in case my husband read it... Hmmm, one of those had to be there. ;)

>>"Otherwise how am I to know the post was from a highly ennobled, Rt Hon siver badge winner? *tugs forelock respectably*"

I keep waiting for my gold badge, but none appears. :(

>>"Other than that, agree to differ! Have a great day!"

Agree to differ is fine. A good day to you, also.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>"You didn't realise the * was for the footnote?"

That is correct. When I see a regular expression with an asterisk on the end, I read it as part of the expression. Natural enough, I would have thought. Anyway, my mistake I suppose. I tend to put regex's on their own line in a post. Or use delimiters.

>>** Apologies for the insult but as you'd said it already, I couldn't resist. I only mean it in jest, I am sure your a nice person really and not a [Mp]uppet***

No offense intended. And I did use the term first so it is fair to return it to me. Not sure about the nice person or not (I seem to provoke extreme opinions on the subject) but I do admit when I am wrong. ;)

I'm going to maintain that putting an asterisk on the end of a regular expression is darn silly, however! ;)

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: That's Life.

>>"So, you are happy to accept that the 'hive mind' of this website can select people for you?"

To some extent, yes. It's not as if all the members conform to some precise look and type - people can look very different to each other but still both be hot. But this site weeds out a lot of those that I wouldn't find hot and that saves time. Furthermore, the staff actually reach out to people and check that the photos are of them, that they're up to date and not heavily photoshopped. You can't say that of most dating sites. So sure - it's a useful service to verify and gather people one might want to date. And it's not as if this is the only way one can meet potential partners. Being a member doesn't mean that you wont meet that one colleague / friend of a friend / etc. but it also gives you somewhere to go where you will meet the type of people you want to date. (You meaning someone who signs up to the site). For people who have difficult work lives, that's a major boon.

>>"Do you have no opinions of your own?"

I think anyone who has read my frequent posts on El Reg's forums can confirm that I very definitely have opinions of my own. They kick in as stage two when I (or the other person) start looking through the candidates. You seem to be presenting this as the site coming to your house and saying: "here is your date. You will like them". It's not, it's a service that provides people you might like and weeds out the ones you probably wont. And if in the ones that were weeded out is someone you might have got on with, you probably would have wanted them as a friend instead anyway.

>>"Are you insecure enough to think that, if this site's moderators dont think that a person is hot enough for you, you shouldn't be subjected to their photo? "

Not sure how insecurity follows from others deciding an applicant isn't "hot enough" for me. But no, either way.

>>"Would an image of someone who doesn't meet some kind of accepted attractiveness criteria offend you?

It would detract from the value of the site, much the same way it wastes my time when someone turns up for an interview who isn't qualified for the job. It would also waste their time as a member of the site is likely only to want to date people who are generally regarded as physically attractive.

>>"Are you that easily led / stupid?"

Again, not sure how not seeing an image of someone unattractive leads to meaning someone is stupid, but again, no.

>>"Happy to have the occasional story about this site, as it provides the opportunity for the minging like myself to point and laugh at 'hotties' who are the gullible, stupid, shallow, insecure, narcisistic and therefore totally unnatractive people who'd want to be a member of such a site."

I find your attitude far more aggressive, insulting and generally filled with preconceived stereotypes than people simply voluntarily signing up to a service where they meet attractive potential partners. Evidence that people who use the service are more gullible? Or insecure? Or are you just bringing the assumptions into play that support your worldview?

0
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>You were trying to add a footnote to your regular expression weren't you? Except you actually turned your regular expression into a different one! Muppet! I should have realized what you meant.

But really, didn't it occur to you that you'd just written a completely different expression by putting an asterisk on the end? It's not like anyone wouldn't have known what you meant! :D

3
7
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>"I rather think that anyone who puts their head above this particular parapet is fair game for gettting shot at."

Why? They didn't ask to be featured on an international IT news website.

1
7
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>"h4rm0ny, so which bit of not wanting to share a lift with someone because they may not be as perfect as you and your friends think they are do you find not to be shallow or rather dumb."

I don't see that it relates to intelligence at all. I have been stuck on a plane next to some large and unpleasant people and not liked it but my dislike has not stemmed from intelligence or lack of. It's a matter of preference uninformed by that. As to shallow, no, I don't think that's true either. Shallow would be if I only cared about that criteria. Having it as a criteria amongst others does not make one shallow.

What one is attracted to or seeks in a romantic partner is not all that defines somebody. There are a lot of interesting or complicated people who have a wide range of talents, interests or work that makes them fascinating. If I find that a writer or director or scientist who's work I find fascinating or has interesting views on things happens to like physical qualities X or Y in their sexual partners, I don't immediately call that person shallow. Nor should you. But that is what you are doing here, if you think about it.

0
8
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>"I know my regex, S?[Hh]e's not going to slip one past me."

Unfortunately for you, it's rather too late as you already attempted to be clever with your first regex and messed it up (a very simple Mrs / Miss / Ms) that included an infinite set of false positives. Normally it's not that important but given that this thread is mainly people making unsupported statements about the intelligence of people they don't know, I figured I might as well point out some of the flaws.

As to "pre-emptive disparagement". Not really convinced. People are making lots of insults of the intelligence, personality and looks of people they've never even met and you're attempting to say she started it by being a member of a club. Has she come here and made personal attacks such as people here are doing? Has she turned down any of the posters here and said they're not good enough to be members? I don't think either is true and I don't see being a member of a specialist dating site constitutes attacks on people here who may or may not be members. It's not like El. Reg has been targeted and told we're not good enough for the club.

0
16
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>And here's me thinking M[rs] * Lynn disparaged first. * Regex.

How so? I haven't seen her disparaging the looks of anybody here. Claiming some sort of first strike from her seems unsupported. Also, your regex will lead to a lot of false positives. Try the far less exciting but accurate "Mrs|Miss|Ms".

0
9
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: @h4rm0ny

>>"But this is a site offering only other "beautiful people", and that alone suggests they are not looking for those missing Joe Averages who are average looking but underneath really a decent and interesting blokes."

True, but I was responding simply to someone's argument that if these people were attractive they would not find a dating site useful. It's a rebuttal to someone arguing how the patrons can't be attractive because they use the site.

It is quite clear that the site is used by people who also want to prioritize looks in their partner(s).

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"Interesting. Exactly how are they checking members' beauty once you're a member?"

There are periodic reviews and your photo gets voted on by the general membership. Also, from time to time a site admin will require you to have a video call with them so they can check your photos really do look like you.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

And here come the usual parade of people needing to disparage the looks of someone who is generally considered attractive to make themselves sound superior. Or if it is not possible to disparage their looks, to make unsupported claims about how they must be shallow or dumb. Because as we all know, you only get a couple of good qualities when you're born and if you choose looks or popularity, you must also be stupid or shallow.

Don't like the site, don't join. Don't like that they turn away people who don't meet their standards? Same is true when I interview someone for a job (or am interviewed). Different people want different things from a partner. What is wrong with specialist dating sites in principle?

6
31
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Because just because you're physically beautiful. doesn't mean you necessarily have more opportunities to meet people or that you will necessarily get approached by people you like. People do not automatically approach a girl because she is beautiful (or turn out to be single when they do). Indeed, many men will be more likely to approach a girl who is plain or dresses so, on the basis they think that girl is more likely to like them.

3
13

Boffins say Mars had ocean covering 20 per cent of planet

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Where did it go?

See subject.

0
0

FREAKing hell: ALL Windows versions vulnerable to SSL snoop

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

>>"Micro$oft really should get a wiggle on rebuilding the entire OS from the ground up."

Would love to see you on a software project:

Project Lead: "We've found that one of the old protocols we support just isn't safe these days, we need to disable it."

Chozo: "Re-write the OS!"

30
1

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018