Where did it go?
4544 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
>>"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.
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?
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.
>>"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!"
>>".. Is patently (no pun intended) absurd. Open Source has real issues, legal and otherwise, be nice if ambulance chasers did something useful."
Sure, because you with your better knowledge of the law than the legal departments of all these corporations have spotted that the GPL has legal flaws that no-one else has been able to pin down.
>>"The difference between the stock market and Kickstarter is over a long period you will get a decent return on investment, whereas kickstarter you just seem to get a load of 1st gen beta products in gold with a pretty certificate."
This is false. It is very easy to lose your money permanently on the Stock market. Companies go under every day. Not everything is an endless cycle of falling and rising.
I think it's perfectly possible to be sympathetic to both the investors and the company. My contempt is reserved for those who deliberately defrauded or hogged all the cash. Looking at the breakdown and reading about this, it's apparent that this was a good faith attempt that failed. Big projects are hard, I know.
It sucks to be an investor and I feel for them, but that doesn't mean I want to tar and feather those behind the kickstarter, either.
It's breathtaking, it really is.
>>"Wealth inequality is a nonsense. I'm one of the poorest people on the planet according to my wealth, but in actuality I have extremely high levels of comfort to go along with my high net debt."
Wealth != Money. I can own a house, a computer and all sorts of goodies yet have zero or negative money. I would still rank extremely high in terms of wealth on the world scale.
>>"The fastest way to reduce wealth inequality would be to forbid people to take out mortgages"
Well no, it wouldn't. That would just mean that only the rich could afford to buy property and many who currently buy be forced into perpetually renting from those rich. No idea how you believe the above.
>>"Hoo, boy, I really am going to have to sort out my writing style, aren't I?"
I shouldn't worry. I think the only possible way they could have reached that conclusion is by not reading your article in the first place.
Or I suppose not knowing what both Socialist and Marxist mean.
Isn't Whatboutery (lovely word) just the inverse of another fallacy? Namely "Yes, yes, inequality in houses is growing but what about parity in Internet access?"
Basically, fallacy either way - just depends whether you want to say things are good or bad. The only way you make it not a fallacy is to start working out ways of comparing the different whatabouts. Does equality of internet access between Bill Gates and you compensate for or outweigh the difference in your house values, for example.
Without a basis for such comparison, whataboutery in either direction is essentially the speaker's take on half-full / half-empty.
>>"Perhaps Worstall has some other motivation."
Worstall is a true believer - promulgation of views is a reward in itself.
The odd thing is that I'm pretty Right-Wing myself and have only a vague awareness of this Morozov person and the Guardian, but I have found myself pointing out flaws in both of Worstall's recent opinion pieces.
>>"Think about how absurd Morozov's argument actually is. Because tech doesn't reduce housing inequality, we should ignore the way that it doesn't reduce communications inequality?"
I didn't see anything in the part you quoted that actually said what you say he said. He made a supportable point that consumption equality in one area isn't reducing other significant areas of inequality. I mean if there is a part immediately after what you quote that then goes "AND EVERYTHING OTHER THAN HOUSING IS IRRELEVANT", then it is legitimate to make your criticism. But does the person you're quoting actually say that or are they just, as I think they are, arguing that one cannot use Consumption Equality in one area as a rebuttal of criticism of rising wealth inequality (something which is real right now)? If the latter, then you're basically strawmanning.
Actually, I'd be pretty bloody certain that someone's head WILL roll for this. This is going to cost Lenovo a lot more than £250K and the one thing the heads of a company don't like, is seeing someone's fuckup hit their bottom line. The only people who get a pass are the people at the very top and I seriously doubt that it was the CEO who contemplated the ramifications of installing a new root certificate and intercepting all HTTPS traffic. Somewhere below them will be the person who actually understood what they were doing and that person will not be having a fun time right now.
Yeah, a lot of this is loaded. It sounds great on paper - ambulances should have priority over other users. Well fine, but how much bandwidth does an ambulance need? Are we currently seeing a failure of our ambulances due to too many people watching YouTube? If so, how specifically. If not, isn't this just rhetoric?
>>"I'm questioning how Google can get to reverse engineer Microsoft code without the DoJ coming down hard on Google employees for doing so..."
It's legitimate security research to examine code and see if you can find flaws in it. That's how many flaws are found. Now if Google were doing that for purposes of copying their code for their own products then in certain circumstances that would be illegal (but not all). However, that wont be happening. The code bases of their products are very different and outside some very specific cases, examining someone else's code wont benefit you. It's mainly done for purposes of cracking software or finding vulnerabilities.
We don't need to invoke conspiracy theories for this, tbh. This is basically Google running a PR exercise to set themselves up as the IT police and make their competitor look bad. Google have no interest in helping their competitors produce a better product and it plainly isn't about protecting their own users because (a) it's not like their users are going to stop using the Internet because of these flaws and (b) publicizing unpatched vulnerabilities increases active exploitation. If it doesn't appear to be PR, that's because it's good PR.
All well and good except you are having to make up your own wording on Microsoft's behalf here. Point me to where they said "it doesn't matter". What they said is that it is not a security bulletin. When a security bulletin is issued there are actions that follow from that which are not without cost. Thus you issue them when appropriate. It is this trivialization of cost that leads to absurd government and council health and safety arguments and all such things - the idea that if something matters it must have equal priority with everything else.
This is Google playing a PR game just as when they publicized vulnerabilities days before the actual fix was available (and they knew this). It makes Google look far worse than Microsoft, imo. I do not like them using my security as a PR stick to beat their competitors with.
You have very odd priorities.
>>"Thank you for using
Kapersky are based in Russia and we all know the direction that government has been heading in. But on the other hand, Kapersky do actual security research - they're very good. Kapersky are the ones that unearthed the Equation Group amongst other interesting things. Year on year, Trend Micro is typically the only one that beats them for malware coverage in their anti-virus products (and it's a close call).
As devices get more sophisticated this sort of thing is going to become necessary. I'm not surprised to find Kapersky at the forefront of this.
[b]EDIT:[/b] I realize the above sounds like a puff-piece. I have no affiliation with them. I just finished doing a review of anti-malware solutions for an assessment and Kapersky came out top alongside Trend Micro so they're on my mind right now.
>>"The European Council (aka the Council of the European Union) is an EU body. The Council of Europe, which manages the human rights act, is a much wider body. Includes Russia for example (about the only non-member in anything like Europe is Belarus)."
Yes, that's all what I said too. The important part is the bit you admit in the last paragraph: "True, you must be a member of the Council of Europe to be a member of the EU ". Any new member that wishes to join the EU must sign up to the convention of human rights, the treaty of Lisbon makes it part of EU law and the EU court accedes to it. As I pointed out before you, they are separate bodies but linked in these basic ways. US president is not the same thing as US Citizen, but to apply to be the former one must fall into the second group.
>>"European Human Rights act Is NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU."
You are mistaken. The European Council and the European Union are separate bodies, which is where you are coming from. But the EU court (part of the EU) is expected to accede to the Convention on Human Rights (what we're talking about) and the Treaty of Lisbon includes binding by the European Council's court. They are meant to work together though as I stated, the UK is trying to be an exception to this rule. Signing the European Convention on Human Rights is now a condition of membership to the EU, even though they are separate bodies. One can sign up to the act without being a member of the EU, but the reverse is not the case anymore.
>>"If anything the imposition of so many foreign laws through out the EU is upsetting people"
Not me. The European laws are better than the UK laws on human rights, data protection, food standards, farming practices... The UK government would sell us as chattel if they could.
If the UK laws on human rights were more comprehensive than the EU ones, why would our government be trying to back out of the European Human Rights act? And using boiler-plate patriotism about "restore sovereignty to the UK" to try and whip up public support for something which, in every practical sense, reduces their protection from state abuse.
No-one can argue with a straight-face that the UK government has our best interests as its primary goal.
@TheAxe. You just argued that the EU made things worse because it "didn't allow" wars to be started by politicians and led to people staring them themselves. Evidence? Because my knowledge of history is that it is the leaders who commonly start wars and the people who have to die for them who are usually most reluctant.
The Economist is good but has the occasional US-centric blindspot. I recall an analysis in there saying how Hollande was very unlikely to be elected because he was "too Socialist". Which showed a great grasp of French society, I must say! :D Their take on the attacks on Libya was either staggeringly ignorant or had to mendacious in how completely they followed the US government's party line on it being an internal popular uprising. Generally they're pretty good but nobody is without weaknesses.
If that is the case, then surely Britain would similarly benefit if were were a "Northern industrial exporter" like Germany. I think the real question is why we aren't and for that, we have to look considerably closer to home than Brussels. If the EU benefits rich and productive countries (as you point out), our aim should be to be one of those countries, not to drop out of the race.
Agreed. There's also the fact that any remotely respectable nation is now part of some powerful trade bloc these days. That gives you a lot of negotiating power. Obligations too, but better in than out or countries wouldn't be members. I for one don't want to be dwarfed by the EU, NAFTA and others. I want to be able to negotiate on parity. And even if some people have an inflated idea of the UK's size on the world stage, we can't do that by ourselves.
Multiple currencies - a national and a regional - are a very good idea. George Monbiot once wrote a very good article in their favour which, iirc, I came across in the Economist some years ago. The most important part of the EU is the freedom of movement and the trade benefits (internal is part of it, but it is also not for nothing that most of the world has bundled itself up into trade blocs for negotiating power). The single currency is a way of achieving that. But as you can see from the UK, we have those without monetary union so it's possible.
Multiple currencies might be a way of getting some of the good from both joining and staying out. You effectively allow two currencies to compete against each other.
I have a shorter article of about three sentences: "Greece only got into the EU because Goldman Sachs helped them fiddle their financials and because some of the EU leaders were keen on expansion for political reasons. It never was a good fit and should never have been allowed in. And when they crashed rather than infinite bailouts for which the taxpayer takes the risk, they should have been allowed to crash out of the EU rather than dragging everyone else down with them."
Any of the above would make the rest of what was said academic. Yes, there are problems with a currency zone but there are benefits too. Not everything is about setting the most perfect interest rate possible. In reality, Tim is talking about, in his example, people in the North of England being charged more for debt than those in the South, or vice versa. Contrary to his article above, there are downsides to such discrimination.
The EU can certainly absorb a little imprecision in interest rates for all the benefits such as negotiating as a large trade bloc, ease of labour migration, ease of internal trade. This is much like one of those interminable Windows vs. Linux arguments of the AGW debates we have on here where someone picks out one element and says: "Look, this could be better" and tries to turn the whole discussion into one facet rather than the whole picture.
It is survivable that Spain is in the same currency union as Germany. Not ideal, but not critical either. In general, the rich drag up the poor a little bit as a consequence. Which is a good thing long term because otherwise you just get ever widening gaps which end extremely badly. What the EU can't survive is a country as rife with corruption and reckless borrowing as Greece. They should have been kicked out long before (or not admitted). Then we wouldn't be having this conversation because the issues Tim is talking about would be far less exacerbated by the general malaise Greece is largely responsible for. Spain and Ireland would pick up quickly enough. Such peaks and troughs are inevitable, not a consequence of monetary union.
>>"Google does seem pretty determined to kill Windows Phone."
Apple has always, obviously, been Android's big competition but Apple only competes at the high-end of the market meaning that Google has pretty much had the medium to low-end as its own private playground. Hence the phenomenal proliferation of Android devices. The issue with WP is that whilst it does high-end devices like the 1020, it also performs exceptionally well at the low-end. That makes it a major threat. Hence all the efforts to kill it in the cradle asap.
>>"Most people have a niche requirement that is served only by iPhone or Android. In my case it is the App for my local bus service. Most people in the UK for example, don't live in London, but that is the only city that has enough Windows Phone users for a local transport app."
Well London is the only city in the UK where driving yourself is considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment under the law, but anyway - there is a Transit app for WP called "Here Transit" and it serves the whole of the UK as far as I'm aware and pretty nice it is too. Next apps-based criticism, please?
>>"The claim falls far short of reality though, with fewer apps available, and often worse implementations of apps that are on the market"
The first part is meaningless once your needs are met. I don't care about having thirty different apps for maps, I care about having a single good one. Furthermore, apps took off because phones didn't have fully capable web browsers back then. My WP has such a browser. My need for apps is minimal. Like a huge number of people all that I want is to send txts, occasionally make calls, possibly get some emails and definitely good maps / directions. WP has all of this built in. Other people also want to be able to do Facebook, Twitter and various social apps. Some want fitness and food apps. WP also has all of this and handles them fine. At this point, we have covered the majority of the non-technophile userbase.
I've yet to hear any non-niche app requirement that WP doesn't meet. The absolute numbers matter very little compared to that. As to "often worse implementations", sounds nicely vague to me. I really can't believe people are still attacking WP over this. It's like their last best hope to attack it for something. :/
I was looking for a new TV recently. It's getting very hard if not impossible, to find one that is just an output device. They all come with web browsers, Skype, microphones (for voice control) sometimes built in cameras, and other such things. Just seeing a TV advertised as "quad-core" makes my skin crawl, tbh.
Maybe it's old UNIX philosophy I admit, but I like the principle of a thing that does one thing and does it well. I'll break that philosophy when there's a good reason such as convenience (I like my hybrid tablet) but I need a good reason for it. Any TV I buy is going to be hooked up to other devices because these devices will do a better job of their task. I have no need for it to have some old and shortly to be out of date web-browser built in, or the hardware drain and attack surface that goes with it. Just sell me the TV, not all this extra stuff that I can do better myself.
Eulampios - an argument about Android vs. Windows security based on your demands about how many times I have personally known a user affected by malware is as pointless as you creating the argument in the first place. I commented about the dire state of Android updates by OEMs and how that needed to be resolved. Why you feel the need to leap in and point at Windows to make it an OS vs. OS battle, I don't know and little care. And arguments about how you personally have never had anyone come to you for help with "highjacked Android desktops" as you put it (!), is no basis for any kind of insight.
You use the phrase "altera pars" which means listen to the other side. Why do you see things as "sides" or respond to someone pointing out a very real problem in the Android ecosystem with attacks on Windows? You are absurdly partisan and it is, quite frankly, boring.
EDIT: And as, based on previous experience, you're unlikely to let this go, I'll answer the pointless question with an answer that is equally meaningless statistically: "once". In the last couple of years I can recall one person coming to me with a problem of malware on their Windows machine. They had received one of those fake calls from people claiming to be from Microsoft and got her laptop infected. The comparison number of people who have come to me with problems with an Android phone is zero. So I suppose to you that represents Android being infinity times more secure, does it not? Anyway, most people I know have iPhones and most of those with less money have Windows Phones so far as I've actually paid attention to what my friends use. One has a Meego phone, iirc. Is any of this helpful? No, didn't think so. Maybe at least it will show how pointless you insisting on using such metrics for comparison is, however.
>>"They don't list "Ubuntu with a DE" either… They just list Ubuntu, and with Ubuntu, it is a user choice (default: enabled) as to whether a web browser is installed or not."
Then why don't you drop the author of the study a line. It is apparent to me that they meant default installs and I would imagine pretty clear to everyone else but if you think it's ambiguous just email them. They've been responding to questions pretty quickly. I'll happily backtrack if they say that they meant Ubuntu non-Server with the desktop environment deliberately unselected. But that's not going to happen.
This is a study of default installs. That's why it can include third party at all and why, as they said, they separated out the kernel as its own category.
EDIT: I say they've been responding to comments, I should say the polite ones to be clear. There are a lot of nasty and abusive comments on there which I hope they will ignore.
>>"Well that's one of the most fallacy laden responses I have ever seen!"
Really? Then allow me to list the fallacies in your response.
>>"First things first, "begging the question" is not a phrase it is a defined logical fallacy."
It is most certainly a phrase, it may or may not also be this other thing. False Dichotomy.
>>"I also grew up in the UK and was taught the correct meaning of "begging the question" at school"
Assuming the Answer. You declare that it is the correct meaning because you believe it to be so. Were you to argue that it was the original meaning, you would have more of a case perhaps. But even there the phrase in that sense is actually a mistranslation of petitio principii which means "assuming the initial point". It is ironic that you are arguing that your definition is correct because your misuse is a old. If you doubt any of this, by all means check and you'll find that I am correct.
>>"Asserting that a particular incorrect usage of the phrase by a large number of people makes your use correct is also incorrect, just because a proportion of people use a phrase in that way does not make that use correct."
Two flaws in this one. Firstly, a repetition of assuming the answer (stating it is incorrect therefore my explanation must also be incorrect). Secondly, you argue that words have meaning other than their usage in order to try and show how a minority definition of the phrase is right. This argument carries some weight in some cases - such as my example of someone calling a hammerhead a whale. It has weight because the majority of people have a different understanding; there is a scientific classification that ties to it; and there is an existing better word to use which is "shark". None of these are an absolute argument, but they are all good ones and amount to it being legitimate to correct someone. "Begging the question" isn't a word, it's a phrase with two different meanings. One is a minority use debating term which also has a better and far less awkward alternative which is "Assuming the Answer". Something I know you are familiar with because of your vaunted experience of Comprehensive School Debating Societies. (A rather sad Appeal to Accomplishment, btw.)
>>"The next part of the response is not a discussion of the reason behind the point it is simply an attack on the person making the post."
Correct. Just as they began this with an attack on someone else for using a phrase that everyone understood and which is commonly used that way by most people. An attack or insult of someone is not a fallacy unless it is used in lieu of argument. With me, you will find it is always a supplement.
>>"I was lucky and went to a South Yorkshire pit village Comprehensive school where we had a debating society, we were encouraged to learn how to spot fallacies in arguments and how to counter them."
Excellent. I suggest you read your own post in that case.
>>"It was a 3.6GB download on top of Windows 8. That's a lot of GUI..."
That update pack incorporates the majority of the patches and updates that were issued to Windows 8 in between 8 and the release of 8.1. What you downloaded isn't just updates to the UI, it bundles together all of the intervening changes that Windows 8 receives as well.
>>"I know what tune exactly you're humming, h4rmony, yet let me kindly ask your definition of the security in the wild? There is a virus/trojan in the lab or wild receptively. Never heard about "security in the wild", though."
"In the wild" means real world common usage. So if an OS has fixes for 70% of its vulnerabilities, but most of those fixes aren't installed by the majority of the OS's user base, as is the case with Android, then there is a large discrepancy between the OS in the wild and in the more controlled environments of the vendor and minority exceptions.
>>"If that was the atrocity you're talking about, why didn't you say a word in all of the previous posts about the Windows viruses/trojans atrocious "security in the wild"?"
Because the point I was making was the importance of patch release processes and how OEMs are severely damaging Android security and making it a joke in the IT world through their unwillingness to patch things. I didn't go on a tangent about Microsoft or viruses because these are irrelevant to whether what I say or not is accurate. All supported Windows OS installations have access to the latest patches. Most Android ones do not. Hence when I talk about this problem, I'm talking about Android.
>>"Where did you find any standards in Microsoft release process ??? Or did you mean the patch/update release process?"
I was talking about software vulnerabilities and fixes so I thought the context made it clear. Yes, I'm talking about Microsoft's more standardized release process for updates.
>>"Gentoo doesn't. Debian doesn't unless you install the desktop environment. Ubuntu doesn't unless you install the desktop environment. OpenWRT doesn't. Linux From Scratch doesn't.
And none of those are the distros listed in this report. I mean, Ubuntu is, for example, but not "Ubuntu without a DE". If they're separating out Windows 8 and 8.1 when they are certainly separating out Ubuntu and Ubuntu Server.
>>"As the nitwit in question, I should maybe point out that language can be tricky too, especially if you ignore part of what's written."
Yes, I did. You put a minor get-out clause in there and then proceeded to roll forward with your conclusion anyway.
>>"There is no evidence in the article which enables anybody to say how many vulnerabilities in Win 8 also affect Win 8.1 (to use your example).
It doesn't need to be in the article. We can bring the context ourselves. Windows 8.1 and Windows 8 are overwhelmingly the same code base and this is trivial to check by inspection if you doubt it. 8.1. is mostly some GUI changes. One would have to be entirely ignorant of this fact to think summing the total of two different versions of Windows was a legitimate comparison to a single version of OSX.
>>"At least, that's all I can say - and that's all I did say."
That isn't all that you said. You titled your post "lies, damned lies and statistics", stated that it was comparing apples to oranges and declared Microsoft to be the "loser" with a small admission that it might not be true. When anyone with any context would rightfully throw out the idea of summing the bugs from 8 and 8.1 after a moment's thought. Your entire post is based on a premise that is trivial to show is wrong. That you acknowledge the premise doesn't mean it's not silly to hold it up as a reasonable possibility.
There's not much I can argue against in that post. Seems to be (sadly) right on the money. Especially your summary of the main distros. I'm quite sure that Poettering probably would take it on - seeing as there's nothing he's encountered so far that he hasn't tried to vacuum into systemd. But like you, that's not a solution I look forward to seeing.
>>"If you combine all the Windows versions together (as has been done for OS X) then Windows has 248 vulns, that's 100 more than Apple."
Set theory is not your strong point. As pointed out elsewhere, nearly all of those vulnerabilities will be the same one present in multiple versions.
Ah, you're probably right. I don't use OSX so I can't really comment on that.
Who cares about 32-bit?
>>""I's too much trouble to fix, so let's throw it out and start over", is one of the biggest danger signs in programming, amirite Netscape, Longhorn?"
You're very right and it was what I came here to say when I read the article. I'll look at it fairly when it arrives, but this is a danger sign to me.
Still, I'm glad they didn't go the Webkit route. It would have been bad for them and it would have been bad for Firefox to be isolated like that.
"Shortage of government?"
Is there such a thing?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018