* Posts by h4rm0ny

4545 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Windows 8 to grab iPad market share wrested back from Android

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Google buys Microsoft

"Yet the site has been up since Feb 1, 2011. Are you as vociferous in pointing out to Google this travesty, or are you restricted to merely shooting messengers?"

I'm not sure how long the site has been up is relevant, other than as an example of how old this is and how long you've been repeating it. I'm also unclear on your logic which seems to be that if someone said something incorrect and another person knowingly keeps spreading that incorrectness because it suits their bias, that no-one has a right to criticise the person knowingly repeating it. There are no comments allowed on that blog post you linked to, otherwise I would happily comment on it pointing out the flaws. You could ask them to allow people to comment if you want... :)

"hilarious squirming trying to excuse your masters"

I don't work for MS and never have. I think some telecoms software I wrote back in 2001/2 was sold to them (amongst many other clients), but it was on HP Unix 11 platform so I hope that's excusable. ;) Trying to imply that someone is a shill because you don't like what they say is a low thing to do.

"anyone even getting to the second sentence has all they need to know"

Well for anyone who fancies reading more, I was happy to provide some greater information than you did. You say "the bottom line is, these Bing results came directly from Google". No, they came from a team of twenty people (according to your link) who submitted the data from their own computers repeatedly and then found after a few weeks of deliberately associating a random string with a given page and repeatedly submitting that association to MS according to voluntary settings they had enabled, that the association stated to show up in Bing. So as you can see, sometimes it is worth reading further than the second sentence. ;)

"Jesus, and as if that's not enough we've now got to think about avs when we post let the self appointed fucking icon police get the hump."

Well it makes me feel a bit like most Americans abroad feel when some loud and ignorant person keeps waving their flag around and making people think all Americans are like that. I've been using Linux for around sixteen years and if you want to talk about "self-appointed", I see that more in you repeatedly accompanying your misinformation and FUD with a Linux symbol as you obviously want to be seen as representing Linux. It's disappointing.

2
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Google buys Microsoft

"Well, they already use the same search engine:"

You've posted that before and been corrected before, so at this point it is actual dishonesty to continue claiming that.

For anyone curious, someone turned on the feature in Internet Explorer that submits search history back to Microsoft in order to help improve their search results. They then generated a completely random string that occured nowhere on the Internet and searched for it in Google and clicked on some arbitrary random site in order to create an association between that random string and the site. Their action - as they well knew - was then submitted back to MS as per the settings they had chosen, creating a situation in which the only possible information usable for telling what sites that random string was associated with, was their own input that they had sent to MS. Then they searched on Bing which could only find the match for the string that they themselves had submitted and unsurprisingly, it found the site.

It's a low trick to represent that as the blog does. Bob's post above makes it sound like Bing is copying search results from Google. Actually, someone just created a very contrived situation and MS got the association not from Google, but from the user's action as per that users voluntary setting to send their choices back to MS.

I do wish Bob would stop accompanying every post of his with Tux. Not all of us Linux users are slathering zealots who will distort any fact in order to misrepresent "enemies". But apparently any FUD is ethical if its targetted at someone Bob doesn't like.

5
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Regardless of technical merits, Apple have an advantage in that many people who want a tablet now already have one. But that only applies to existing userbase.

In terms of new sales, I could well see the Windows tablets hitting Apple in the pocket. After all, things like the Surface match the iPad's functionality and also add extras such as the keyboard, MS Office and better ports / interfaces. Though I think Android devices are going to be a bigger rival than this article thinks. In the West, they're on the back foot, but China is a big market and with Huwaei wading in with Andoid devices, it's got strong backing. I actually think Windows has the technical edge on Apple with Windows 8 which makes the long-term battle between Android and MS.

1
5

HTC's 4G patent beef could get iPhone 5 BANNED in US

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Come on bios

"Fandroids sharpen your knives, sharpen your wit because this is being served up to you on a plate. Don't let me down now."

Android can compete on technical merits. Please, let companies compete because this is good for all. Apple, Windows Phone 8, Android... It's ridiculous for anyone here to be cheering when a product is banned or suspended or fails for non-technical reasons. At least it's ridiculous unless you happen to have a lot of shares in their rivals. For the rest of us, we should cheer every time a good new feature comes out whether that's for WP8, iPhone or whatever. I have a Windows phone and am getting a Win8 tablet. Was I dismayed when Apple produced the Retina display? No - it moves things on.

Companies are not football teams. Wanting the iPhone to be banned in the USA is not a good thing.

1
1

Everything Everywhere 'to stuff Santa's sack' with 4G Lumia 920s

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: 4G

Not at all. I'm not too bothered by 4G right at the moment (it's something I want, but its one feature amongst many) but I really like the look of these devices. I'm unlikely to upgrade any time soon as I'm happy with my Lumia 710, but depending on what additional options come with W8 phones, I might get one. I want to be able to handle digitally signed / encrypted emails on my phone and I'd like to see what I can do in terms of VoIP on W8 as well.

2
1

Apache man disables Internet Explorer 10 privacy setting

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: smell advertisers fear

Very well put.

Look at DNT from the advertising companies' view. They are bringing about a level of monitoring and profiling that is unprecedented in human history and more intrusive than advertising has ever been before. This is the sort of thing that can provoke legal limits on them. But if they can establish some sort of voluntary self-regulation and make this a standard and can say: "people have a choice which we respect, so legally we're fine", then that's greatly to their advantage. At least, assuming that they can also ensure that few people exercise that choice by, e.g. burying it in the settings somewhere or otherwise making it hard to maintain.

DNT is not as much an advantage to the public as it is an advantage to the advertising industry and companies such as Google. They get to say that there's already a privacy standard in place and that anyone they are tracking has the option not to be tracked. Great arguments to bring to the EU or US governments when privacy becomes too big an issue for them not to move on. But the moment it becomes easy and common for people to exercise that choice, the advantage to the advertisers is gone.

That's what people are really saying when they say that IE10 risks advertisers withdrawing from DNT. DNT is a fig leaf strategy to ensure greater monitoring. DNT is not an actual problem for Google et al. DNT is a strategic asset. Microsoft are undermining that, however.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Default values

You can't really get away from a default. Not setting it is treated as if you had agreed to it. The setting is prominently displayed when you configure your PC. It's right there in front of the user and clear what it means even to very non-technical users. The simple truth is that the vast majority of people would opt not to have all their online activity monitored and compiled by private businesses. The only way you're going to get a lot people opting in is if you conceal from them the choice not to. Are some here really arguing that hiding people's choices is a good or ethical thing? IE10 lets the user know about this option in a clear and unambiguous way. Some other browsers such as Firefox (approx. revenues from "search royalties" in 2006, $60million), never show it unless the user knows to look for it and it buries the setting under tabs in the options menu. Yet some here have been looking for reasons to show that this is better, either because they are anti-Microsoft or because they would prefer a system where a very few (them) can opt out by agreeing that everyone else will be monitored.

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Default ON

"The server absolutely does know. If it cares, which mine (among many) doesn't.

DNT: [anything] - someone explicitly set it

No DNT header, default behaviour, noone set it."

In practice, not so much. Open up Firefox and with a proxy or Firebug or whatever you like, make a basic GET request to any given site. Make sure that "Tell websites I do not wish to be tracked" under Options->Privacy, is ticked. In the Request headers you will see DNT:1. Now untick it and request the same site. This time you will see that there is no DNT header included at all. Not DNT:0, no header. So tell me how the server can know if I have ticked or unticked that box by choice or if it is by default behaviour.

Unlike Firefox, which by default never presents the user with a choice, IE10 actually does so. Are you really going to argue that presenting users with a choice is a bad thing? And if so, do you really think that most users would chose to have private corporations track and compile data on every site they go to? If not, then surely both presenting that choice and suggesting no as a default are more inline with what most users would want.

"And of course, noone has committed a code patch to apache."

There is a commit to the code base here: Commit or are you arguing that because the specific change to the code base is to a config file, that it is not a change to the CODE base? The article states that a change was committed that disables IE10 privacy settings, which is an accurate claim.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: What a prat...

"I installed Windows 8 Enterprise Evaluation (Build 9200) on my test machine. At no point during the installation was I prompted for anything about "Do Not Track". When I launched IE 10 for the first time, it never asked me about this, either."

Then I'm pretty sure you just don't remember it because it is most certainly in there. Here is a screen shot:

Settings This comes up when you are setting up Windows 8. As you can see it, lists what the default settings are for everything and has a clear button allowing you to change any of them. Also, you can click for more information and detailed explanations.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Does nobody know how to administer a site anymore?

"IE10 presents a misleading header, the server ignores it."

No. The HTTP header is the same whether it is sent from Firefox, Chrome, Opera, IE10, whatever. It is the same header. The only difference is that the user is presented with an option to choose whether or not to enable it when they set up Windows 8 as opposed to, e.g. Firefox, where the user is not asked and if they want to enable DNT they have to firstly know about it and then bring up the Options panel, go to the Privacy tab and locate the option for it.

"The best fix is to IE10 but I'm guessing that Apache don't have access to that source code."

If they did, then no doubt Fielding would be making unilateral decisions on how it should work over the heads of most of the other developers as he has with Apache. A lot of Apache developers are pretty pissed off about this, looking at all the ire on the commit log and that his change is now an official bug in the project.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Does nobody know how to administer a site anymore?

"Why is this hard?"

Well it wasn't until someone committed a patch to Apache that meant your web application wouldn't be able to tell if a user had DNT on or not. But it is now.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Default ON

"tell me how does a piece of software or programme on a server somewhere know whether it has been turned on by the user or turned off by the user or is on or off by default?Can you explain in normal language what the differance,if any,is."

The server doesn't know and cannot know. It's just a HTTP header sent by the browser. So if a user of IE10 deliberately and legitimately chooses to turn on Do Not Track, Apache with this commit will disregard the user's preference and remove the Do Not Track preference. In effect, what Fielding has done is commit a code patch that removes any user of IE10's ability to use Do Not Track because he thinks it shouldn't be enabled by default.

3
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: What a prat...

"Microsoft -- Is it so f-ing difficult to simply ask the user about their DNT preference the first time they launch IE 10? Despite your company's belief, most users actually can think for themselves."

You either haven't installed IE10 or possibly don't recall this (I had to go back myself just to be sure), but a page comes up with configuration options upon install and "Enable Do Not Track" is clearly displayed there. You can also click for an explanation of this.

3
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: it's pretty obvious how to turn it off

"You could say that but you'd be wrong. Windows 8 will be loaded down with Bing apps which will be analogous to Google apps on Android. They'll be tied into a single sign on through Live.com in much the same way too and will be tracking your location, searches and all the rest."

Actually it's pretty easy to see what information a ModernUI app is asking for and grant it or refuse it. I've been using Windows 8 for a while and it's pretty good about this sort of thing. Microsoft and Google have fundamentally different business models. Google sells your behaviour to advertisers to make their money. Microsoft ask for the money from you. You're the customer with Microsoft. With Google, the advertisers are their customers.

5
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Shades of Scott McNealy

"P.S. Please follow standards Microsoft, not morph them into your own perverted self serving lock everyone else out dictates."

Would you similarly object if you realize that the draft was added to after the Windows 8 previews appeared and someone somewhere realized that IE10 could hit ad revenues so they "morphed" the draft to try and make IE10 non-compliant?

Or does your objection to people manipulating standards for their own benefit only apply in one direction?

6
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Did I interpret the article correctly?

"The setting in IE for disabling tracking is problematic and might not prevent people from being tracked"

This part is not really right. DNT works on sending a HTTP header to the server as part of the request. This header is the same whether it's IE10, Firefox or anything else. I.e. it's all the same to the website regardless of your browser. So there's nothing wrong with the way IE10 does this. The issue Fielding has is that IE10 has a default of it being on rather than allowing users to be tracked until they say they don't want to be. I.e. it's opt in to tracking, rather than opt out. Fielding seems to think that this is wrong and so has arbitrarily decided to disregard any preference at all from IE10. Your reading is correct except that the first sentence seems to imply that it is a technical problem when it isn't. IE10 handles DNT fine. The issue is that it encourages users to use it.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Well they could have written "individual who arbitrarily decides to affect the behaviour of millions of web servers around the world without consultation or approval and in defiance of what the W3C guidance", but 'wanker' is shorter.

6
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: A despot that is not mature enough to work on a standard committee

I don't know that he should resign from the comittee, but he should undo this change and admit that its not his sole choice to make to violate the (proto-) standards. The comments on the commit log are scathing.

5
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: it's pretty obvious how to turn it off

"It's not a case of being obvious, it's a case of the power of the default. If DNT is enabled for everybody then marketing networks will simply ignore the preference altogether claiming quite rightly that it does not reflect the user's choice. This in turn renders it a worthless setting."

How is a user actively turning it on less of an expression of choice than a user actively turning it off? It isn't unless one has a subjective bias.

And the choice is fully presented to the user during IE10's installation or first use. It just happens that it explains in unambiguous language what that choice is and has it off by default. The user is given plenty of opportunity and information to turn it on if they want to. The choice requirement has been fulfilled. The issue is that advertisers were hoping the choice would be something users remained unaware of, in some buried setting somewhere.

8
6
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Its easy to fix.

Actually the set up screen for IE10 does tell the user about DNT and does so in pretty clear and ambiguous language and does offer a choice. Quite honestly, what proportion of people, when they understand what it is, are going to say: "yes, please, I do want private corporations to track me"? It's going to be pretty low. So really, Fielding's objections seem to basically be that Microsoft are making people a little too aware of the choice. He seems to prefer that it should be tucked away like in Firefox, left there only for the people who read forums like El. Reg. Anything else, he seems to think, will only anger Saruman the advertising companies and provoke their wrath upon Rohan us. Better to keep buying them off as Grima Wormtongue counsels.

4
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Well now I've seen everything!

"Microsoft aren't the good guys. They're just trying to stick it to Google by shutting them out of Windows 8. I bet if you were to read the shrinkwrap that comes with your Windows 8 / RT device that Bing / Microsoft would be exempt from honouring DNT themselves for one reason or another."

Assuming you think advertising corporations not following everything you do online is a good thing (which I do), then we the public benefit from having DNT on. Whether MS also benefit from that or not doesn't change the benefit to me. And it's not the place of some individual in the Apache foundation to decide whether or not W3C standards should be followed. (And IE10 does follow the standards in this - the choice is clearly presented to the user with clear and unamigiuous language).

And you'd better be sure about your comment that MS ignore DNT themselves because otherwise you're just creating groundless FUD which would be unethical. Though I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you saying that MS might somehow reach across the web and turn it off for particular sites or that microsoft.com doesn't honour DNT or what? Because DNT is something that exists between the browser and the web server. It's not something that gets routed via Microsoft HQ. I don't think IE10 contains a secret list of MS's friends that it doesn't send the DNT header to.

As to your comment about "sticking it to Google" in general, Mozilla get hundreds of millions of dollars from Google for making its search engine the defaults for their browser. Do you also object to Google "sticking it to Microsoft?"

6
5
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Well now I've seen everything!

Microsoft are the good guys and Apache the villains.

What is the good of a choice if you're only allowed it on the condition that you choose what the other party wants you to choose? What the advertising industry is saying is that sure, you can have your token gesture of privacy so long as only a statistically tiny handful of people use it and all their friends, family and everyone else they know continue being tracked. Some people think that it's fine to have it off by default because they themselves will turn it on. Well I find that rather self-centred. If one thinks that privacy is a good thing (and rather obviously from my post, I do), then why should it be the preserve of the technologically aware only?

I support MS's on by default approach and if that leads to advertising companies being forced back to the negotiating table, so be it. I do not favour a policy of keeping feeding the tiger so that it doesn't bite you. The tiger just gets bigger and more comfortable and demands more. If the whole world ends up giving up its right to not be tracked and monitored on everything they do, then eventually, even those that are technologically competent will find themselves out-manoeuvered at some point and there will be no legal recourse of chance of drumming up popular opposition to when the ISPs decide they're going to record all your habits at their level or the next Phorm, because society will have reached the point that it is a given you are monitored and tracked by corporations.

A choice you're only allowed because you don't exercise it, is a false choice. A choice you are allowed on the condition you leave the rest of society to deal with consequences you dodge, is not an especially ethical choice, imo. I understand the Mozilla foundation criticizing it - about 85% of their income comes from funding from Google, basically "search royalties" - but I'm very disappointed in the Apache Foundation.

26
4

Climate denier bloggers sniff out new conspiracy

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

Oh, and I guess while I'm dealing with the absurdities of your attack on my integrity, I might as well ask you if you yourself read the entire 33 page paper before commenting here? Because the point that I was making was a basic and uncontroversial one about sample size, for which simply downloading and looking at the actual raw data (which I did), was sufficient. You are the one that claimed to have evaluated and found flaws in the paper itself. I have skim-read it and pretend no more than that. But if you're going to write accusations like "you haven't even read the paper" or suggest that you have greater insight into it, then I want to know if you're actually claiming to have read those 33 pages of small-size text before telling me I'm wrong. Because if not, you just sound like you're trying to argue by sounding knowledgable, rather than actually pointing out anything that is wrong in my argument.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

Oh, and amusingly in an earlier post of your own you write:

"1100 responses is a perfectly reasonable number for a survey like this"

So it's okay for you to round off 47 respondents, but the moment someone you disagree with writes the same thing, they are are lying and it shows what they write is flawed? I don't suppose you're going to apologise, are you?

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

"The sample size wasn't 1100. You haven't read the paper. I genuinely don't know why you are pretending that you have."

There were 1,147 respondents. If you think someone using common short-hand of knocking off a couple of digits to make a more human-readable number is grounds for accusing someone of lying, then I pity you. Yes, it's quicker to say: "eleven hundred" than it is to say "one-thousand, one-hundred and forty-seven" and I type as I talk, typically. I gave easily understandable criticisms and explained in layman's terms why your comment about sample size was misleading. And you choose to respond by saying because I wrote 1,100 instead of 1,147 I am "pretending".

Insulting and contrived.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: denial denial denial bwahahaha

Someone always seems to try and link those they disagree with to any group that is popularly disliked as a way of attacking them, no matter how ludicrous. Someone was on here the other month ranting about how fascism was a right-wing ideology. Completely oblivious, apparently, that it's a Left Wing ideology. Mussolini pretty much brought the term into modern usage as part of his socialist movement. The NAZIs were the National Socialist Workers Party. But "fascism" is bad. Right wing politics is (to the poster) bad. Therefore Right Wing is Fascism. It's muddy thinking at its best (worst). Some people don't care about accuracy - they just love throwing mud and hoping it will stick. It's easier than making an argument for some people.

2
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

"OK. I have now read the rest of your previous post and it contains not one single reference to anything specific in the paper. I have no idea why you're pretending that it does."

Well there was the specific reference to ten of the respondents disbelieving the Moon landings and the specific reference to the sample size of 1100. That's about all I needed for my point. If you want the specific column references and labels for the relevant questions, they are 'R / CYMoon', 'Y / CYClimChange' and 'AC / Cause CO2'. But that's hardly necessary or germaine. So I have no idea what "specific reference" omissions you feel are undermining my argument.

It's an explanation of why ten respondents are the applicable sample size for talking about whether or not AGW-skeptics are more likely to disbelieve the Moon landings, not the total 1100 respondents. You could ask a thousand people what they thought of Lady Gaga but if only ten of the respondents to the survey are muslims, then your sample size for what muslims think of Lady Gaga is not 1100, but 10. The point is basic and understandable.

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Meh!

I too would love to see such an article. Academics tend to be very wary of approaching this particular elephant in the room however, for fear of the massive attacks on them it tends to generate. We certainly can support more people on the planet than we currently do. We almost certainly cannot support everyone with an average US-level lifestyle. Whether we can support the current or greater numbers of people that we have right now long term, or if we're consuming resources at a greater level than we will be able to replace them, I have no idea. Fossil fuels will obviously run out, a shift to nuclear should be able to cover us for quite a long time. But potable water is actually being used at a greater rate than it is being replaced from what I've read and there is agricultural degredation as land is depleted of nutrients and forests are destroyed to make land for growing cattle feed (soy) for the US beef market. Long-term sustainable or not, I have no idea. And the climate is changing (whether by human activity or something else) so that will have effects. But whilst we don't know for certain how much we can sustain long term, there certainly seems no technological or socialogical reason why there needs to be quite so many of us. We could all still create new technologies and have a good social life if there were only four billion of us. So why take the risk?

The better educated people are and the more opportunities there are for women in the workplace, the greater population reduces in a humane and voluntary way.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

"That's an awful lot of words. Unfortunately, the first few lines of the third paragraph are nonsense so I didn't bother reading the rest"

That's a good start.

"As I said in my previous post, the relevant figures and calculations are all detailed in the full paper - which is available as a pdf linked to in the article. I can't see anything unusual in there. Can you point out the problem you see with the statistics in the actual paper?"

I have both the report and the raw data used for it open right now. If you had bothered to read my full post, you would find the information you requested already posted.

0
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: It's real!

"I believe in mood landings, I had a right strop at the top of the stairs the other day."

Bloody Daleks.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Giggle

"Thank you, your angry swivel-eyed foaming made me continue to giggle."

I think it is right to get angry about bad science and academic dishonesty. If that makes you giggle like an idiot, that's up to you.

For most of us, laughing at people for caring about things stopped being considered cool sometime in Secondary School.

1
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Libertarians reject science shocker

I have some vegetarian sausages in my freezer. They're quite nice actually.

0
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

Granted it's about the difference in ratios, but when 0.9% of your sample report believe the moon landings are a hoax and 6 out of those 10 also agree with the author that burning fossil fuels over the last fifty years has increased the atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree, then you're on very dodgy ground in making your headline conclusion that AGW-skeptics believe the Moon landings were faked. More of the believers in hoax also believe that CO2 raises temperatures than don't believe that.

Now what you're saying is that it can still support that conclusion if you are looking at the ratios. I.e. if 40% of people who think CO2 has no effect disbelieve the Moon landings, but just 20% of people who do think CO2 has an effect do, then disbelievers of CO2 causing warming are more likely to be disbelievers of Moon landings.

That's potentially true, but there are some serious problems with it. The first is that the sample size actually is too small. You say that 1100 responses is reasonable, but that is the number of total responses. The number of applicable responses as any good statistician would immediately pick up on, depends on which question you are asking - in this case whether you believe the moon landings are faked correlated with belief in AGW - which in this case is just ten people. I'll illustrate. If I ask a thousand people to rate Lady Gaga as a musician as Good or Bad, that could be a decent sample size (we'll ignore selection bias for now, just as the author of this study has). But if that group there are 10 Muslims and 7 of them say she's Good, then whilst my selection group for how "people" think might be 1000 respondents, my selection group for what muslims think, is ten. Not 1,000. But ten. The reason is because there are 2bn muslims in the world and 10 is a non-representative sample. Think of it as a Venn diagram where whatever you want to test has to fall into the intersection of both groups. The moment you start restricting the set of people you're talking about, you have to start discarding some of your responses. That's a slight simplification, but good enough for non-Statisticians and essentially true. There's nothing that really changes that basic principle.

The sample size really is too small to draw the conclusions drawn from it and the way it is presented, is very far from suggesting to people that of the respondents, only 0.9% who believed the Moon landings were faked; and that of them, 60% were actually believers that CO2 increased global temperatures. The stated conclusions and headline are horribly misleading to the point that I call them wilfully disingenuous.

And the whole thing is flawed from the outset not just because of the framed questions and ropey analysis, but because it has the selection bias from Hell.

Disraeli said there were 'lies, damnded lies and statistics." I wouldn't even dignify this paper with that last one, just the first two. It knew what it wanted to prove and by Jupiter, it would do so! I wonder how many of the commentators here actually have the survey and the results spreadsheet open and have looked at it. I have, and it's rubbish. If I can poke holes in it, then any competent statistician would (and will) rip it to shreds. This thing is a blot upon the whole field of statistics. Sorry that I worked my way up into a rant, but however cynical I may become, an academic should be better than this.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Libertarians reject science shocker

I misread that. He got more than 10 respondents. It was 10 respondents who said that that the Moon landings were hoaxes (that's 0.9% of respondents). And interestingly, those 10 respondents included people who agreed with his views on AGW.

Apologies for the wrong information.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Some Confusion

Yep - I initially misread it like that and posted similarly above. You can actually get hold of the data yourself now (it's been provided by one of the AGW-skeptic sites) and see how dubious the conclusions are. 0.9% of respondents apparently believe the Moon landings were hoaxes.

The other elephant in the room is how he chose the sites to send the survey too. A lot of mainstream AGW-skeptic sites are checking and confirming they aren't aware of being contacted.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

He seems to have also had an interesting approach to choosing who to send the surveys too, with a lot of mainstream AGW-skeptic sites checking and confirming that they aren't aware they were ever contacted. So it seems he may have deliberately picked fringe sites to contact as well.

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Giggle

In what way is it a "brilliant story"? Have you read the survey? It contains numerous questions that cannot be answered in any way other than that which confirms the author's preconceptions, there seem to be three different versions of the survey floating around, the conclusions are based on the ten responses the author actually got to their survey (an absurdly small sample size), no realistic measures to control for self-selection of the sample group - indeed, it actively prejudices the sample group. For instance, the survey sent to the "non-skeptic" group was done under the author's own name whilst elsewhere that was concealed. It was also a very odd list of "skeptic" sites that the author chose to select for sending the questionnaire to, avoiding several popular and mainstream "skeptical" sites, and instead targetting more fringe sites.

Read a question that asks you to assert whether the 2003 invasison of Iraq was about WMD or not and tell me whether you think that question is an acceptable way to categorise people as "conspiracy theorists" or not.

The author of this study is a crank. I have seen YouTube videos by him where he says he has seen <insert flawed viewpoint> posted on AGW-skeptic forums, therefore AGW-skeptics think that thing. It's like saying I saw a post about how great the iPad is on Reg forums thus the view of El Reg is that the iPad is great. And I'm not exagerating. This person actively demonizes people he disagrees with using fundamentally flawed logic and terrible science. And if you take a look at this survery, even if more than 10 people had responded to it and they weren't purely self-selecting, the flaws in it would make it very difficult to tease out any actual meaning from the results.

The only way I can see this making you giggle is if it confirms some bias you already have and therefore you just like seeing an attack on those you disagree with, regardless of whether that attack was actually legitimate or not.

3
3

UK ice boffin: 'Arctic melt equivalent to 20 years of CO2'

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

"With those figures in mind I say lets get fracking."

No, lets get building nuclear power stations. There's more fuel long-term, less environmental pollution (I'm not talking warming - I am an AGW-skeptic - I'm talking air pollution) and for the sake of 0.1p difference per kwh? Nuclear.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Joke

Re: This is actually quite good for the UK power wise.

"How can something that isn't a cost effective power source become even more cost effective?"

Volume.

0
0

Emotional baggage

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Thirded (fourthed, whatever we're up to). Anyone who is serious about a career in programming (or closely related hands on work, DB design, etc), I would recommend not to take ICT at A-Level of GCSE. Get a hard science subject, e.g. Maths or Physics. I believe a lot of University lecturers in Computer Science would prefer a lot of their new students didn't arrive with ICT A-levels. Enough knowledge that they will get bored in the first year introductory parts, badly taught enough that it will cause problems. At any rate, doing Drama isn't a bad thing either. It's fun, it's creative and quite frankly all that matters for a career in programming is that you get on to the degree level course. An ICT A-Level is essentially wasted time if you then go on to do a degree. No employer is going to care if you have a Comp. Sci degree AND an ICT A-level. The former completely replaces the latter. Better to have Comp. Sci. plus Drama. It may work out for the best.

0
0

Ballmer predicts 400 MILLION Win 8 Surface and Lumia fumblers

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: @Tom 38

"Yet it seems that was too much for Ballmer. Released in 2010 and nearly EOL'd in 2012, that's only 2 years. "

It's not EOL'd. Nokia are bringing out a new Windows 7.8 phone before the end of the year and new apps will continue to be released for it and it is still officially supported and you will see updates for it continue. Plus, a large number of people are simply not going to care - it's a nice smartphone that still does everything they wanted when they bought it. Win8 has different hardware requirements. You would have been the first to complain if Win7 phones had been released with massively over-powered hardware at vastly higher cost for the sake of being ready for a new OS two years in the future. (Actually Bob Vivstakin would be first, but you take my point).

"Given the fact that developers need to cough up $100,-/year to be even allowed to access their own phone for personal development one has to wonder here... How likely is it that when WP8 is out people would still develop software for WP7.5? So IMO this is effectively killing the WP7 market."

$100 is a trivial business cost quite frankly. I charge more than that per hour for development work. No-one other the most casual, doing it for fun programmer, is going to skip out on releasing software for the sake of $100.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: What counts as a tablet?

And some people actually suggest that there isn't an anti-MS bias here! The post contains a simple factual assertion, easily verifiable, and it gets downvoted. Do people actually require video footage of someone pressing the compile button in VS without re-writing their application?

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: The Surface Pro looks pretty tempting

You should be able to put Linux on the pro version as you want. The RT, being ARM-based, is almost certainly going to have a locked bios that will prevent installing a different operating system. Possibly if someone produces a signed Linux bootloader, I'm not sure.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Pint

Re: Maybe.

"@h4rm0ny - it may of been someone else, so apologies after looking through your back-catalogue of text through-out articles responses. there are a couple of hardcore anti-apple people around here that spout out rubbish "

Thanks for replying with that. Pint for you. It's easy to get people confused around here, I've done it myself. There are hardcore anti-apple types. Every OS has its fanpeople. Even Microsoft seems to have acquired a cheerleader here recently (like a lonely butterfly emerging before the Spring ;).

As far as I'm concerned, any modern OS is an impressive feat of engineering and treating companies like your favourite football team is silly. We're not citizens of the state of Androidtopia or something. We're customers. Everytime one of them produces something better and improved, we benefit either immediately by buying it, or in the second order when their competitors up their game. Celebrating a failure in the market for a good product, is just a shame, imo.

1
2

Google snags patent on price discrimination

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Google gazumping

I'd be interested in any tools for blocking Google tracking. If you block Google Analytics then about a third of the sites I visit (including the W3schools when I need to come to the surface for a bit of web-work from my databases) will break. They just hang because they're waiting for Google Analytics to respond. What's the solution to this? Just redirect Google Analytics to a local 404 or something? Or are there plugins available to deal with this problem?

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Use a bot?

That poses an interesting problem for them. They have to keep the prices low for shopbot visitors because otherwise they wont even come to your site in the first place.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: market stalls violate google patent?

Nah - stock market works the other way round. Big players with the most money get charged less than others.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Each according to his/needs, each according to his/own abilities? Or...

"Yes, i am standing by for the frackin down-thumber schills"

Schills (sic) ? You think TARGET is paying people to downvote critics on El Reg forums? I think you overestimate the effect of your comment on their shareprice.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This is evil

"By the way the examiner who failed to find the blatantly obvious prior art on this should be given a pink slip straight away."

Absolutely. Not only is there prior art for this (we could also include Monty Python's Life of Brian which I seem to recall involved a detailed illustration of this process and a gourd), but having just skim-read the patent, there's no actual methodolgy in this at all.

If Google had conducted research and concluded that if visitor x comes back to an item in the store more than 4 times a month, they have a 98% chance of purchasing, if they look at similar items in a range X% above and y% below the items cost, then the chance of them buying at base price + 1/3% is only 1% lower than the chance of them buying it at base price so put the price up... that sort of methodology and actual research, then I could see at least that they would have done some work that they might want to protect.

But the only innovation I can see here is the creativity needed to spin the definition of 'haggle' out to 24 pages.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This is evil

Age doesn't tell you what technology can do, but it does tell you what people will do with it.

1
0

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018