* Posts by h4rm0ny

4617 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Buzz: iPhone 5 arrives September 21, demand 'unprecedented'


Re: Hand goes up

If they have an iPhone 4 and they prefer it to any of the others currently out there and are used to it, then for them the iPhone 5 will probably be "better than the alternatives". It may not be possible to actually argue that a phone not yet released is going to be their best option, but for this reason it's a good working assumption.

But I am curious what would make the iPhone 5 so much better that they'd actually be willing to spend to upgrade. Presumably anything that runs on the new one would also run on the old one, so I would have thought the iPhone 5 is more of interest to newcomers than existing customers. Or am I wrong? (Genuine question, not looking for a reaction).

Iranian nuke plants rocked in midnight 'heavy metal blast'


Re: David Webb

"Firstly, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people in one night (100,000+ night of 9th/10th March 1945) than either the Hiroshima (60,000) or Nagasaki (90,000) bombs, so I suppose you're fine with people being fried just as long as it's by conventional weapons"

Actually, I think in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to guess that anyone opposed to killing tens of thousands of people by nuclear weapons is probably also opposed to them being killed by being burned to death.

"Secondly, seeing as the Japanese had sworn not to surrender (94% of Japanese soldiers on Okinawa fought to the death and 100,000+ civillians dies fighting the Allies or by committing suicide), and their "innocent civillians" were being organised to resist with both conventional and kiamikaze means, it is highly likely the invasion of Japan we would have to have launched would have killed millions of both "innocent civillians" and Allied soldiers. Much more than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined, which means dropping the nukes SAVED lifes."

An argument that presupposes American was being forced to invade Japan - a country which at that point was not capable of threatening American interests for a long time thereafter and which we know had already signalled to the USA that it wished to negotiate. How come this argument about saving lives is always trotted out and we're expected to never question the assumption that without the bombs America would be forced to invade Japan in a sustained land-war. Forced by what or who?

"Thirdly, even the simple nukes the Iranians are trying to produce will be much more refined and deadly than Little Boy or Fat Man, and will used on civillian targets simply because the Iranians don't have the tech to make targeted strikes"

If you suppose that American nuclear weapons are all programmed with targetting data to avoid civillian casualties, you have a rather limited grasp of nuclear weapons.

Windows 8 'bad' for desktop users - Gartner's one-word review


Re: @Matt

"On Windows this means getting hold of the installation media (that is: if you were lucky enough to actually GET installation media and didn't forget to put it somewhere safe) and after you've done that reinstalling the lot. Whoops; where is that serial key again ?"

Win8 works in a similar way to the Mac. There are a couple of options built in - a soft re-install that will keep your app settings and what you have installed, etc. And a hard re-install which is essentially a reset to how it was when it arrived.


Re: @Yet Another Commentard

See that's how criticism of WIn8 should be done - valid concerns with reasons. Not desparate flailing for anything that makes the OS sound bad even when the facts have to be distorted to fit.

There are obvious shortcomings in a number of the Metro apps, don't disagree.( At least in the beta. I'll reserve full judgement till I see the final versions.) I think a lot of these will be fixed early-ish on. For the most part, I will be using Win8 just like I use Win7 with the same software as before running on the Desktop. Metro will just be a start menu for me for some time to come. But yeah, nothing's perfect and I ain't going to argue against your points (pretty certain you'll be able to change colour schemes in Office 2013 release version if that helps). I just get annoyed when people come out with factually incorrect stuff that is easily disproved or close their minds to things that are actually better out of bias. Your post doesn't read like that so get an upvote from me!


Re: @h4rm0ny - Shock Horror

"I love how you assume that because you are willing to poke and prod an OS every which way just to see what happens, that everyone else must as well."

And I feel that love, I really do! And quite frankly I love how people keep re-phrasing what I wrote (move a mouse to the bottom left just as you did in Win7) to things like "poke and prod an OS every which way just to see what happens".

Half will work it out in no time. Half will probably watch the (I expect) inevitable "Welcome to Windows 8" video that will probably be on there and the third half will just ask someone else and be told - a process that will take five seconds.

Seriously, the action is almost exactly the same as in Windows 7 with two exceptions - one, if you're on a full screen application, you can still trigger the Metro screen without losing screen estate to the button as you do in Windows 7, i.e. you can get true full screen. And secondly, if you have multiple monitors as many of us do on desktop machines these days, you get the functionality by default on both monitors, meaning you don't have to travel your mouse all the way between the two.

And obviously it works well on hybrid devices where sometimes you'll use a keyboard and mouse and sometimes just use it as a tablet.

So what exactly do YOU prefer. No progress and everything always stays the same, or about a minute of inconvenience for some people who either can't work it out or refuse to read / watch instructions or ask someone? The answer to that question should be obvious. And yes, I do mean "progress". I've just listed actual things that you can do with the new version that you can't with the old that will be useful to many people.


Re: @h4rm0ny - Shock Horror

"So you don't see the problem with a UI that has hidden various key functions in the very corners of the display under the assumption that you can thumbswipe that location to get them to show up being forced upon non-touch-enabled systems?"

That's a funny way to re-phrase it's exactly the same but without a visible start button. Which is what I wrote. And no, as you just quoted me saying: I don't see the problem.

"Bad enough to be wondering which bit of the Control Panel you need to get to this time to eg disable 802.1x"

Any company that designed it's O/S around making the enablement or disablement of Firewire prominently displayed, would not be a commercial success I am thinking. But you're right. I wish it were as easy as just editing /etc/modprobe.d in Linux. That's much more intuitive!

As to your difficulty in opening Control Panel. You bring up Metro, you click All Applications and there it is. Though a lot of the things regular users will want to manage have been moved into the Charms menu. (Silly name, but there you have it).


Re: Fixed with a fracking start icon

Actually, it is better than Windows 7 because the context area is on both monitors. In my Win7 version, I have my primary screen on the right so I have to move the mouse all the way over to the second monitor (I have two 24" ones) to click on the start menu. On Win8, every monitor has the menu area on it. So it's actually less mouse travelling on average.


Re: Fixed with a fracking start icon

"I literally just drag the mouse to the farthest it will go in the bottom left and that puts it on my 2nd monitor"

Well okay, if the mouse is on my second monitor, I have to actually pause it in the area so in that specific case it is no better than Windows 7, I will grant you. But I'm in the habit of using the Windows Key so I haven't really noticed.


Re: @h4rm0ny - Shock Horror

"You're prob a tech. 95% of the UK are not and are quite happily fit into the public joe arena. Most of these people would scream if they saw no more Windows "start" menu."

I am a "tech". I'm an old C / C++ programmer now an engineering manager. But I honestly cannot see moving to the bottom left and clicking if there's a circle there and moving to the bottom left and clicking if there isn't, as a big difference. And I think we can expect MS to do some sort of "Welcome to Windows 8" video for new users to the system. Windows 8 will be pretty easy for new users. Half the complaints here are from people who think it's being 'dumbed down' after all. It is a certain sub-section of the IT profession that will get upset about this.

Most users will shrug, click on the bottom left and carry on. I think they'll even prefer big friendly images to looking through a menu that contains everything that is installed on their computer.


"Now, what is the upside, that makes you happy to pay for this shoer-term loss of productivity? Upside for your organisation, that is. Not for Microsoft"

There's some nice stuff in Win8 for BYOD. If I can have even program installs be part of someone's profile that I host in my own private cloud and be able to swap in any generic machine without having to worry about who has what software, that's a plus. If someone wants to use their own machine or take their work one off-site and I can lock down software on it to only be "installed" when they are connected to my secure VPN or on-site, then that's a plus. Ditto for document storage although that's more a part of Server 2012 and can be backwards-used on Win7 as well. Particularly I like not having to worry about uninstalling software and freeing up licences on people's personal machines that they own. Unassign the licence and transfer it to a different (or replacement employee) and Office is gone from their machine, for example.

Also, if I know that most of my employees just need Word and Outlook and our internal accounting system, I can give them a "Start Menu" that is just these three things and they never really have to leave it. Their screen is their program with Metro and they just flip between them as needed. Good for those people who are computer-phobic. Metro apps will remember their state. I just have to tell all the users - press the windows key and click on the program. No menu, no finding Excel under Office - just hit the key and select one of the four or five big boxes. Perfect. ;)


Re: Service Pack 1 (win8SP1)

"They will make it more difficult for people to load a different OS (secure boot) so users can't escape from Metro"

It's actually a requirement by Microsoft for an x86 device to get the Approved sticker, that the user be able to disable secure boot.

"They will probably have sufficient file incompatibilities in Office 2013 to force other users to upgrade"

I've been using Office 2013 beta and files created with it by default have opened fine in Office 2010 so far. I've not noticed any change. You need to back accusations such as this up, otherwise you're just scare-mongering.

Although that may be your aim as you have a history of posts like this. I recall you stated previously how the Surface would have heating problems. When I pointed out it actually had quite a neat all around vent so that it had airflow however you held it, you excitedly responded with a complaint that the Surface wouldn't be waterproof! Well, with a determination to find fault like that, I'm inclined to ask you to provide evidence of any accusations you make from here on.


Re: Fixed with a fracking start icon

"The "wave the mouse in the corner" trick is going to be the operating system's downfall."

I literally just drag the mouse to the farthest it will go in the bottom left and that triggers the Metro screen. There's no aiming required at all. Possibly you are using an older preview version?


Re: History repeats itself

"Obviously you missed this...


You should read your own article though. It points out that it's the result of spending $6.2bn on trying to take over the company aQuantive (thankfully it was a disaster as we don't need MS developing a major stake in the advertising business) and of having to defer another half a billion in profits for legal reasons. Your article, and I quote, says: "this quarter may be the Redmond-haters' last chance to gloat."


Re: History repeats itself

"M$ have lost the plot. They haven't had a truly viable product for years, and with each month they fall further behind."

Windows 7 has been very well received. If that's not recent enough for you, Azure is doing quite well and seems to be growing. If that's not recent enough for you, Server 2012 has some fantastic new features and is being very well received indeed. Particularly by those interested in virtualisation.

"The much-vaunted "surface" was shown to be an expensive joke"

How? Where? By who? You? Again, a lot of people like the look of it, reviewers seem optimistic and as far as I know prices haven't even been announced. Now that we've seen Office 2013 and know what is meant by "Office Preview" on the WindowsRT version, and it's pretty much the full office as far as 90% of the userbase are concerned, it looks like it's going to fly off the shelves if the pricing is even remotely sane.

"Windows Vista, 7 (and now 8) is just more shiny nonsense stuck on top of the same old broken, rotten core"

You plainly know very little about this, then.

"The programmers with any clue left M$ ten years ago when the marketers took over running the company"

Anyone who writes an operating system - whether Linux, Windows or Mac OS is worth some respect. It's not an easy task at all. You sound like someone who has never even ventured into Systems Programming.

"M$ need to realise that there's nothing cheaper than free"

Actually there is something cheaper than free - paying up front for what you find most suitable and making it back in increased productivity and staff costs. I use Linux for all my servers, but I use MS Office and Windows 7 for my business work. When Win8 comes out, I shall probably get a hybrid with a stylus for taking notes and sketching out diagrams for people. Partly because I like Win8 but also because I can hook it into existing Windows infrastructure neatly and take advantage of things like secure document management and cloud-based user profiles and security models to control it lock it down. These are big plusses for the corporate world.

"- even the most naive user now knows that a significant part of the cost of his store-bought computer is going to Redmond."

So tell me how much of the cost of a £400 laptop goes to MS and how you know this. And exactly what constitutes a significant part of the cost of a £400? Acer have a policy of refunding £20 for unused Windows 7 Starter edition. If you give them the computer, they will remove the OS and give it back to you plus refund. Big manufacturers do not buy their copies of Windows retail! Besides, you pre-suppose most buyers don't want a discounted copy of Windows coming with their computer. Do you think they'd prefer getting a blank PC and then going and buying a copy of Windows themselves without the benefit of the manufacturers bulk-bargaining with MS? Or do you suppose most users would be happy installing Ubuntu? Ubuntu is fine, but if you're going to rant about this, back it up with figures and think about what most users would like, not just people with an obvious bias against Microsoft such as yourself.

Companies are not football teams. They are companies and they sell you things if you give them money and don't if you wont. It is silly to take sides as if they are your friend and cheer or hurl abuse at the 'rival team'.


Re: Shock Horror

I've yet to have anyone actually demonstrate to me how Metro makes things harder on the Desktop than Windows 7. I hit the Windows key and type vm and up comes VMware. I hit it and type wo and up comes word. If I want word pad, then it's the next one down. I use about twenty programs regularly on my Desktop Windows (I am a power user) and that number of programs fits comfortably on my laptop screen Metro page, let alone my desktop monitor! A handful of things I have found to take longer such as turning on a VPN (two extra clicks), but these are my actual metrics, not opinions. So how is it actually hindering me doing anything?

Microsoft promises Metro developers 'fame and fortune'


Re: The thing is

And what exactly is it that you feel you can do with icons that you can't do with the tiles on Metro? They seem to only add functionality to me. Or are you one of those people that covers their desktop with icons and thus needs them to be tiny? (*shudder*)


Count another one here who both likes Metro and has had positive reactions from those that I've shown it to. I didn't like it at first but I actually did some metrics counting up how many clicks and careful positioning it took me to do something in Metro and how long in Windows 7 and Metro is typically the same or fewer. Seriously. Odd exceptions such as turning on a VPN take slightly longer, but overall the experience is quicker.

Yet some people genuinely love to hate. I was at a presentation on Server 2012 recently. After listing all the cool things in Server 2012, the presenter then opened up Win8 in a VM and spent 15 minutes ranting about how they had to position the mouse in a 40x40 pixel area to get to the Metro screen or had to click to expand the page to get the control panel. But you don't. To get the Metro page, you just swing the mouse pointer down to the lowest left part of the screen. You don't have to carefully position anything, you just drag it to the bottom left as far as it will go - which is technically even easier than positioning it on a Start menu that you can see. Control panel? Just hit Windows key and type 'co', it's the first in the list. I pointed this out to the presenter afterwards and turns out they actually knew about both of these things. But that wouldn't have given the satisfaction of an excited 15 minute rant and got the same laughs from the audience.

Whilst not everyone is going to like Metro, some people actually get enjoyment from hating it. Which is weird.

Has Nokia bottomed out? El Reg drills into the detail


Re: Have they bottomed out?

"I quite fancy a WP8 handset, but the main issue I have is putting down £400-500 on a SIM free handset only to hate it."

Hopefully there will be some lower-cost models. I paid £160 for the Lumia 710 and the only real difference between that and the more expensive 800 ones is a lower-quality camera and less storage space. I care about neither on a phone, so bargain for me. Windows Phone 8 devices are being made by several manufacturers, not just Nokia. So there should be some lower-end models.

BT bags MASSIVE £425m broadband rollout deal in Wales


Re: I'm happy with that...

"I feel it's best having one company instead of a complex multi-company network"

Sometimes it is. In these cases, the correct implementation is public ownership. Private firms are best kept in check by competition. If there's no competition, then private ownership is a bad idea because the pubic has no limiters on abuse. Public ownership at least grants some of that via elections. Yes, governments can implement guidelines and impose fines on a monopoly, but it's too easy for the private interests to give them the run around.

So something should either be nationaly owned where it is a natural monopoly (e.g. the roads network, power network) or have competition. And there's no reason you can't have a bit of both. E.g. roads network is a national property but highway maintenance companies compete for contracts. But a pure, private monopoly - sooner or later it will run away from you.

Microsoft: Azure now holds FOUR TREELLION objects


Re: But do you trust these numbers?

Whose? Those from Amazon or Microsoft? They're both massive corporations.

But yes, the numbers are probably accurate. Now tell me, do you trust the word 'object'?

Dell readies Linux Ultrabook for autumn release


Re: Ultrabook with Ubuntu and Steam for Linux?

"I can drive. Frankly, if I am forced to choose between a 12hr (each way) road trip with my wife through some lovely mountains and national parks (oh no!) and buying a Macbook..."

Not arguing that you shouldn't enjoy some mountains and national parks, but really why not just install Linux on any other laptop? I see this as an advantage for the non-technical user because Canonical will ensure that a reference machine like this would be will always work without hassle. But for a technical user like I presume you are, you should be able to overcome any issues easily. I've installed Ubuntu on a number of laptops and it's worked fine nearly always (exception of some Broadcom wireless stuff on an older one which I was still able to fix without it taking too long). Basically Ubuntu already works fine on most laptops so just grab one of those. If it's an issue of having paid for Windows with the laptop I believe you can get refunds for that if you don't use it. A pain, but less time consuming than your road trip.


I develop on Linux because I like the command line and I know how everything works. But you can develop on Windows easily enough. But really why bother with all those issues you talk about with installing Linux (again, not that hard if you know what you're doing), and just run Linux in a VM on Windows? That's what I do for day to day. My poor Gentoo install hasn't been booted in months. Stick Linux in a VM and you've got the best of both worlds with very little of the downside.


Re: Give me an Ultrabook with Secureboot turned off

Secure Boot is a thing that helps users, not restricts them. You can turn it off normally and for x86 machines, if you want to sell it as Win8 ready, then MS require that the user be able to turn it off.

Anyway, away from the red herrings, one of the main barriers to Linux adoption by users without a strong technical background is that you don't get it pre-installed like you do with Windows or OSX. If you do, then all the problems with making sure you have everything for the right hardware just vanishes, because the manufacturer has done that for you - the same advantage OSX and Windows enjoy.

Nearly 2 MILLION US Facebook users quit social network


Re: TV - right there with FB

"As is music. Very few people actually listen to music."

You may be confused because you no longer see people with giant ghettoblasters on their shoulders and think that people have stopped listening to music. In fact, if you look around you will see probably around 40-50% of people in urban areas have the little devices in their ears pretty much any time they aren't required to talk to other people or focus on hard problems (and sometimes even then) - these are actually called "headphones" and deliver music directly to the ears.

You're right about televison though. Amongst any generation currently under forty, it's really died off, largely replaced by other hobbies or the Internet.


Re: ...and the bubble starts to deflate

Actually although I predicted (along with a zillion other people) that Facebook would plummet, and it did, the slide seems to have arrested itself a bit whilst I thought it would just carry on sailing down. I can't really see why it's holding up around the upper $20's as it's P/E ration is currently 72.59 a rating that indicates that either it is insanely overvalued or there is going to be a truly staggering increase in revenue in the near future. As the latter looks pretty doubtful, we're left to conclude that it is massively overvalued.

My guess as to why the bubble has yet to truly burst is that so many people and big players have sunk so much money into it which they would currently loose due to the big plunge downwards from the initial IPO, that no-one actually dares sell right now because they can't afford to write off the loss or their afraid that selling would turn a big loss into a catastrophic one as shareholders paniced and tried to offload.

Behold: First look at Office 2013, with screenshots


Re: Why - Oh Why waste so much money when Open Office & LibreOffice are free?

"That handful would be the tens (if not hundreds) upon thousands of other academics that routinely use LaTeX day in, day out?"

Great though LaTeX is, all the maths students in all the world, only add up to a small proportion of people using office suites. But have you tried the equation editor in Word 2013, yet? Seems to have been improved. Just had a look and it works pretty well, imo. Was able to bash out some reasonably complicated equations by my standards.


Re: facebook? twitter? required cloud integration?

Facebook integration is just an option. Twitter is just an option. I have accounts on neither and work just fine on Office 2013 so far. Required cloud integration is both optional and you don't have to use Skydrive as your cloud. You can provide your own if you want the features but not to use MS's service.

All of the above is easily checked by a quick search or reading of their information.


Re: W8 only? Skype?

"So is this only going to run on Windows8, that would be a bit unusual for MS?"

No. It works on Windows 7 as well (but not XP). Includes the same features as well as far as I know. Even the streaming Office works on Win 7 so you don't actually have to install it / spend a licence for it if you want to run it on someone else's machine temporarily.


Re: Why - Oh Why waste so much money when Open Office & LibreOffice are free?

"Ultimately I just hacked together a LaTeX style file to generate the same forms (as they wanted PDF sent in). End of (my) problem."

Unfortunately me, you and a handful of others are probably the only ones that can still easily use LaTeX these days. One nice thing in Office 2013 is that it can edit PDF documents as a standard feature. Should go a lont way toward achieving the universality of appearance you wanted.

Microsoft pops preview of 'biggest, most ambitious' Office yet


Re: Incomplete article

Two downvotes for a simple factual correction saying that Office 2013 runs on the Desktop, not in Metro. Says it all about some people's kneejerk bias. Operating Systems and software suites are not football teams.


Re: Why am I not finding any of this remotely interesting?

"Oh, so you're saying that to get the most out of Office, I also need to install W8 and Server 2012 whilst simultaneously ditching all existing infrastructure. And buy new fondle-friendly clients."

Errr, not really what I said. Most of the new stuff doesn't require Server 2012 and it certainly doesn't require Win8 or touch interfaces at all. It will work fine with SkyDrive or even on your local computer. I was just explaining that if you want to use the Cloud aspects without using SkyDrive, you can do that very easily by running a Server 2012 instance. And you can even rent those as an online service if you want so it's pretty easy.

I'm pretty sure you can do a lot of this with your existing architecture as well, you just wont be able to use some of the specifically Server 2012 stuff that I mentioned such as the neat new file permissions system that can lock down sensitive documents. You can even set up permissions based on regular expressions so that any document created containing certain keywords, SSNs, names, whatever are automatically restricted to whatever permissions you choose. Even the biggest curmudgeon has to admit that's pretty neat.

Touch interface is useful for things like casual reading / work on a tablet, and diagraming things out in OneNote or Visio (does handwriting recognition as well - remember you can use a Stylus with some of these products), but you hardly need it to make good use of Office 2013. It's just one of the new features.

Also, the new software as a licence model means smaller businesses like mine can just rent the services we need for as long as we need. It's nice, for example, to be able to give someone an Office licence for their laptop and know that if they leave the company the software I've paid for will just magically vanish from their machine and I can use it for their replacement.

So no, I didn't say what you wrote. Having used a couple of the products so far, I find them improved in various small ways. But sure, if you combine it with Server 2012 you've got a killer package. But if you don't, it's still good, imo.


Re: Incomplete article

"As we all feared the whole kaboodle sits in Metro"

I am literally running the preview right now and the first thing it did when I launched it was open in the Desktop.


Re: So...

"Yeah, and what about the millions of us who have large flat panel monitors on our desks. How

do "expansion/contraction pinch controls" and rotary controls work with a mouse? Or is it just a complete and utter mess?"

The mouse and keyboard still work too. And there are a number of other features. I don't think any functionality has been taken out as far as I can see.


Re: Why am I not finding any of this remotely interesting?

"Do businesses really want or need to upload everything to Redmond, have a social SharePoint, or have Skype built-in?"

Actually, I'm looking forward to this and I'll explain why. It's not because I want to share everything with Redmond or bring more external social networking into my business work (more the opposite on both, actually). But the same processes can be used in different ways. So instead of using SkyDrive as my "cloud" (hate the word really, but no-one listened when I said the word 'blog' was stupid so I doubt they'll listen now), I can use my companies own Server 2012 installation(s). Now that *is* useful to some of us. What you have with Office 2013 is basically complete roving profiles. Open it up on my laptop, a tablet, my phone, I'm back in the version of the document instantly. Similarly I can use the streaming version of Office even on someone else's machine and be straight back into my work. Custom shortcuts I set up are even copied across. And none of it is via Redmond if my company doesn't want to run it that way - SkyDrive is just the one that MS provide as the default. And if you combine it with the document / file permissions system in Server 2012, you get really flexible security on the documents too. An admin can set it up so that a document is only accessible by a particular user, particular departments, particular geographic locations or on specific VPNs and use the DRM on it to make sure that the document cannot be copied out of the permissions area. It's really worth reading about. So basically, the portability and controls in Office 2013 are really, really polished but that can be via your own network, not Redmond. And they're licencing all the software as an online service (incl. SharePoint) so if you want that set up, you don't have to deploy your own server infrastructure to do it. I'm honestly really impressed. I've been playing around with the new Office this afternoon and like it.

Regarding the social networking, again, this doesn't have to mean Facebook or other things I loathe. I can set up a corporate version and control who is on it and it can tie into all the same controls for documents, etc. as before. Social networking can be great - so long as you can control who constitutes the social network.

"Are MS copying Apple and have suddenly decided that they should be aiming for the consumer market instead of the business market? That would be commercial suicide."

Definitely not this. Being able to rent all the Office packages as a service (incl. SharePoint and Project) is actually making it easier for small players, imo. Cloud-based computing is a big part of the new Office, it seems, but it does have a lot of other things in it as well. And you can own your own cloud quite cheaply just by renting the service (or getting a Server 2012 licence and running it yourself). Also, renting the software as a service may actually be a good thing for businesses as you don't have to budget around big roll-outs of the latest version - so long as you subscribe, I think the idea is that you will always be on the latest version.

Skype I don't like much. It's pretty inadequate for business usage. But Lync is very good and I think Skype will get subsumed under that for business use in the end. This is probably going to allow you to easily drag contacts from Skype into Lync and maybe even share networks. (Not sure, haven't got that far yet).

US, Iraqi lawn chair balloonists blown out of sky


The merging of Iraqi and US flags?

I'm kind of glad they only managed what they did. I can't imagine seeing a giant symbol of the Iraqi flag having US elements added to it floating over Baghdad would do anything to reassure Iraqis their sovereignty still mattered to the West.

US deploys robot submarine armada against Iranian mines


Re: Police?

"What, so you can still go on not being able to provide a single case of US soldiers getting involved in an Israeli war?"

I said that the USA would almost certainly get dragged into a major war between Iran and Israel and that they don't want this. You responded demanding to know when the US had ever been involved in Israel's war. I pointed out that this wasn't what I'd claimed but helpfully did point out that they had refuelled Israeli jets and re-supplied them with guided missiles during the conflict with Lebanon in 2006. Also that they provide $1.8bn in specifically military aid along with supplying advanced hardware that they wouldn't dream of supplying to anyone else and did that count as military support in Israel's conflicts? (There are other examples if needed). You have now narrowed it down to specifically USA soldiers fighting on behalf of Israel. I don't suppose you accept supply of Intelligence to Israel by US military forces as participation either? Exactly how long do you expect me to humour you in your ever narrowing questions when none of them actually refute the point I am making in the first place?

"All you evasions, all your frothing"

Why must you use characterisations of me as part of your argument? I assure you, I am quite calm as I type this. It is your own posts with their repeated accusations of hysteria, frothing, etc. that stray from reasoned debate and into pejoratives and emotive language. Just drop this aspect perhaps, instead of telling me what will "raise my standing in the forum" and to "man" up. (Why is admitting one's faults considered a male trait, btw?)

"Really? And you have irrefutable evidence of this direct US involvement on the ground?"

Why must you keep re-phrasing what I write? I wrote that the US refuelled Israeli jets and provided guided missiles. That's even the part that you quote before responding with the above. But I will provide you with evidence to support what I say. And no, it wont be some "loon conspiracy site". Unless of course you consider the New York Times such, which is your prerogative:

NYT Article. The source I would actually quote would be Jane's Sentinel, but unless you are in the defence industry you are unlikely to be a subscriber. Unfortunate as they will have more detail, but hopefully you will accept the New York Times in the interim. I have no doubt I could find more detailed public sources if needed but it seems that you are only interested in demanding answers to your own contrived questions, so I shall leave it at that for now.

"Guess you're going to evade on that one as well"

No, not really. ; )

Incidentally, on the subject of evading, you seem to be entirely missing the point that I am making in favour of trying to set up strawmen about Iran being perfect or demanding evidence for every little thing, rather than engaging with what I am actually doing which is contrasting at best, minimal "meddling" (your words) by Iran in states it borders with, to the epic interference in other nations that is the USA, Israel and the UK playing ruler to nations half way around the world. It's never been my contention that Iran is perfect nor have I ever hinted that it was. My point is that Iran is the defensive party in this matter. Something you have repeatedly "evaded" (your words) in favour of micro-questioning what I write or heading off on tangents of your own choosing and demanding that I defend them.

"Oh, by the way, when you were being told what to bleat did your herders tell you that Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen were killed fighting for Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006? I'm betting not. AFter all, your claim of US military being directly involved in fighting for Israel collapsed into the standard whining about how much money Israel gets form the US. Fail!"

I made no such claims. They came from you so that you could say that they were false. And no-one has told me "what to bleat". I see no reason for the repeated unpleasant attacks. They are the recourse of a weak argument. You should evaluate your own position to see if it is actually impartial, imo, to be honest.

"Nope, you haven't. I really hope you don't work in education because if you think that was an answer then your students are going to be very poorly educated."

I don't work in education. I taught maths for a short time and went back to industry because I could earn three times the salary. Thanks for ending your post with one more insult. I felt that your post did not contain enough of them already, but this completely unprovoked addendum helps redress the balance.


Re: Police?

"I'll leave the historical record stuff to the other commenters and just touch on the antisemitism."

Saying that Jewish "race" is no different to anyone else's race in any way that matters or should matter, is not anti-semiticism. It's about as non-prejudiced as you can logically get. PLEASE stop throwing around such nasty ad hominems. I don't know what your issue is but nowhere have I said anything that is remotely anti-semitic and nor will I. You're just nasty in throwing around these accusations. The whole reason we are discussing "Jewishness" is because I pointed out that someone was wrong to say "Jew" when they should have said "Israeli". Just drop these pathetic, offensive ad hominem attacks,

"This is false and easily proven false. There was an genetic analysis of Jews from around the world concluded in 2010 as part of the human genome project and published in Nature under strict peer review. It concluded that Jews around the world are genetically linked and "a race" by the definition people like you care about"

I assume by "people like you", you mean people who have an interest in anthropology? I am roughly familiar with the study you refer to. It tested around 220 people I think? Truly a representative sample. The study actually showed, for what it is worth, as much genetic similarity with non-Jewish ethnic groups (such as Italians) than different Jewish ethnic groups had with each other. At any rate, the study was well-received by people who thought it corroborated elements of the Bible. In contrast to that, we have historical records going back to the Roman times of mass conversions to Judaism - they were actually quite alarmed by the wave of evangelism. With entire nations converting in some cases (the Khazar kingdom in the 8th century converted, again a matter of historical record) it is plain that few if any modern day Jews are actually descendents of any tribes imprisoned by the Pharoahs (the original description someone made). At least any more than any other group that doesn't call itself Jewish is. The study you refer to showed that due to inter-breeding, non-Jewish ethnic groups such as Italians, are as much related as most Jewish ethnic groups. Despite the small number of subjects and the attempts to represent the results in a certain way, I'm actually glad you brought it up as it makes my point to some extent. I don't think the results really show what you think they show.

I am away from my reference books at the moment, but I recommend you read the book by Shlomo Sand that I linked to earlier. As well as being a good collation of the various arguments, the interesting part is the degree to which his well-researched work (he is a professor of history in Tel Aviv) has upset politically motivated believers in the idea of direct descent from the biblical Hebrew tribes. Because there is (as evidenced by opposition to his research) very major political movement to pretend that Jewish people are a "race" when the majority of evidence is against it.

I don't know what motivates you to reject this argument. It is certainly not an anti-semitic argument: the conclusion is that Jewish people are just the same as everyone else.

"Jew is an ethnic group/race/whatever you like to call it. It's not impossible for people of the same ethnic lineage to now have different skin and accents, despite your no doubt expert opinion on the matter."

Well I am expert enough at least not to use ethnicity and race interchangeably as you do. At any rate, I've addressed the above. There are lots of different ethnicities under the umbrella term "Jewish". If you think Jewish is all the same ethnicity then you are showing a staggering ignorance of Jewishness. If you think that a single race cannot include both Jewish and non-Jewish people, then again, you are very ignorant of Jewish populations. I defy you to spot the difference between a Mizrahim Jew and the racially identical Arab. Jew can also refer to a practioner of Judaism of course, but I assume you are discounting those.

"Further, the pyramids were built 4000-5000 years ago, the genetic dispersal of the Jews certainly makes it likely they were all in the same place around then."

This makes no sense. There's no causal connection here.

"This is total horseshit"

Which part? That the Black Jewish people have the best claim to be closest related to the biblical jews? It's my understanding that this is so, but I could be wrong. Or that Black Jews had to fight hard to be accepted into Israel and that they still face prejudice today? That part can be confirmed just by asking any of them, if you care to. And you can check historical records to see how much resistance there was to accepting them as eligible to become Israeli citizens. Despite their practicing Judaism as a people for a very long time.

"First off, thank you for mentioning the "black Jews" (their proper name is Beta Israel btw, show some respect). "

There's nothing disrespectful about calling someone Black, thanks. It's nothing to be ashamed of. And when I said Black Jews (I relish your attempt to try and out-respect the person you are arguing with in order to try and make them look bad). Beta Israel is a bit of a loose term. Properly it should refer to the Ethiopian Jews and their direct descendents. However, it has been somewhat usurped by American Black Jewish people who are definitely converts (of about five generations maximum) and have no direct relationship to the ancient Jews. The Ethiopian Jewish people seem to have the most plausible claim to direct descent to me.

"There is a Y-chromosome marker shared by Cohens throughout the world, black, white, green, spotted, whatever. It uniquely identifies them all as having come from the same paternal relative several thousand years ago"

I think you have fallen for some politically motivated science here. I will need you to link to the actual study, but my first instinct is to ask how many non-Cohens share this marker also, how many "Cohens" do not share the marker, and how many markers are commonly shared by other people sharing the same family surname. Secondly, people with the surname Cohen present only a sub-faction of Jewish people. Does the study say anything about these non-Cohen people? Basically, there are so many suspect things with just the abstract you have presented, that I'm going to have to ask you for a link to the study for this to even be considered as evidence.

"Second of all, Israel hates the poor false victim group you're trying to create so much, that Operation Moses, Operation Sheba, Operation Solomon, etc."

"Israel" is a nation. Not a race. I personally am sick am tired of having to distance Jewish from Israeli in the face of people such as yourself who continually conflate the two. And if pro-Israeli types hate the "poor false victim group", then perhaps you can stop trying to classify any criticism of the Israeli government's foreign policy with anti-semiticism.

"No points for trying to use a minor historical detail to belittle an entire race, either."

Ethnic group, not race. And where have I belittled anyone because of that? My whole position, articulated quite clearly, is that I don't think Jewish is any different to anyone else! How can you simultaneously criticize me for not believing that Jewish is genetically distinct from other people in any relevant way and also claim that I am belittling people because of their race? It does not make sense to me.

"Now have whoever's reading this to you tuck you back in so you can masturbate crying into your Adolph Hitler bedsheets, you're pathetic."

And again, the insults, the ad hominems and the putting of words into other people's mouths. I don't know if there are any Reg guidelines about repeatedly demonizing people you disagree with as racists, but if so, you have gone way beyond them repeatedly. Ad hominems and strawmen are the sign of a weak argument.


Re: So scared

"1337sp33k name and general probability of being a troll aside"

"Harmony" was taken. I used a few letter substitutions. You used a "1" after your name. In both cases, it's just a way of using one's name when it's already registered by someone else. I'm old enough that I remember l33tspeak beginning. My username is hardly a reason to criticise what I say. And no, I am not trolling. I would be much happier if people nodded at what I say rather than got outraged as a couple of people have. (If I were a troll, I would presumably be going for lots of downvotes whereas my original post seems to be getting a lot of upvotes so I'm actually speaking in accord with a lot of the people here, apparently).

"while we're on the subject of what a wonderful and just beacon of peace Iran"

If you have to invent entire arguments on the other person's side in order to score points off them, you should re-evaluate your own position. It's called strawmanning. Nowhere have I described Iran in such glowing terms. What I have done is rightly point out that Iran has far from got the history of aggression that the USA and the UK and Israel have and this is a matter of historical record. I pointed out that Iran has long been on the receiving end of Western aggression as indeed it is right now with extreme sanctions and outright threats of military attack by Israel, the latter of which has been explicit publically about considering bombing Iran.

"to the dirty Jewholes and so on"

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to play that card against people . Nowhere have I shown any signs of anti-semiticism nor will I, because I am not anti-semitic. I even corrected another poster and drew attention to the fact that despite a lot of Israeli propaganda to the contrary, Jewish != Israeli. Plenty of Jewish people are sick and tired of the Israeli government playing that card, thankyouverymuch. If you can't distinguish between criticism of the Israeli government and Jewish, then it is you that think someone's attitudes and values depend on their ethnicity (a racist idea), not me. My attitude to "Jewish" has always been consistent - it means almost nothing, everyone is the same as everyone else when it comes to heredity. It's utterly irrelevant to someone's value as a person or their rights. No-one should be treated better or worse because of their race or ethnicity.

For you to try and put racist slurs in someone else's mouth is disgusting both for the propagation of racist slurs and for the resorting to demonisation of people you disagree with instead of just addressing their argument.

"and since you keep bringing up Lebanon..."

Actually, Matt Bryant asked for examples of US participation in Israeli military conflict. I pointed out that in the 2006 conflict with Lebanon, the US refuelled Israeli jets and restocked them with guided missiles.

"Maybe you'd like to justify mentioning Iran's wonderfulness, Lebanon, and a distaste for country's meddling in the affairs of others with a straight face?"

Again, this inability on your part to understand someone arguing against Western war-mongering without thinking they are praising the defending country as "wonderful" or to resist putting words into someone else's mouth in order to mock their point of view. As to justifying Iran's "meddling in Lebanon", I no more have to justify it, than any American politician is forced to justify how the IRA got more of its funding from the USA than anywhere else. I do not have to justify it because it is not my job to paint Iran as whiter than white. Hezbollah has some ties to Iran. As does Hamas to a greatly lesser extent. In both cases however, they are hardly proxies for Iran - they have both arisen independently as a response to Israeli action and have naturally courted the most powerful player in the region that is not aligned with Israel (i.e. Iran) for support. Which in dribs and drabs they have received. Iran is a very old, considerably powerful nation. I merely pointed out the gross hypocrisy of calling the occasional sale of arms or turning a blind eye to exchange of expertise "meddling in the affairs of others" when the USA and the UK sends hundreds of thousands of troops half-way around the world to invade and occupy other countries, engages in financial warfare, stations military bases in other countries (Saudi Arabia), trains up foreign forces (Qatar, UAE) - thus keeping in power non-democratic governments, carries out targeted killings (Israel has made numerous assassination attempts on Palestinian leaders, the USA has assassinated people by drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen at least). If Iran's spotty relationship with Hezbollah is what you call "meddling in the affairs of others", then I would be delighted to learn what you call the behaviour of the USA, UK and Israel.

My sole point is that Iran is not the belligerent party here. We are. I need no "justification" of any negatives of Iran to make that point. I am not trying to argue that Iran is "wonderful". These are your words. But "beacon of peace"? Yes, they are the defensive party in this and have yet to strike back in the face of economic warfare that is harming their citizens, foreign-funded efforts to subvert their elected government and overt threats of military action. So again, yes, it's significantly down to the reluctance of Iran to fight a war that we still have peace there because they've certainly been provoked beyond the point at which Israel or the USA would keep the peace. We also have the US to thank in a round-about way because they've been doing everything they can behind the scenes to find alternatives to military action. The US no more wants to go to war with Iran than Iran does. But unfortunately, the USA will likely (a) stand by Israel if Israel starts a war and (b) does not want to give up being the pre-eminent power in the Middle East, because that is the oil centre of the world.


Re: Police?

" Please supply one example of US troops participating in an Israeli war. I won't hold my breath 'cos I know you can't supply an answer. Fail, as usual"

Well you should first list the actual wars Israel has been involved in. They're mostly shorter skirmish style wars involving border disputes and lasting months or less. If you're talking about an actual war with a large nation such as Iran, then I see no more reason for you to take this line of argument that the USA wouldn't get dragged in than I would see why a commentator in 1913 should say "there's never been a world war, ergo there cannot be a world war". Certainly US international diplomacy has been structured around the belief that if Israel started a war with Iran, that they would get dragged in so it seems the White House doesn't agree with you. But if you want actual US involvement in Israeli military conflict then, as an example, during the 2006 military conflict with Lebanon, the USA refuelled the Israeli jet fighters and re-stocked them with guided missiles. Prior to this, much of that military hardware was supplied by the USA in the first place as Israel receives top-of-the-range jets, tanks, attack helicopters and is invited into joint weapons development programs with the USA. It's a level of military inter-cooperation that goes way beyond the way the US may occasionally deign to sell some of its outdated hardware to lesser-favoured countries.

The USA provides $1.8bn dollars annually to Israel in specifically military aid and has done since 1987. How's that for participating in Israel's war effort? You'll note that you re-phrased what I wrote into your own, narrowly constructed rhetorical question, but US military support for Israel is massive and demonstrable and if Israel actually was stupid enough to start a major war in the region, it is near certain that the USA would be forced to become an active participant.

"I won't hold my breath 'cos I know you can't supply an answer. Fail, as usual."

I doubt you will be satisfied with it, but I have answered your post. Regarding the "fail as usual", there is no reason to be rude.


Re: So scared

"trying to ferment rebellion" - i think you mean "foment rebellion"

Iran is a muslim country. They lack expertise in exactly what should be fermented and what should not. ; )


Re: So scared

"Yes, and your proof is where? Rattling around in your tinfoil hat?"

Sorry, I mispoke. Everything else I listed (and which you did not challenge) is provable. I should have listed this one separately as it's only that almost everyone familiar with it considers it to be a bogus claim by the US. The "assassination attempt" is this one:

Iranian "Assassination" Plot on Saudi Ambassador

Unlike all the other items, I cannot prove this one. However, pretty much every expert on Iran, including senior US defense officials, have expressed from significant doubt to outright disbelief that this plot, if it is real, was actually tied to the Iranian government. It makes no strategic sense, no material or political gain, is incredibly amateur. The "plot" is almost custom-made to be a political disaster for Iran whilst gaining them nothing. Iran is not that stupid, no-one thinks they are that stupid, no-one has demonstrated any benefit to Iran and the US has failed to provide any corroborating evidence. Sure, you expect them to want to keep some details close to their chest to protect intelligence sources, but there's nothing remotely credible provided by them to convince any other government or even their own citizens. It has false flag written all over it in the opinion of the intelligence community.

"Except that whenever the UN gets too interested in Iran, the Iranian puppets in Hezbollah and Hamas start shooting rockets at Israel. Lets not forget their post-invasion meddling in Iraq, including their support and guidance of al-Sadr and his fanatical Mahdi Army."

Last time Hezbollah got uppity it was because Israel had sent troops into Lebanon. That's hardly a result of the "UN getting too interested in Iran." Hamas are in a near-constant state of having their leadership imprisoned or assassinated by the Israeli military. No-one can make the argument with a straight-face, that violence in Palestine is down to the "UN getting too interested in Iran". Hamas are not mindless "puppets" of Iran. They're actually the political party that the Palestinian people elected, but Israel and the West subjected Palestine to economic war (seizing Palestinian assets abroad) and cut off food and medical supplies to the country until their preferred party was able to seize power. How you can look at such things and say these are the result of UN interest in Iran, I don't know. Basically, you couldn't find a good example of Iran actually attacking anyone (unlike numerous other nations I could mention) so you had to find foreign groups that have loose affiliations with Iran and try to make a case that they are proxies for Iran. Ties? Yes. Iran's secret army? Hardly.

"Lets not forget their post-invasion meddling in Iraq, including their support and guidance of al-Sadr and his fanatical Mahdi Army."

Wow. Now that's pot calling the kettle black. USA and the UK fly and ship hundreds of thousands of troops thousands of miles around the world to invade and occupy Iraq for best part of a decade, to supply billions in cash to their favoured political groups whilst arresting or killing political enemies; and when the country that actually shares a border with Iraq is courted by some ethnically similar militants from within Iraq, resulting in the possible supply of some weapons and the odd over-zealous Shi-ite crossing the border, it's "meddling". Incidentally, Muqtada al-Sadr that you mention? He was actually a very popular community leader in Iraq who the US targeted for assassination because of his popularity. The US began the violence with al-Sadr. They had little choice. If they had allowed him to simply participate democratically, his popular support would have seen them rapidly ousted from the country by popular vote. During the US devastation of Fallujah, al-Sadr sent medical support to the citizens there. Small wonder that the US didn't like him.

"Because the previous attempts the Iranians made ended with a large portion of the Iranian Navy being sunk (read up on Operation Praying Mantis)."

That was an attack in Iran in response to a mine. It says very little about whether Iran could close the Strait to commercial shipping which they very easily could. The incident was condemned by the UN incidentally, who said the USA did not have cause to attack Iran to protect themselves.

"The US also exposed the strategic weakness of the Iranian economy to attacks on their oil platforms (Operation Nimble Archer)"

And here you make my point even further - the Iranians are not the belligerent party in this matter.

"The Iranians can close the Gulf temporarily at great cost to themselves, they dare not do it unless their backs are against the wall"

And at great cost to the fragile European oil-dependent infrastructure too. So yay - let's push their backs even further against the wall as we are doing. If they strike back, it's their fault.


Re: Police?

The "guy is black this time" is obviously a reference to Barak Obama though race is really irrelevant and I think that's the point being made: that the leader of America happens to be Black this time but the actions and behaviour are the same. (Neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but interpreting the point as you asked).

The pushed on by people who pretend to be imprisoned by a Pharoah is obviously a reference to the rather shaky historical record of modern-day people who call themselves Jews. You will note if you look into it that Jewish as "race" actually covers multiple ethnic groups, the overwhelming historical evidence of which suggests that none of them (and certainly it's impossible that it's all of them) are descended from ancient Hebrew tribes that were enslaved in Egypt. Indeed the only modern-day group that can make credible claims to be descendants of these people are the "Black Jews" who ironically, had to fight hard to be accepted into Israel and still face discrimination for their skin colour there today. A good book on the subject if you're interested is "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Shlomo Sand.

As to Barak Obama being "pushed" by Jews, firstly, it's incorrect to say "Jews" - it's one of the greatest foundations of Israeli propaganda to pretend that Israeli == Jewish and vice versa. Israel does not speak for all Jewish people and criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-semiticism much as the Pro-Israeli lobby likes to pretend both of these. But if you substitute Zionist for Jewish, then the statement becomes more accurate. The USA has been frantically pursuing all sorts of diplomatic and non-violent means behind the scenes to placate Israel and prevent them launching unilateral attacks on Iran. Because if Israel starts a war, it is almost certain that the USA will get dragged into it on Israel's side, and the USA actually doesn't want such a war. Hence things like the sanctions are actually a result of the USA saying: "look, Israel, we're doing this, you don't need to attack". So the statement was wrong in that it referred to Jewish, not Israeli (and if the poster wants to be taken seriously, they'll not make that mistake in future), but otherwise had a lot of truth to it.


Re: So scared

Don't know why someone would mod you down for what you said. High-ranking people in the US navy have said the same. It's pretty much accepted that if the Iranians want to close shipping there, then they can. I'm almost surprised they haven't given that the USA has bludgeoned other nations into not trading with Iran causing significant economic harm to its people and they have seen their scientists assassinated by foreign agents. What else? Oh yes, a laughable attempt to frame Iran for an assassination plot which no-one in the Intelligence sector believes for a second but which made good headlines for a few days. Incursion of air-space with US spy drones. Oh, and US congress (under Bush, and continued under Obama) has approved large amounts of funds and granted the CIA permission, for the explicit purpose of trying to ferment rebellion and discontent in the country. All on record, all provable. One can only imagine how a more warlike country such as the USA or Israel would react to foreign-assassinations of its citizens or state sponsored efforts to over-throw their government. Unlike some other countries, Iran has a long history or not starting wars. Last big one they fought was when Iraq invaded Iran without declaration or war, back in 1980 (we supported Iraq, as did the USA in a more complicated way) and the West ignored the unilateral use of WMD (chemical weapons) against Iran by Iraq. We know Iraq had them because we still have the receipts.

So whilst Iran needs to brush up on its human rights, it's not a belligerent country in this matter. We are. Given the heavy provocation the West and Israel is placing on them, I'm almost surprised they haven't closed off shipping. Many other countries would have including the USA and Israel (zero doubt). Similarly, there's no real doubt that if Iran wants to close off shipping, they can. And that would have a devastating effect on the world's current, shaky economy.

Yahoo! fixes! password! leak! vulnerability!


"We have fixed the problem" says Yahoo Spokesperson.

Meanwhile somewhere in the Yahoo database...

UPDATE user SET password = TO_BASE64(password);

Security fail for Apple as hacker cracks iOS in-app purchasing


Re: all I can think of

""Why you must to pay for content, already included in purchased app? I think, you must not."

Ah, the logic of the pirate never more clearly put. Doesn't matter what you agree to, doesn't matter what the people who create the work want to sell it for work for or how, ZonD80 "thinks you must not".

Apple pulls China Japan war game amid diplomatic tensions


Re: Sounds like we need one in Blighty

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the Falkland islands have been settled by the British since before Argentina was even a country. The settlers never displaced any previous inhabitants. There's not even any good evidence for a previous indigenous population at any point in history - just the odd arrow and the ancient remains of a canoe. That's pretty much it for evidence of a historical population suggesting that at best a small group of people tried to live there for a while before either dying off or leaving. More likely, some stray people washed up there after being lost at sea at some point in the past and that's it. Argentina's sole historical attempt to "colonize" the islands was to try and dump some convicts there once (failed due to mutinies).

Some people have this idea that the Falkland islands should belong to Argentina because they're "near" Argentina. They're so far away from Argentina that even if you could see them because you have amazing eyesight, you couldn't see them because the curvature of the Earth would hide them from you. Geographical proximity should not be used to determine ownership, the will of the people should. I mean Poland is closer to Germany than the Falkland islands are to Argentina, would it be a good idea for Germany to claim Poland therefore? History suggests... not.

Argentina's economy is in a bad way and the populist government seeks ways to focus discontent elsewhere. The Falkland islands are one such way. Oil is another big reason. The North and East sides of the Falklands now have confirmed oil reserves which Argentina would love. (They already nationalized a foreign-owned oil company). Is invading a country for oil a good idea? Again, history would suggest... not.

Disable Gadgets NOW says Redmond


Re: HTML5+Javascript+CSS, are native code

"But out of interest, just what does Windows 8 compile HTML+JS+CSS into, h4rm0ny?"

Same thing that C# or C++ or VB get turned into to when you write a Metro application - compiled low-level binary code just as if you wrote a C program on Linux or similar.


Re: Kill off the crap

"they failed to realise that phones, tablets and the desktop are completely different things that need their own platform"

Serious question - why? I want to be able to syncrhonize and manage the same data on all three. As a developer, I love the idea of being able to write applications for all three at once. Win8 works fine on the Desktop - I've been using the release candidate for a while and using Metro instead of the Start menu has presented me no difficulties and everything else I've used has remained compatible from Win7. So why shouldn't some group release a platform that can seamlessly transition between all three?

I might not want to do major editing work on a tablet, but I still want to be able to pull up a Word document and make some minor changes here and there. I even do that on my phone from time to time! And as well as consistent capability, consistent interface is a big plus for many people.


Re: I had a dream once...

"But due to what most experts would classify as at best, complete negligence, and at worst, deliberate intent; this product's design enabled the theft of billiions of pounds worth of data/funds/property."

Explain to me how a user installing software from an untrusted source in Linux would be any different? In both this case and the Linux case, the software has access to user-space and can access the user's data. At least from what we know of this issue.

Microsoft hires hippy to lecture resellers on being nice to the world


Deepak: There are fundamentalists in Science.

Richard Dawkins: There are no fundamentalists in Science.

I don't know anything about Deepak Chopra other than that video and article I just read, but sadly Richard Dawkins is wrong in the above. They are there and can be as dogmatic as anyone.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019