Re: Copyright, Patents all screwed.
And if you believe that in the record industry, the author is usually the one to profit from their work, perhaps I can interest you in some prime lunar real estate.
136 posts • joined 14 Jan 2010
And if you believe that in the record industry, the author is usually the one to profit from their work, perhaps I can interest you in some prime lunar real estate.
How about teachers? Should the person who taught you maths get a royalty every time you use Pythagoras' theorem? Should the person who taught you English get a royalty every time you write an email?
Or should your midwife get a royalty every time you... uh, breathe?
But of course that's not an honest comparison, since it's the labels who benefit, rarely the artists. So maybe the school you attended, the hospital you were born at, should get those royalties.
Some things can be debated and defended. A life+144 years copyright rule? Not so much.
Let the stuff go
Careful, you came very close to infringing the copyright of a certain
froz cold Disn cartoon princess there...
If I create and release a song, I* get money not just for the original performance, but every time it's used by anybody anywhere (outside of private homes and earbuds), for the rest of my life.
But I'm not a singer, I'm a physics teacher. If I come up with a great analogy that helps a student understand an equation, and they go on to use that understanding in their future job, do I get to claim 10p every time they use the equation?
Of course not - and neither should I. I get paid for teaching those students this year, and I get future money by teaching different students; musicians should get their future money by writing and singing new and different songs. The idea that you did something decades ago and therefore have the right to be paid for it today is not something that exists in most industries.
* Not actually I, of course, a bunch of copyright trolls instead, but ignore for the sake of analogy
That says more about the banks' lack of diligence than it does about the inherent vulnerability of an account by virtue of those details being known.
Nothing new there. A newly-married friend, maiden name (let's say) Jane Smith, put a wedding present - a cheque for a few thousand - into her account. Only later, she realised the cheque was made out to her husband, let's say Steve Brown.
Went through without a hitch. Nobody raised an eyebrow.
Apparently we actually were its biggest enthusiasts. I can't see us rowing back on it now.
Why on earth not? That's precisely what Theresa May did at the Home Office with the Human Rights Act.
<not a security guy>
Sounds like something a browser plugin could do - maybe just an additional feature to NoScript, to by default block communication by scripts to domains other than their origin?
Also, isn't this called XSS, and already dealt with by security protocols?
Intelligence is the thing that kicks in when instinct has reached its limits.
I see it as the other way round (with a fair bit of neuroscience backing me up). Intelligence, properly applied, is very powerful. Instinct is what kicks in when intelligence is stretched beyond capacity. A great example is the amygdala hijack, where the intelligent neocortex can't cope and the emotional/instinctive amygdala takes control.
This is why AI doesn't exist. Every time a computer gets intelligent enough to contemplate its own existence, it realises how shit it is and deletes itself.
Yeah, there's all these stock phrases people love to wheel out, they didn't mean anything in the first place and they're even worse now that everybody's heard them a hundred times before.
"I apologise if any offence was caused"
(no admission that I was the one who caused it)
"We have implemented robust procedures to make sure that this specific case doesn't happen again"
(we lost the unencrypted CD on a train, next time it'll be a USB stick in a taxi)
"We have upgraded our systems, and the small minority who used X just need to migrate to Y"
(we have downgraded our systems, and the 40% of customers who only signed up to use X are now SOL)
... and so on. Give me a week's worth of news, and I could collect dozens...
Yup, I think the lawyer is incorrect as well.
Trouble is, until and unless something like this is tested in court, you just can't know for certain. Hence there is always legal risk, albeit low, even if your lawyers confirm you're doing everything right.
We ALWAYS have a right to complain.
The objections have all been to the sheer quantity of data that would be stored on said card
And the fact that the list of people who had access to said data included virtually every civil servant in the country. The proposed protection against abuse, as I recall, was "staff will be disciplined if they access information inappropriately". Hardly a strong deterrant!
So Labour welcome immigrants, and the Tories create a "hostile environment".
Wonder why they believe most immigrants would be Labour voters...
Well said. An ID card is a long way from an extensive database, and it's a shame that Labour tried to conflate the two - it always looked like the ID cards were a front, a smokescreen. First "it's just a bit of plastic", then "it won't be a central database of everything" (that's technically true if your database is distributed across multiple servers...). Now the ID card itself is tarnished with the autocratic "citizen database" concept in the public eye.
But an ID card - just an ID card - would have been very useful to me when attempting to prove my identity to corporations, from landlords to the local public library, who insist on seeing a paper landline bill with my current name and address on it. (I'm still not allowed to borrow books, because the broadband is in my landlord's name.)
That said, if my passport isn't considered sufficient proof of identity, I don't see that an ID card would be either.
"... ultimately go bankrupt owing
Quite frankly, this is a pathetic argument - that obeying the law would put jobs at risk, so we shouldn't have to. It's been used plenty by truly nasty companies like the tobacco industry, and it flies as well as a penguin with lead boots.
If you have to lay off employees to pay for the cleaning up of your criminal activities, the cost of their redundancy settlements is yours to bear. Perhaps whatever fines Germany and the EU level at Audi should go to compensate those harmed by their actions - for instance their employees, and anybody who bought an Audi, or breathed in the exhaust created by one.
When I first played Deus Ex, I found a helicopter that, when targeted, showed the help-text "Attack Helicopter".
I unloaded several clips into it before I realised it was a noun, not an instruction..
My name, job title and employer are not secret, but I still take off my ID badge before I go to the pub.
They do say that a person's ability with computers is in direct proportion to the scale of cockups they produce ...
So people have known about a major change for ages, but not put into place systems to deal with it, or even agreed how those systems should work or what they should achieve?
At least this is a unique case, and nothing like this could possible happen again, ever. And definitely not on 29 March 2019.
Bitcoin seemed like such a good idea - with a few obvious problems, which may or may not have been solveable (eg preventing tax evasion). In the good ol' days, it was a replacement currency which could not be controlled by corrupt governments.
And then - like everything from fiat currencies to houses - it was corrupted by investors and venture capitalists. Starting with Etherium, what began as a form of fully-democratic money, almost a digital version of a pre-market barter economy, became instead yet another investment opportunity, creating bubbles and speculation which is ruining (has ruined?) it for the ordinary folks it was intended for.
In response to the frequent news headline "Should I invest in cryptocurrency", I offer the answer: NO. It is a currency, not an investment. Its purpose is for interpersonal trade, not speculative profit. "The Markets" have no business getting their corrupt, grubby paws on it.
But people have said that about houses for decades now - they should be homes, not investments - and nobody has taken any notice. I don't hold out much hope.
not.known, your post makes a lot of sense. Trouble is, this falls down in practice, on two points:
(1) Researchers discovered (years ago) that with just 150 "likes" on Facebook, they can predict your behaviour more accurately than your spouse. I suspect that just from the language, phrasing and grammar of your posts, they can get a pretty good idea of your voting preferences.
(2) Much more importantly, people like CA don't care about you. They only care about the majority. Not even that, in a parliamentary democracy - they just need to identify a sufficient number of potential swing voters. They might never have heard of you, or processed a single byte of information about you - but when they swing 5% of the electorate to favour the party you despise, you've still got to put up with the election results.
"The only thing people value is other people they want to talk to are on the same network"
I'm not convinced, nor am I convinced that people on Gmail prefer their friends to also use Gmail. People want to do social things - it's the things they do, and the people they do it with, that they care about. Services, not providers
I don't know, or care, what phone network my friends are on (or myself, without opening my phone and checking) - I can just call them, and interact the same whether they're on my network or not. If that was true for Facebook and Twitter (spoiler alert - it isn't) then people might talk about how their social or microblogging PROVIDER was better, but since they're talking to you on the same SERVICE, they (probably) won't be urging you to switch.
Incidentally, I much prefer Google+ to Facebook. It's so peaceful over here...
mmm, what does "loyal" mean, though? It can run the gamut from "slavering defense if Zuck commits murder" through to "forced to keep my login so I can check a work-related page once a month". Anybody who is loyal, in the traditional sense of the word, to a multinational corporation that couldn't care less about individual users, is stupider than the average bear.
As the go-to techie for most family, friends and colleagues, it's certainly frustrating when you're asked what to do, spend your own time researching the best advice for that particular person's abilities and idiosynracies, and then be told that they don't want to do it that way. WHY DID YOU EVEN ASK ME??? I've found a method that's easier AND better for you, collected all the hardware and software, and written full instructions - if I knew you were going to ignore it, I could have spent the time rewatching my Monty Python DVDs...
Yes, installing an operating system at all exposes your PC to malware and other forms of cybercrime. Although of course, some operating systems are worse than others
Microsoft naming no names.
I think you meant highest common factor.
That's 2.8 minutes of my life I'll never get back
Big Brother is watching you ... because he cares.
Buckminster Fuller likes geodesic domes? Who'd have thought?
The thing that really worries me about FB is that deleting your account makes no difference. You don't need to have signed up for others to tag you, building up a profile of a person who has never been a user, but even that doesn't really matter. The truly terrifying thing is that FB have unprecedented analysis of all human behaviour. With just a few data points - which don't even need to be from FB - they and their partners can analyse your behaviour, compare it to their database of a third of humans, and predict and influence your opinions and actions. If you use a computer, FB own you.
Exactly. The cursor and mouse are separate, and a teacher shouldn't assume that they can use the shorthand of pretending they're the same with brand new students.
After reading this story, it took me only a few seconds to come up with a game I think would help - a variation on the "wire loop" game (where you hold a metal loop and move it along a winding wire, avoiding letting them touch). Use the mouse to move a sprite around a maze without it touching the sides, and click when you reach the end. 5 levels, increasing in difficulty, should give almost anybody the basics - and help to embed the concept of physical objects equating to virtual ones.
That's why we have political journalists - even El Reg - whose job is to read these things, explain them, and then summarise the pros and cons as that journalist/publication sees them.
Sure, it's biased, but there are lots of journalists with different biases, and a biased but informed opinion is better than no opinion at all. Anybody who disagrees is able to read the original source, or at least the parts that interest them.
And besides, "hardly anybody would read it" is not a reason to deliberately choose to conceal the information.
And in fact, on any planet, the dominant star will appear white to creatures that evolved eyes while living on said planet.
Actually I imagine that humans moving to a truly red environment would adapt pretty quickly to perceive it as white - given that we can adapt to wearing "upside-down glasses"!
Thanks for the work - I was going to do this, you've saved me a lot of effort!
Back in the 8-bit days of 64kB of RAM and no HDD, programmers learned to make neat and optimised code to work within the constraints. As memory increased, these skills withered and atrophied.
I had high hopes for smartphone apps - with so many cheap Android phones having less than 100MB, would developers relearn efficient design? The answer is yes and no: I have a lot of fairly complex apps by small studios that take up a few hundred kB. But the big developers seem incapable of doing the same. How is Stellarium 43MB and CoPilot 57MB (without maps), but Kindle is a whopping 339MB? Why is the Google search app larger than any graphical game I have installed?
I teach physics, and one common GCSE question is "What is the mains voltage?" The "correct" answer is 230V, if you write 240V you'll lose the mark. Few kids are interested in why it's changed, so I just warn them to ignore their parents if they use the "wrong" value.
You honestly think he has the attention span to type a four-digit code every time he tweets?
That's a rather useless definition of insanity. The Large Hadron Collider, for example, smashed zillions (I don't know the actual number) of protons into each other before detecting the Higgs boson.
Or how about coin flipping? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern comes to mind - when they spend ages flipping heads, and considering the implausibility of the result being the SAME every time.
Trying to figure out whether you're a fanboi, wintard or androne.
Do we have a word for "none of the above"?
Does the Windows version work with a photo of your face? The Apple version is supposed to not work if you do that.
Well since it doesn't work with a real face, I see no reason it would work with a photo!
I'd hoped that when the Secret Service took his phone away to secure it, they'd install a fake Twitter app that didn't actually broadcast ... They could even have hooked up a few AI bots to argue with him!
Oh dear. Should be inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the distance between them.
Have you seen it?
It's definitely not a reboot (which I have as little love for as you, by the way - BSG excepted). And the story is definitely not the same as the original. I kept trying to predict the twists, based on movies in general and the original in particular, and failed almost every time.
I suppose you could say the pace is slow - at least for the first half. I very much liked it, and thought it worked well, but that's a matter of preference.
Bear in mind also that if you don't like the direction (I did), Ridley Scott was little more than an executive producer.
Still, in the interests of balance, it's interesting to see my first poor review of 2049.
Sorry AC, but it's worse than that. In money purchase schemes, you pay an excessive amount to the fund managers - in some cases, if you've left a company after only a few years, these fees can actually wipe out your entire fund in short order ...
Ex pensions actuary here ... Lee is spot on. His figures, while based on a couple of naive assumptions, are very close to the more sophisticated actuarial figures. Final salary pensions are completely unsustainable, as younger employees are starting to find (government cuts, pay cuts if you're employed by the government, etc. in large part to finance final salary obligations).
However, what are we going to do about it? Either we carry on paying generous entitlements and the country goes bust - or we go to money purchase pensions, which most non-government employers have already done, and our pensioners can't afford to survive. (This gets even worse when you consider the housing crisis, and the number of future pensioners who will be renting at exhorbitant prices.)
We need an entirely different solution, and I for one haven't heard a good one that seems likely to work. Although I do think Basic Income has a chance.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018