Posts by Fat Northerner 59 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Jul 2011
This is correct. It's exactly what we used to do. They can't admit that their business leader's been outmanoeuvred because of their business by join the dots, and they want the money back.
She was reading business management from a book on the way to work in my opinion. Pure greed.
We used to do it when we were a superpower, they're doing it now they are.
It's about creating such unbelievable threats that he backs down and gives the money back.
imho, In reality the woman in charge of HP shouldn't be allowed to work in business again, but the US won't see it that way, because she's an American and female. Her incompetence and greed caused it, and they want the money back.
It's the equivalent of Peter Cook in Monte Carlo or Bust announcing to the French Police, "I'm British you know" in the hope that Britain would conquer the country (like we used to,) if they screwed with our citizens.
Superpowers do this sort of thing. Different rules apply. Contrast the difference between Union Carbide and Deepwater Horizon. It's exact what we did, so it's hypocritical to criticise. They'll threaten him with life in a super max, he'll do a deal with the Department of Justice. Fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it did, the lady at the top of HP would be serving time for incompetence imho.
With pathological need to reinvent the wheel in his favourite language.
Simply refuses to use anything Microsoft. It must be a framework on a blog, completely unsupported and with no fixed code base, but has lots of programming by side effect. Doesn't do half the things C# does, but it's not Microsoft because Bill is the devil.
Treats the whole organisation as a place which is there to fund his "creativity"
Repeat until bankrupt.
If you want to control the government Daggerchild, you have to get them to do what you want. The same is true for facilitating the protection of our women folk.
And you can't just tell them to do it, because they won't. Politicians have close protection, houses in Primrose hill, and total response of the police. They just don't give a f*ck about you for more than one day every five years.
So if you want your womenfolk protected, from nutters which you know have unique abilities, then seed the idea with the intelligence services as to how they'll be caught, and act in that fashion against MPs. They will then fund the security service's ability to detect you, and by extension, the nutters.
When they look closely into you, they'll see you're just some capricious average joe, and aside from listening to your daughter masturbate through bugs built into plug sockets, tracking your every movement, and following you on holidays abroad, there'll not be any really intrusive privacy concerns.
The only real downside is you'll lose security clearance, but who wants it with so many Common Purpose chippy shouldered fourth wave feminist b1tches with humanities degrees working in the public sector.
The BoE are full of retards.
If you asked me in my job to solve a problem, and I couldn't, then I'd be sacked.
There are too many people from excellent universities, with high grades in subjects which attract thick people, getting into power.
I'd give every one in the Treasury, the BoE and the FCA, the request to solve it or be sacked.
This would then yield results.
Too many innumerate posh middle class management types.
Margaret Thatcher fixed the problems the country had by applying intelligence to solve the problems.
The four stupid retards took her solution, and kept on applying it, because they simply lacked the brains to know what to do next.
This is like all the economists in world, thinking, "Duh, Keynes did X, and Friedman did Y. That gives us two possible solutions." The problem isn't that Keynes' solution and Friedman's solutions didn't work, because they did, at the time. The problem is that no economist since has come up with anything new, because they're all thick as pig shit.
Do you get one for free when you pass180?
It's quite funny. Because the Tories halt spending, and inheritance bails them out, after the labour party wastes money on people who'll never pay it back, and labels it investment.
The collective G of all the economists in government, except C's (who is obviously really bright, and nothing like all the other economists,) is less than the night shift in Google's cleaning department.
Economics is a subject middle class semi numerate kids take, because their parents know it's clean and overpaid.
Architecture is for middle class kids who like the building trade but couldn't make anything if their lives depended on it , to keep the money in house. Builders think they're wan×ers.
Economics is for middle class kids who like sums, but can't count, to keep the money in house. Mathematicians think they're wan×ers.
Politicians is for middle class kids who want to manage, but can't do anything, to keep the money in house. Company owners think they're wan×ers.
Programme management is for middle class kids who want to sound more important.
It's the nature of the useless to want to be hands off, and well paid for it.
Software architecture is no different. The ones who can are obstructed by the ones who can't at every turn.
GCHQ, and NSA, you know, the organisations which employ people (who also have children and loved ones,) both exist to find out what is being said to whom, by whom.
So as soon as you start playing clever buggers, you stand out like a sore thumb, and they have billion dollar budgets.
It's just a complete waste of time. They'll still find out what you're saying, but they'll spend more of your tax doing it.
We have no privacy, but so what? There are many, many people who've been under total observation by both these organisations, because they're... well strange, for over a decade, and they're still free to give their strange opinions, crack jokes about killing politicians, slag off their council or the BBC, or their wife, school etc. None of these people are political prisoners.
Trying to hide communications from the mainstream just costs the taxpayer's money.
The science had been invented to allow them to establish it would happen.
There's been documentary after documentary which has clarified this.
I think the most pertinent one contains a line, I paraphrase, "We knew everything about these guys, names, dob, history, allegiances etc. What we didn't know was that they were on the US soil at the time."
The people that protect us, (and despite me never having worked for any of them, I still believe that they are there for that, despite having the view of several miscarriages of justice which were necessary for the bigger picture,) had in the previous two years asked if they could test new developments in mathematics, because they were finding it very difficult to identify IT aware nutters using conventional means.
The US senate refused permission in 1999. This was on the BBC. The US Senate was full of the same kinds of people who populate most parliaments, e.g. non scientific, ego centricists, but they did do their job of protecting civil liberties.
It was an inevitable consequence of an IT aware Al Queda, that sooner or later the senate's refusal to allow exclusion based geo-locint, would result in a catastrophe, and the whole Big Data science has been a state sponsored attempt to harness the world's brains to find nutters, in my opinion.
I will go to my grave, hopefully a long time from now, still supporting these people, despite terrible miscarriages of justice, because the cost benefit analysis shows we are better off with them, especially if they have to justify themselves.
There have been dozens of documentaries which reference the Senate's refusal to allow geo-loc analysis on nutters, largely because had they done it, they'd have found them.
Your grandchildren will find out under the 100 year rule. Hahaha :-)
Joking aside, I'm a person who believes science rarely goes backwards, and I also believe, because I have a very lopsided brain I'm of the view that people who don't understand something think its impossible, because they just can't conceive it.
They usually don't take too kindly to being told that there's someone cleverer than them either. It comes in two forms, resentment, and attempts at job protection.
As you can see, I can't string two sentences together.
I personally couldn't be bothered in the slightest, about plug sockets that are listening devices, phones that are tracking devices/bugs/ etc... or even enormous databases that hold all kinds of data on everyone and allow all kinds of experimental algorithmic mining to find out what everyone's motivations, hopes, wishes, and fetishes are.
I'd even help them come up with the maths if I could.
What does bother me is the entire concept of what they are able to then do, to people who only want best for their country, because they may have politically different, or critical views, simply because it advances their career or personal interests, with no visibility or compensation for loss.
It is simply wrong. Not least when you see how well off, people who've basically committed child rape and murder by other people, and they've been protected too.
" There are too many people and too few terrorists, so if your false positive rate is anywhere near the realm of the possible you will have far too many leads to follow (a "99.99% accurate" test would give you 3,000 leads in the UK alone - it would take something like 30,000 field operatives --- and probably another 10,000 support staff --- to keep an eye on them 24x7)."
I heard that on a train in 1998, by some guy who thought he was clever. It was no more true then, than it is now.
Can you at install time, make it look and feel, and act exactly the same as windows 7?
I don't want stupid boxes.
I explicitly want cloud connectivity disabled at install.
I don't want to give my email address to use it.
I'm not interested in apps.
etc.
Other people will know better than me. Should I get it? (No MS shills please.)
Than having to remember 90% of what I'm working on, while I focus on the one thing that Microsoft thinks I'm most involved in, at any given moment.
There's nothing so useful in fending off Alzheimer's as having to remember a map in detail for instance, while I'm trying to explain a route to someone.
Thank god Microsoft know what's best for me. I don't need windows. Great race, the Romans.
>UEFI secureboot = better security
Is this what's stopping me from slotting an SSD in?
>Windows 10 - its great, try out the tech preview
Don't want it.
>Windows App store - Easier access to applications
Don't want it. I want to own the software.
>Forced cloud - Umm no, there is nothing forced on the user whatsoever
How do you disable all cloud, for all time, for all applications at install?
>Subscriptions - an option in addition to the traditional perpetual rights, use whatever suits you
I don't rent anything.
>nice try but you are clearly talking out your backside
Say what you like. I'm not upgrading.
The Ribbon, Windows 8, Tiles, Clouding everything, Homegroups, Libraries.
I hate it all.
It is the story of life though isn't it.
1. Company becomes uber success, and government then demands they employ care in the community types.
2. They then outnumber the techies who build it, and by weight of numbers demand a say.
The same has happened in government.
The health service doctors are managed by secretaries.
People with IQs of 160 and degrees in engineering build Hawker Harriers which are given away by people who have IQs of 90 and degrees in History.
Lions led by donkeys.
The mistake was to allow predominantly female and metrosexual sales staff direct product development.
I won't buy windows 10 either. I don't want my data on someone else's server, and I want to buy a product, not rent it. You rent anything that flies, floats or f**ks. Everything else, you buy.
The world is populated by "UI Experts" who've never written a line of code in their life, they are "Experts" in "Experience"
I wouldn't trust any of these people to toast bread.
So, can we have a button, top right, which switches between "Their seamless experience" and the old fashioned Windows interface, which simply worked, with an added Up button in explorer, the return to a search which radically just searched files when you wanted to, and didn't wander off searching things just in case you wanted to, and then only searched things it thinks you might be interested in, or marketeers have paid for you to see first.
Completely radical, I recognise, but with the removal of the dozens of background processes, letting Microsoft approve and be aware of everything you do, Windows would absolutely fly.
I don't want whole screens of information blocking everything I do, because I can't minimize it or shrink it without removing it. I don't want a window, just because it's playing music, to look like the turner prize. I just want text menus, buttons that look like buttons and so on.
I don't want an Icon which is what they think save as is, today, and a different icon in the next version of the product. I don't want big flat tiles. If I want to know the news, I'll look at it. If I want my wife to see my porn, I'll show her it, and so I don't want them putting pictures on folder icons showing publically what's in folders that I'm not looking at. I don't want libraries. I want to know exactly where I've put something. I don't want aero peeks. I want all the rubbish chopped off and every CPU cycle going towards improving the performance.
Google is no better. They used to have links to websites along the top. News, shopping etc. Now they're "Apps" and you have to click a link to "Show the Apps" and then wander around looking for it in the morass of coloured pictures.
Jesus.
Why can't Microsoft get it into their thick skull. I don't want their latest style experiment. A computer is a tool for working.
Men have 50% more accidents than women, but drive 2.25 times the distance on average.
Before the European union feminists changed the law to get men's pensions, Insurers always used to go by women having 50% more accidents per million miles.
Men used to cost more to insure when young, because their typical accident was a 100mph motorway shunt or losing it on a bend, or taking off on a humpback bridge in the dark and landing in a house.
And while I've not had any of those for 15 years, women's accidents were misjudging corners, distances etc, and scratching paintwork.
And while 80% of them involved male drivers, being hit by a woman would still make me in that statistic even though I wasn't to blame.
You won't get an answer.
Thankfully, neither of us are hypocrites.
I support the oppression of foreigners to get oil, and have no problem therefore criticising the government if they don't secure it.
I do however stand side by side with your stated intent to not hold it against the government, when your children and or mother dies for the lack of fuel for an ambulance. Your stance has principles I could only wish for.
The other thing is that I've started turning up at places where they want to squeeze more performance out of a box, and aside from one or two massive write only audit tables, the whole of the rest of the DB would fit, indexes and all, into ram with tons to spare.
My idea was a system, where each node models say, "A low paid shop assistant," and the "transaction log" is merely a "Stock Added", "Stock sold list", "Schema change" thus providing a very long feed and audit trail.
Before each move, the node asks the central server, or on of it's neighbours, if there are any more transactions, and applies them before it does anything.
Thus, if you want more machines, you simply add another one, and set latest transaction to zero. It then rapidly builds the store representation from nothing, after which it announces it is ready to serve.
Of course, the cloud bypasses lots of the problems it was intended to solve, but only if you trust it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
