"Some New Mexicans, I assume, are good people."
Yes, and they need to be protected.
6634 posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
Static HTML will reflow and is safe. Folks use PDF because they are particularly fond of a particular layout, so "reflow" isn't a good thing for them. (In most cases, people are simply publishing information of course and the layout they are so fond of is totally unimportant, but a Wrong Requirement is still a requirement. Sigh!)
Well you certainly won't find the answers to those questions by reading the summaries in the popular press, so I suppose the original research is the only way to go.
(I do sometimes read reports that, if true, imply embarrassing levels of idiocy or naivety in the scientists concerned. I always remind myself that they didn't write the newspaper article and I'm sure the original paper addresses the glaring weaknesses.)
A quarter of a century is not "ancient history". It's the gap between WW1 and WW2, for example, and you'd be a fool to suggest that the Germans had forgotten the former by the start of the latter. It is also less than the gap between WW2 and my childhood, during which I distinctly remember West Germany being an inspiring example of how *not* to forget the important stuff of history.
"Happens more often than you think. About 10% of the people listed as father on a birth certificate can be shown to not be the biological father. Not that it matters a lot of the time, being a parent is about raising a kid, not just siring them."
!0% sounds rather high. Any references for that? Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly about the raising versus siring distinction. Any prick can do the latter.
Well I cannot speak for Qt (*), but since C++ has had fully automated memory management for over 20 years, I don't think the *language* can be blamed for these kinds of bugs.
(* I did look at Qt4 a number of years ago and found that they were using macros to emulate exception handling, home-grown collection classes, and had a cute little pre-compiler to generate yet more macros. I concluded that if I wanted an MFC-lookalike then I'd probably just stick with MFC. I dare say it has improved since then, but is it perhaps still "bugwards compatible" with the older versions?)
"All of these plague languages like C and C++."
Plague? Er, no. These are basically unheard of in C++ unless you are interfacing to an external interface that chose "C" calling conventions (typically for portability). That happens, a lot, but I wouldn't describe it as a plague and you can insulate your code by writing a set of one-liners.
I see no reason for them to be common in C either, but since I haven't really touched the language in a quarter of a century I will let others comment on that.
The article gives a strong suggestion as to who was surveyed:
"Developer recruiting biz HackerRank surveyed ..."
...so that would be "people looking for a job".
My reading of the article was that they can't actually do any of this yet. The OP's concern (and mine) is that if it turns out to be possible to convert "imagined speech" into external output then this might be a nightmarish device in the wrong hands.
Obviously we, the good guys, need to find out whether this is possible before anyone else, so the research should be pursued with all haste.
You think that recent events in Westminster have not engraved that message on the inside skull of every Scot on the planet, living or dead?
Come to think of it, the same probably applies to every English person too. Only this week we've had the "take back control" lobby suggesting that Parliament should be suspended in order to protect the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
They both appear to consist of some "background" describing a fashionable combination of language features (although the language features themselves would all be recognisable to a computer scientist from the 70s, if not 60s) and the specific "claims" relating to the particular design of their compilation system (although the claims don't seem to go beyond sticking a few compilers together in a manner not unlike "make").
The claims also do not mention Swift in particular and so are presumably asserted across any languages that either resemble C or have an object-oriented flavour. C++ and Java spring to mind immediately to mind as examples with both C-like and object-oriented-flavour. Good luck with that...
The only sane model of Brexit is the (realisable) one where we sent in our Article 50 notice on the morning after the result, spent a couple of months confirming that there was no middle ground on which either side could build a deal, and then spent the remaining year-and-three-quarters making preparations for a hard brexit without chaos at borders and several million nationals on both side wondering whether they were going to wake up as illegal immigrants in the country where they'd lived for however many years.
However, we got dithering, delay, incompetence and no evidence of any preparation whatsoever. I don't think anyone voted for that.
"The bottom line is that implementation of APIs and interfaces are copyrightable, but the APIs and interfaces themselves should not be."
Exactly. However, any jurisdiction that disagrees will not be too troubled by the argument either way. It's domestic software industry will disappear in double-quick time and the judges' only contact with "software" will be in the form of shrink-wrap packages written abroad.
Er, what country are you living in, coz the UK still sells beer in "proper" pints.
And that proper pint is actually a legally defined number of ml because the UK adopted metric before it adopted the EU. That may have been before you were born, though.
Your snipping of Mr Rosen's text makes it look like he is implying that it is impossible, in law, to put something in the public domain. That, in turn, would make all the references to the public domain that occur in law and all the mentions of the concept that have ever been made in court cases, a waste of breath. I suspect that the legal profession might beg to differ on that one. I further suspect that Mr Rosen's full text probably doesn't imply exactly that.
Too true. Yes, I should have remembered that one, too. And there were the Magdelene Laundries. Like the previous AC said, it is quite depressing just how many times this has been tried when you stop and think about it. And usually by people who were convinced that it was the *morally correct* solution to some "problem".
"You're still using static music files stored locally on a storage device?!?"
Well, that storage device is more portable than the radio mast that brings me Spotify coverage.
And more secure.
And cheaper to run.
And non-revocable by some DRM-infatuated music exec.
"The easy answer is to not use social media certain ways. "
Perhaps public officials could just accept that they need two accounts, cannot block or censor free speech on the job-related one, and therefore ought to be careful what they say (and provoke) on that account.
Then, and harking back to dozens of El Reg articles from the last 20 years, perhaps *employers* could just chill and accept that what goes on in a *private* social media account is *not* a reason to sack someone.
"Read the original Koine Greek version of Revelation, and ..."
Uh, what? Hold on a damn minute! I've just had Voland's right hand telling me to learn a basketful of Slavic languages so that I could read the original interview and now you want me to learn classical Greek as well. Just *when* am I supposed to find the time for this?
Perhaps I should just take the view that any god who does not reveal themselves to me in my own language clearly isn't worthy of my support.
"A real killer is the infernal WinSxS directory which merrily chews up many GBs of storage of duplicated files. In theory the "disk cleanup" process can tidy this, however this often doesn't clear up much beyond a few GB."
Many, if not all, of those *duplicated* files are actually hard-linked so that the duplicates are avoided. However, naive programs like Windows Explorer mis-report the storage.
I think a worse case of pointless bloat in Windows is its (default) habit of retaining the MSI for every single patch and application *ever* installed, just in case you wanted to roll back.
"William I conquered the whole of England"
Yes, and your logic is fine right up until the Civil War, at which point we find that King Oliver the First conquers the whole country and gives it to *his* cronies instead.
Which is again fine, up until the twentieth century where we find that would-be-King Adolf *fails* to conquer the country only because of defeat by ... well pretty much every man, woman and child in the country, at which point it presumably belongs to them "by right of conquest". Of course, like all conquerors, they've mostly (by now) passed it on to their descendants.
The other great change in the last 950 years is that we've noticed that while "right of conquest" is an excellent (because indisputable) mechanism for deciding who has power, it is a pretty crap method of deciding what to do with that power, so for the past few centuries it has been traditional to delegate that bit to our servants. However, if the servants are going to make *quite* such a pigs ear of it, perhaps that policy needs to be revisited.
"Does Windows support this?"
Yes. Use FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE (writing from memory) when you create the file.
Supported since NT 3.1, probably because NT was designed to be a superset of both POSIX and VMS (and probably also OS/2 and DOS) and because Dave Cutler knew his shit.
"Why the hell is support for individual hardware a kernel thing?"
I don't think it is. I think you can happily build a Linux kernel with most of that hardware support chopped out and then load the drivers you want separately as modules, but the normal development practice is to include all those drivers in the kernel-space source tree (so that they can agree on interfaces) and so they get released together.
Thank you for this suggestion. It's the first one that provides a plausible fuel source extending from the spark to the face.
The fuel needs to be vapour, or else the claimant needs to be holding the spark right up against her face. In the latter case, she needs to have left the mask off long enough for the whole room to have become oxygen rich, in which case the whole room would have gone up like Apollo 1, which is not what has been reported.
"BOFH part: If you tried to enable html, or send html, or click on a link, you were sent to a "reeducation camp". In this IT Siberia, people are forced to watch presentations on email safety. Powerpoint shows designed to crush the spirit and create unthinking compliance. One viewgraph every 30s for an hour. The quiz at the end requires a perfect score. Imperfect score? Re-do the training."
If you treat users like idiots, they will act like idiots. Crush their spirit and create unthinking compliance, and they will just stop thinking. The good ones will leave. The bad ones will be left to run your civil service and keep the nation ticking over. Is that what you want?
Also, if you have the technical means to detect when people try to do bad stuff, is it not negligent of you not to simply prevent it? That one-hour punishment session sounds like a waste of taxpayers money just to satisfy some perverted BOFH-like urge. I sincerely hope that the government in question isn't mine, but based on how fscking stoopid they have been recently, I suspect I may be disappointed.
I think it would be straight-forward to write a HTML parser-cum-re-writer that did most of the sanitisation necessary. Both MIME and HTML are well-defined and text parsing as a technology is older than I am.
I'd probably want to ban hyperlinks altogether. This forces authors to put the actual URL in plain sight, which makes all sorts of scams more obvious. It also forces readers to manually cut and paste it into a browser. If you can't do that, you need to learn a bit more about computers before you are safe to use one.
"These means that well over 90% of people learn on a "stick"/manual gearbox."
Yes, but if we are all driving electric cars by 2030 then there are a lot of people learning to drive now with a manual gearbox who will never actually drive such a beast after they pass their test.
"To go with your analogy, it's more like someone tried to open your door, found it unlocked, and came into your place to leave a note for you saying that you left your door unlocked."
Or did they just post the note through your letter box, in which case I suspect you'd be laughed out of court. Tricky things, analogies. Given the cost of a single sheet of paper and a few micrograms of ink, I think one could reasonably argue that this was a reasonable way of passing an important message using the only available channel.
"But <b?everyone</b> runs Outlook."
Really? Who the fuck uses Outlook? I haven't touched it in 20 years and I can't recall seeing anyone round the office using it for a long time either. That's not to say that they are using anything better, but any talk of Outlook as some kind of default option for email sounds very odd to my ears.
Similarly, who uses Exchange, and why? It costs a packet, forces you to use Outlook, and delivers nothing that you can't get from free software. You'll be telling me next that these people use IIS to serve web pages, or something?
"They can break the website, and at the same time patch Chrome so that it un-breaks it on load."
That's a pretty strong claim. If anyone has evidence that Chrome has code to un-break websites controlled by Google then I think that would be fairly clearly evidence of an attempt to leverage a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another, which is illegal in quite a few places (including the US).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019