The worst place for this is France.
In that country, if you want to have a salaried employment, you have no choice but to be a "collaborateur"!
576 posts • joined 16 Aug 2012
I agree that Windows is getting worse and worse in many respects and that Windows 10 is simply a study in alienation for tech-savvy people.
But, as a near-beginner, I keep having problems working with Linux.
Every time I try to install Linux (other than in a VM), I cannot get the wifi to work. It works fine with wired internet, but nothing I do, whether by intuition, common sense or following posts on the Internet, solves the issue. It also tends to freeze half the time when recovering from sleep mode, and I have to reboot the machine. And also there seems to be no way to get some applications (Firefox, etc.) to have bigger text in their menus - the content is fine. The main application UI is all microscopic squiggles. Other than that, I would gladly work in Linux only and dunk Windows. Especially for programming purposes...
“Add that to the fact that significant money has been spent on two carriers, two very large carriers - there is a very strong commitment to having those carriers available or at least one of those carriers available at all times"
> "A whole carrier available, at all times - are you sure that's feasible for only £6.5 billion?"
"OK - maybe not a whole carrier, but at least half of one of those carriers...or a quarter...or a percentage of one of those carriers comprised between the said quarter and 0%, available at all times."
> "Ah, now that sounds more realistic!"
The problem is - there are a select group of nouveau-riche multi-billionnaires around whose businesses are so successful, they are despoiling all the value from local businesses in many countries, and effectively redistributing income / profits from neighbourhoods, communities, and cities, to mega-rich invididuals and powerful shareholders. Amazon (one of the best examples of a monolithic business destroying small local businesses, high streets and pushing down wages); uber (destroying the livelihood of thousands of hard-working professionals by offering cheaper services and paying rubbish wages). All these companies offer extreme convenience to the consumer, much improved over wht existed before, and therefore it is almost impossible for most people to resist the temptation to use their services. But this is like the devil's temptation: at the end of the day, most consumers must earn their living too, and such companies will eventually threaten that livelihood, and plunge them into poverty, making them unable to afford much convenience. And I have not even touched upon Google (near monopoly of online advertising, with ability to make or break struggling small businesses through 'keywords' buying, frightening perceived monopoly on truth, destroyer of libraries...) and Facebook (with its huge, illicit stores of personal data and near monopoly of human interactions among certain stratas of society - the most vulnerable ones unfortunately).
This may be termed progress, but it's happened before, and the results aren't very progressive for the vast majority of people affected.
What you say is only correct because the defenders use standard processes that are predictable: "common practice". Once you depart from this predictability, an attack becomes much harder and potentially less effective.
Nobody will EVER give you such answers. Instead they'll refer you to pure maths papers or lectures, in which abstract mathematical concepts are discussed. But implementation? Means, methods? Practical info? No chance. After all, quantum computing is homeopathic IT.
I was once called by a student from my old UK college. She said she was part of a new programme to connect students to old alumnuses (or whatever the blighters are called) and asked me for "advice" about life, given that I was an older, more experienced man.
I took the bait like a complete mug, not realising that I was falling for a classic hook and line trick.
Here I was, waxing lyrical about the meaning of life, and she drawing me out further and further, when she turned the conversation smoothly round and said something along the lines of "you know, we want everybody to have the same opportunities as you've had. To achieve this, he college wants to build a theatre and drama centre. Can you make a contribution?".
At this point, you know you've been played a fool, and to avoid feeling ridicule, you would normally offer to make a contribution, and the call being recorded, it would be a firm commitment.
A firm commitment to an academic institution that happens to have an endowment of £250,000,000, not including the priceless grounds, buildings and possessions of the college itself. From someone struggling to make ends meet. For building a "drama centre".
I used to have compuserve back in 1995, and people used to come over and beg me to use it. For some reason, they found it captivating. I remember one bloke who visited me with a very nice looking young lady after a date, around 11pm. He left her sitting on the sofa and after asking me if he could use the service, sat down at the computer, absolutely fixated, for hours, while I flirted with the girl and eventually committed acts of entirely consensual sexual harassment upon her, less than 1 metre away from him--and HE DIDN'T BAT AN EYELID!
In other news...
Joe Clogs, a senior executive of Google, was yesterday appointed to head the ICO's policy unit. "He will not leave Google, he will be here on a 20 year sabbatical to help us adjust our procedures to the requirements of the modern world" said the head of the ICO in a press release.
Why are you all so worried about the text of the T&Cs or contractual terms?
Have you ever thought what might happen in case of a dispute with one of these multi-million or multi-billion companies?
Have any of you ever taken a dispute to court in a bid to enforce your rights against one of these multi-corps?
I did it, once. The case, supposedly before the "small claims court"*, concerned a blatant, brazen theft of artwork from a poor artist by a huge multinational hotel chain (whose name starts with an "H" and ends with "att", there being a "y" in between, and which shall therefore remain anonymous here for all intents and purposes).
The hotel chain hired a huge, dodgy UK law firm to fight us (the artist and me, her representative, not a lawyer). Their entire approach consisted of legal trickery and provocative insults, the case being clear-cut.
At the hearing, the judge turned to the artist and said: "you know you could lose your home if you go to court and you lose the case?"
She then dismissed our claim, but mercifully didn't allow costs, basically telling the other side "I know you're lying and being dishonest".
Given that she was closely related to me, and the loss of her family's home or any part thereof would have been a disaster, I was RELIEVED to lose the case and get off so lightly.
Good bye, courts! As one honourable commentard pointed out above, the legal system is for the poor or the rich & powerful. Anybody else NEEDN'T APPLY.
* It turns out there's no such thing as a Small Claims Court in the UK; it's just branding for "crown court case involving a small claim", especially if your opponent decides to hire lawyers.
"we never surrender the freedoms we have won, and that terrorists are so determined to take away"
Are the terrorists really so keen to get us to surrender our freedoms? Frankly, I don't think it's the terrorists' number one concern. In what way would it benefit them? On the other hand, there is indeed someone who, throughout history, has sought to get us to surrender our freedoms: the government.
The question everyone is asking is, when are all these fancy non-degrading solid-state memory technologies we keep hearing of going to reach the market? I mean, at the moment, we have a deficient technology (Flash), which we're mass-producing, and in a bid to cut costs and maximise productivity, we're making it more and more defective (MLC...), and spending enormous resources and ingenuity working around the severe flaws.
This business of US Marines lending aircraft to the UK carriers for the first few years, and F35 aircraft being bought from the US under strict T&Cs as to how they should be used and where they may be serviced, plus all the other political developments in recent years, with the UK "fighting" in Afghanistan, Irak and wherever else her US masters dictate, and joining in on the "terrorism" bandwagon so wholeheartedly, reminds me of the film The Fly, in which the apparently normal scientist*, who has just had a whirl in his teleporting machine without realising that there was a fly inside one of the pods, gradually loses his teeth, then bits of his face, and then all the other human bits, and transforms into...a fly.
Sorry but I was once nabbed by police for trying to buy a travelcard in Charing Cross station AFTER travelling on the train, Reason: i had a meeting with my father in town and jumped on the train, not wanting him to wait half an hour for me until the next train. I had refused to give my addtess to the train company jobsworth who performed a citizen's arrest on me for 'trying to evade a fare', never mind that I was trying to buy a ticket from the excess fares booth at the time. Coppers were duly called, and threatened to arrest me on terrorism charges if I didn't cooperate and give my address. So I 'cooperated' like a good baby and gave them my address of course. it's easy to pontificate about cooperation with the forces of law and order from your plush armchair somewhere seemingly safe in middle class suburbia, but when this kind of thing happens to you, your love and admiration for the system and 'our boys in blue' or whatever colour they affect might take a bit of a hit.
The problem is that most ads are coming through a separate stream that is completely unrelated to the content you are viewing, a stream that is sustained by various tricks designed to target the ads published by the huge organisations that centralise these ads to you, by aggressively spying on you and tracking you and misusing your personal information at will.
A static, "native" ad in a web page, like an ad in a newspaper, would not entail such devious tricks, and it might be even better targeted and relevant, since it could be tailored to the content you are reading - i.e. the thing that you are seemingly interested in. This would be much better, but of course, it requires far more work than simply fitting some generic, invasive components provided by "ad slingers".
The informative videos show feature snazzy marketing music, graphics, and an outstanding letter "Q" which appears around 1/4 of the way through.
Then we see amazing models working on ultra complex machinery. At this stage, there seems no point in asking whether someone can tell me how it works, what is a Q-bit, what is the input, what is the output, how is it parsed, who will be able to parse it...
I just ask myself: is it all a con or a delusion, as suggested by the 3rd video with the card sharp? Is it homeopathic computing? Or is it genuinely amazing new science? But if it is amazing new science, why never any explanation? And if it is too complicated to be explained to a reasonable man in the street who can see the sense of standard science when it is explained to them, is there a new generation of super-human geniuses out there who are and will be the only ones able to understand and operate these new, mysterious machines? In which case, I for one, welcome our new Quantum Computing overlords and their wonderful marketing videos.
And: I beg and challenge anybody out there to explain to me HOW IT WORKS.
Excuse me but the problem is that Google has a near monopoly on searching.
Therefore google is in a position of dominance, de facto controlling most Internet users' access to information about products and services.
Therefore google has a legal obligation to report search results neutrally, else it is abusing its dominant position.
Otherwisewhat is to stop Google from setting up any kind business and using its dominant position as a source of information ("search engine") to unfairly overcome the competition and drive them out of business?
This, in a rather clearer and more mature way, is exactly the point that I was trying to make: we might be able to understand the concepts behind Quantum Mechanics, but the concept of a "quantum computer" is perpetually shrouded in complex mathematical equations and jargon. Never has the appearance, implementation or practical working of a "Qbit" or Quantum computer been explained to me in terms that I could possibly understand; as such, it sounds to me like a confidence trick, and that's why I challenge their existence, until someone does explain the workings to me in a simplified way, as opposed to challenging my intelligence because I can't pierce through the shroud.
OK thank you for the links, I will read and try to understand!
Can you just clarify something for me also:
- What is a qbit? What is its hardware or software manifestation (what is it made of, or what is the process whereby it is operated or its results are detected)?
So, based on the foregoing replies:
1. According to Destroy all Monsters, I don't know to do linear algebra, so I can't understand the terms used in the post of Destroy all Monsters, and I feel as thick as a plank;
2. According to the tenor of the other postings, it has a strong whiff of bullshit anyway, algebra or no algebra.
Am I missing the point completely? The fact is, every time I ask someone to explain this "quantum" thing to me, I get the same kind of answers ("you're just too thick" or "something about cats").
Science is boring; most people who hunt pokemon go on their mobile phone in parks don't like it. And yet science can be cool, and there is money to be made if we manage to get the right angle.
Welcome then, to the future, the Quantum future, a fusion between marketing, management and science, bringing you weird shit you can't understand but that's got cool words in it including "Quantum", a word developed by certified top dead scientists.
It's the new science, based on the famous parable of "The emperor's new clothes", a story in which the emperor fools all the people in his land into believing that he is wearing no clothes.
The field of Quantum Bovine Excressology advanced by a giant leap today, when a senior politician, who cannot be named for some reason, announced that a tremendous advance in his profession had been made possible using techniques inspired by well-known and now world-renowned "Quantum" principles. In a statement to our reporter, the senior Minister said that it was "Better than an ipad, better than any supercomputer: so better in fact, you'll never understand what we're talking about, but anyway you're so gullible that it doesn't make a difference."
I think the definition of a religion is whether the people who practise it take it and themselves seriously.
To test for that, you look for evidence of elaborate and perhaps seemingly senseless rituals, behaviours amounting to denial and even harming one's interests in the name of the religion, and above all refusal to accept any dissent, willingness to exclude / expel / excommunicate / exterminate the disbelievers or apostates or infidels and all that jazz.
So far the FSM people have not reached that level, I believe they love it because they think it's funny and irreverent. But beware, with passing time, some people may yet arise who do take it seriously and are not aware that it was ever designed to make a mockery, and then...it will be a religion.
"Shouldn't consumers be getting what they want, how they want it, when they want it, at the price they want it? Silly me for thinking it was the "public good" with which politicians were supposed to be concerned."
In a country populated only by consumers, that might be correct. But a country is not made up merely of consumers. There are also workers, who in a normal country, earn the money used to consume, or make the things that are consumed.
I reckon that the "public good" need to be considered in a balanced manner, especially when the new operator that enters the market and disrupts it doesn't create any new value, but instead merely channels the profits formerly earned by the workers / the people making the products or providing the services, into a new and single pocket: it's own.
"Hint: They are smarter than you, and anyone at Vulture Central, by a long shot"
I would fix this sentence as follows:
"Hint: They are more famous and supposedly smarter than you, and anyone at Vulture Central, by a long shot"
Welcome to the new, 21st century cool science of palaeontology
A lesson in logic:
1. We found one fossil of a dinosaur with what looks like feathers.
2. This means the weird bristles some people found on some other dinosaur fossils were feathers!
3. Which leads us to conclude that all dinosaurs were covered with feathers.
Sounds like "baddie Pinch Ass" but with some letters left out...as in:
The perpetrator of the sexual assault on the underground, who was caught pinching women's asses (whereupon the animals involved started braying loudly and got distressed), was arrested and ordered to change his name to one which would reflect the offence he had committed.
Being unmasked, he decided to change his career and become a fishing expert. He was arrested for covertly bundling malware on people's computers, which is not an offence per se, while failing to publicise the full name that had been forced upon him by the court (a serious offence for which he was ordered to change his name again to reflect his new offence. Any suggestions are welcome).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019