And how do you think we pronounce that?
For your Devon bonus, pronounce the name of the small town spelt Woolfardisworthy.
1974 posts • joined 16 Jan 2007
why in the blue blazes would a supermarket have its own date format?
People have already pointed to the multiplicity of (non-)standards. Things were probably even more chaotic when the system was first designed. And who knows, maybe it had gone through something more esoteric, like the software I once had the misfortune to encounter where all the time&date code (among other things) were completely screwed by porting to a different-endian architecture.
But more importantly why is a format like that not documented and given to all developers?
You must be young! Corporate documentation walks faster than a ripe cheese. Pre-google, it was rare indeed to be able to lay hands on anything that wasn't too patronisingly obvious for anyone to have bothered to nick it. Even if it existed, expect it to describe something that needs you to perform - say - endianness magic (never imagined by the writer) to work.
And to be written to corporate processes. The bit you need was chopped as "too complex" by the tech writer's boss. Any surviving note is buried in a disused septic tank behind something more intimidating than a mere "beware of the leopard" sign (icon for one prospective layer of cover).
Sorry, missed your post when I referenced ADA.
I always thought that pascal-on-steroids was a missed opportunity for nice things like builtin checking of types and dimensions. All that extra complexity, yet it never occurred to anyone that the language might enforce that dividing a distance by a time gives you something that isn't your blood pressure.
I thought the rot in C++ started with navel-gazing over templates, about when it went from C-with-classes to designed-by-committee. But at least STL is kind-of a separate module in the language.
I think my attitude over the years has been shaped by the alternatives. When I first encountered it, the world I worked in was drooling over ADA, and I grasped C++ as a beacon of relative sanity. A decade on, JAVA was the new kid on the block with promises that looked a lot like ADA had done, but C++ had turned committee-ugly and was no longer such an attractive refuge.
You see an Agenda when you compare how little Bhopal is remembered - or was discussed at the time - with the comparatively tiny and harmless accident at Chernobyl around the same time.
In fact, two Agendas. Big up the nuclear, even though it's a drop in the ocean compared to the chemical. And big up the Evil Empire cockup, while turning a blind eye to the US corporation.
For what it's worth, I transferred a domain to a US registrar today (my previous provider having discontinued the service)). This was a .org domain, nothing EU-oriented about it.
They offered a privacy option to hide all my details. It was offered as a free extra, which I was encouraged to select. I was slightly in two minds (dammit, I post to El Reg under my real name too), but I ticked the option with thoughts that it would be perverse to risk them getting a visit from GDPR enforcement on my account.
No, quite the opposite. They're looking for a quick and clean defeat. Hence jurisdiction-shopping in no-nonsense Germany, rather than one of the many countries (like Blighty) where the case would be likely to go on and on and consume an order of magnitude more in lawyers fees.
I said so last time this story came up. This just confirms it.
Can happen in any walk of life. One day you're helping bail out of a BSOD, the next it might be fixing a wobbly chair.
English language O-level, we had a "teacher" who was borderline-illiterate. One minor recollection from that was a spelling test she had prepared for us. When it came to marking it, I had to correct her on three (of twenty) words. Each was a long argument before she finally looked it up and confirmed I was right.
There was a special mouse pad with horizontal and vertical lines on it.
Yes - though my experience of them was rather later than that (most of the 1990s).
Cold to the touch, and rather unpleasant even at times when cold should have been good. Also moved according to a rather coarse grid, meaning you couldn't steer the pointer between grid points but only move in multi-pixel jumps. Put me right off optical mice for many years, and may have contributed to my RSI.
Trump's accusations might be more credible if the sanctions operated less of a scattergun approach.
China? Well also the rest of the world. EU, Canada, and Mexico lumped together: do we really all do those Evil Things? Trump must be the only one marching in step.
Mind you, the rest of the world does itself no favours by failing to work together on this. EU/Canada/Mexico lumped together because they thought they could be exempted as Good Guys.
Divided we fall.
Upvotes to both Duffy Moon and Adrian 4 for sensible ... provided the universal income kills off all means-testing. Kill off all those cases where loss-of-benefits due to working exceeds basic-rate tax, let alone where it exceeds 100%.
But Sir Humphrey certainly won't stand for that: just look at the huge chunk of administrative Empire he'd lose. That could be precisely the underlying reason UC implementation has been such a shambles: Sir Humphrey is protecting his own empire and minions.
I was 'between jobs' after my employer (Sun) had got borged and my new owner discontinued my work. Not destitute, but signed on out of bloody-mindedness and to get a little of my tax back.
Beginning of February 2011, I went to FOSDEM, with a view very largely to sniffing around for new work. Jobcentre severely penalised me for that: I had left the country, so wasn't available for work over the weekend. They killed my claim altogether, so I had to sign up again from scratch, meaning two weeks interruption and having to travel to a deeply inconvenient regional jobcentre again.
They really don't (or didn't) like you taking any kind of initiative! I wonder if UC would've been any different?
And I say that as someone who's been working in the UK space industry for the last couple of decades.
That was also my impression, having spent most of the '90s working at ESA. Good UK companies existed, UK government programmes existed, but if there was ever an intersection between the two, it eluded me.
To be fair, Davis is actually the more acceptable face of brexit. He's not Kim JongSon nor rival arch-toffoon Rees Mogg; he's not "no more experts" Gollum, he's not dotard flat-earther Lawson, and above all he's not any of the altogether more shadowy figures behind them. He even has a track record that includes making a stand for liberty.
If there's any potential for good news in the whole mess, it's probably him.
@Disgruntled - the "erosion of democracy" is the most interesting aspect of brexit. 'Cos various proposals to improve EU democratic accountability have been made over the years, but have always been blocked by UK governments of both colours.
The Sir Humphrey master plan was to stay in until it was so poisoned someone else could be relied on to take that role. It remains to be seen what happens without us: will east/west and north/south tensions over issues like immigration scupper any future proposals without the need for a UK veto?
I think the EU is a good idea, but as shown by Angela Merkel's response to David Cameron (no to temp stop on immigration),
At the heart of that is the biggest lie. The part of immigration that everyone hated - the ability to live (partially) on benefits, and to get things like NHS treatment - were never part of EU rules. Cameron never needed Merkel's permission to fix perverse UK rules that had (still have) the side-effect of giving unpopular benefits to EU citizens in the UK.
I have a recollection of people asking why the EU was wasting billions on replicating something that essentially already exists in GPS (and GLONASS). Indeed, I seem to recollect it cited as an example of EU profligacy.
Does anyone recollect exactly who was saying that? Are any of them the same people who are now upset about getting booted out, or even those saying we should go it along?
Surely what really matters here is, we have a straw in the wind.
The new Home Secretary, unlike his #hashtag-predecessor, isn't afraid to come out from under the boss's thumb and revise one of her key policies.
So, what's next? Or will he be stamped on so hard from above as to cow him into submission?
When I've been on a peaceful protest, I've fully expected the police to be watching me, and my mugshot to feature somewhere on recorded material. That goes back to sometime last century, before Data Protection.
Not saying this chap doesn't have a case. But I'm not convinced the hyperbolae help anyone.
Reading the article, it seems the committee is mostly talking sense. Other contributors: the CMA, Full Fact, are talking sense. NSPCC is armwaving, but maybe digging deeper would find a sensible basis for that too.
And Google is talking sense. But that's too much for some, so we had to make a story of it. Yes of course we all know their financial interest: I guess the committee is perhaps better at putting that into context than posturing politicos, journos, and the peanut gallery.
Am I the only one who thought (from the article) this guy might have been talking sense?
It was hedged with lots of caveats like "where possible", and "getting access to the message, not decryption" (which could translate to "getting the metadata").
I think he may be talking about thrashing out metadata and grey areas like the FBI-vs-IPhone case here. Using language designed to be imprecise so as not to upset the dafter politicos at this stage. That would actually make a lot of sense: have at least the bones of a deal with his comms providers in place, and present it as a fait accomplit to George ("don't do that") and the flat-earthers.
This is welcome news. Just a shame it didn't happen 30 years ago. I expect smartphones could benefit too. And the bit about an Intel display adaptor doesn't bother me: apart from anything else, if the technology catches on, competitors are sure to emerge.
But we already have a perfectly good near-zero-power display technology? Where have the e-ink laptops been this past decade and more?
Tescos don't know anything about me. But that's just an accident of geography: there's no tesco within range of my food shopping.
So let's substitute Sainsburys, whose superstore is just a mile up the road. They have plenty of data on me: not just the Visa card I normally use to pay, but also (shock, horror) a nectar card they use to pay for my data.
Guess what? I'm not bothered by it. I don't believe Sainsburys are going to do anything nastier to me than to stop stocking something or put a price up. They don't have the power to do anything bad. No police force, no legal system, no apparatus of the State. Dammit, not even influence over relative trivia like a credit score! And I don't begrudge them the information they gather: I think the price they pay is fair enough, and I'm just sorry the information doesn't seem to stop them all-too-often losing things I like enough to pay them for!
Now what GCHQ know about me is much less clear, and that very lack of clarity could be a concern. Their methods of collection are more indirect and therefore likely to be less reliable, which raises concerns over a potential for incorrect data. And the possibility of their data being used by agents of the State with powers to deprive me of life, liberty, or other things of real value, makes their records a whole nother kettle of fish.
 Except in December. Then they play muzak, so I go the extra mile to Lidl instead.
Not actually true. The only vote shareholders get is to dismiss (i.e. not reappoint) an auditor recommended by the Directors. Which looks to me rather close to also being a vote of No Confidence in the Directors themselves.
And if you don't know there's anything wrong because the Directors and Auditors are concealing it ...
That must have been one of the shortest times on record for a European court to give a US corporation a flea in its ear.
German courts are famous for not taking certain forms of nonsense. They have form.
ICANN went to a German court, the first day of GDPR. That smells of jurisdiction-shopping. They wanted to lose, and they wanted a quick and clean loss. They got it. They even picked on a suitably deep-pocketed victim to be sure that being properly lawyered wouldn't cause undue pain and perhaps a perverse result (like going out of business).
Now they have a result they need to help deal with their own internal politics and shady lobbyists.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019