Posts by Daggerchild

Re: Curious to see the answer of the EU

If the EU actually wanted to solve this, they'd define a market product data interchange format and exchange. They'd be able to track and kill counterfeiters with it too.

They don't *know* what a fair solution is. They have just declared they will punish Google until, basically, Google make them feel in control again, by providing an unspecified something that's not guaranteed to even exist. Google's only solution may be to *never* integrate specialised search results in general search results, which makes everything dumber, as the future's on the other side of that tech.

Consider how an AI answers "Where's the nearest place to buy a good hammer" and how many competing map, location, shop, products, recommendation engines could be involved in a verbal answer?

Re: Google has peaked

"This story just happenned to coincide with a bunch of others about how Google has been being evil recently"

Strange - Google have always 'been evil'. And the Reg hasn't had many more "Opinion: Google are evil" pieces than usual, and Reg never misses chinks in the Googlearmor. What have you been reading?

Re: Take the king's shilling, you do the king's bidding.

"You cast white guys as the villains, and they are villains even without their own knowledge."

"Villains" is your word not mine. I'm just using this as an extra bit of probabilistic weighting. I notice you are attacking me instead of denying it though, possibly because it's accepted knowledge?

If over-reading negative connotation into single words in my multi-component opinion is causing you offence, maybe you should stop doing that?

"There is nothing I could say that you could not counter with such a dirty tactic. Just give it up."

Uhuh. Meanwhile, you "just know" that "Google are evil", and are accusing others of unjust auto-villainisation. I don't think "dirty tactics" are the reason you are having difficulty with my opinion.

Re: clean air laws are a joke

It's a crying shame we don't all live in hab-domes (yet) so you can't be forced to put your lungs where your emissions are. That'd make for fun reality TV.

Re: Dear Google

You're going to have to switch tack. Google may be the symbol of the problem, but no way in hell are they the ones you should worry most about. There are things out there that have developed tech to pierce Chrome's Incognito mode, and they aren't Google. Even bringing Google down may only make things worse.

Users have basically lost control of their apps/browser. You have no idea who it's visiting, what it's giving others, where they are, or who they're working with. Every time an app/extension is installed, you individualise, and become more identifiable, and your attack surface increases.

You wanted detailed instructions? To lie to your enemies, you'll need to lie to your browser, about the machine it's on, the timezone, the time, the clockdrift of your PC, your history, your latency, your network topology, your bandwidth and packetloss, your hardware media acceleration, etc.

And you need to tell a different lie-set for every separate site you told a Truth to. There. This is the true depth of the swamp you live in with Google. But Google didn't make this swamp, and it won't go away when you kill them.

This is a job for a Glasshole!

As it happens, auditing manual work is *exactly* what Google's glasses found a successful niche in.

Not that they'll even touch a cable for another decade. AT&T will drag this out as long as inhumanly possible, while they reconstruct the FCC to nuke Google from orbit.

Re: "why Blacks are such fast runners?"

So what you're saying is America needs to enslave the Whites to weed out their poor breeding stock? Hell yeah! Make America Great Again!

Re: it's not ... anonymised... is it?

I don't have a lot of confidence identifiable patterns can be obscured in a lot of cases.

e.g. Can you identify a Commentard coming from a different IP without logging in? Quite possibly, if they're interested in upvotes to their posts, have mutually exclusive activity times, no interest in things they've already read, excepting comments, which they click through to so fast you know they already read the article etc.

If it's my job to make sure patterns can't be found, well, if looking is illegal I think this goes in the same bucket as possessing hacking tools, so you can test your own shields. You can be thrown to the wolves at any time. It's really no fun being one of the good guys.

Re: Arm chair musing

I was wondering if the mini-black was needed too, but my musing was whether the neutron star would hold together if the star whipped past another one, or swung close enough to a conventional black hole, to momentarily mess up the spherical crush and make it spooge its guts out.

To layer on the analogy, you have to remove the swastika if it's against the law and you know about it, e.g. a neighbour told you. That's the current state (AIUI IANAL ETC). It's still legal to otherwise just stay indoors watching the telly.

What I suspect this does is, if one of the neighbourhood kids is an asshole, daubing your walls repeatedly, then not patrolling your walls regularly checking everything against a changing list of symbology, becomes dangerous. It becomes safer and simpler not to have walls.

You're reading this on a wall.

Re: Throw 22

Yeah, but it's a fox-built, fox-tested, fox-proof henhouse. Can better be built?

Nobody knows what goes on inside. And, isn't that .. the point?

Systemd is extremely useful!

I think everyone is completely misunderstanding how useful systemd is.

Everyone who doesn't want to look to the past, and who believe in following leaders with strong personalities and innovative legacy-discarding ideas, can all band together and sail off to create a new future.

Leaving everyone who actually gives a sh*t about good engineering in peace, while their ship catches fire, runs aground, and establishes some kind of Lord of the Flies cannibal tribe.

Put systemd in your interview questions for new hires, and leave the true-believers free to go innovate someone else into the ground.

Re: But did it do any good?

Oh I dunno - the cable monopolies seem to be getting value for money now :)

Re: Should I trust a field or field length supplied by an outside source?

Content-Length: 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000........

See also, Content-Encoding: gzip; dd if=/dev/zero | gzip -9c -

Re: What about security?

I would have thought that if you're paying Google to do exactly that, you'd be very annoyed if they didn't.

I wouldn't mind a Google Search page for our corporate Intranet. All I can usually find on any subject are a million mentions.

You make it sound like it's a measured and considered response, instead of simply being a huge bonfire of anything Obama has ever touched.

It's very difficult to blame Obama through all the heat and flames, but I can't help but admire your continued determination to do so.

Re: I've seen...

"Not because of that, that's a strawman argument. It's because a "research" created for monetary reasons (=You are getting paid to prove a point, no matter how much lying is needed) is always bad stuff"

But... isn't saying the researchers are paid to lie, while also being unable to show that anything produced here *has* been a lie, an evidenceless construction, aka a strawman argument?

Out of interest, how many years need to pass after a Google donation to a public science body, before researchers sponsored by that body aren't considered to be 'bad stuff'? And by your own measure, is the sponsored report in this article telling the truth?