Re: more needed than ever
"Most of Microsoft's "Spying" is feature analytics to allow then to improve their product".
Then why haven't they done so?
491 posts • joined 9 Jul 2016
"Most of Microsoft's "Spying" is feature analytics to allow then to improve their product".
Then why haven't they done so?
"... when the googlopoly becomes apparent even to the meanest intelligence..."
That will be never. Even quite considerable intelligences are routinely fooled by marketing on a daily basis. There's also what Larry Ellison said in 2008:
"The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It's complete gibberish. It's insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?"
Firefox has become too old, too familiar, and frankly too reliable. Chrome seems new and (pardon me) shiny to millions who have no way of knowing better.
Allow me to expand your vocabulary.
1 compel (someone) to undertake a legal or moral duty.
2 United States commit (assets) as security.
n adjective Biology restricted to a particular function or mode of life: an obligate parasite.
Middle English (as adjective in the sense 'bound by the law'): from Latin obligat-, obligare (see oblige).
1 (usually be obliged to do something) make legally or morally bound to do something.
2 perform a service or favour for. Ø(be obliged) be indebted or grateful.
Middle English: from Old French obliger, from Latin obligare, from ob- 'towards' + ligare 'to bind'.
Your use of the word "shameful" shows that you are in the wrong universe - one that has a "moral" dimension.
When playing the popular game of "Corporate Monopoly", however, there is no moral dimension. Just like a game of table-top Monopoly. You get points for piling up cash, without limit and without reservation. It's delightfully simple.
I suspect the key words in your post are "I didn't notice".
I take it you were not being ironic.
What a brilliant way to run a business! Mind you, they just nicked the idea from Microsoft...
1. Roll out crappy, bug-ridden, undesigned piece of garbage.
2. Use high-powered selling and shmoozing methods to sell it to all large corporations and governments.
3. When they notice that it falls over every ten minutes and is hopelessly unreliable, sell them a hugely expensive contract to "maintain" it. Which you proceed to do by introducing changes every two weeks, none of which change the product's fundamental hopelessness.
I surmise that many people nowadays think twice, nay eight times, before contacting the authorities about anything. What are the odds that you are the one who will end up being punished? "Allo allo allo, this looks very much like a non-standard, unregistered pirate copy of XYZ... And what are these JPEGs of a naked child in the bath???? Very interesting indeed, probably worth ten to twenty in the slammer... Please accompany me to the station sir, while my colleagues load up all your computers, spare parts, backup hard drives, tapes, documents, etc. We'll let you have them back - if you're found not guilty - when our investigations are complete". (Ha ha, i.e. "never").
Although it just focuses on the most superficial level of problems, without even dipping into the deep epistemological and phenomenological issues.
Your comment took me back to the world of the 1990s and early 2000s, when I used to buy PC magazines and spent quite a lot of time browsing the various processors, RAM, hard drives, etc., and trying to spec out the "perfect" system.
I gave such activities up long ago, and not really for lack of time. It just doesn't make sense any more, unless you are a gamer or perfectionist speed freak. As others have pointed out, most compurters nowadays are more than adequate for their intended workloads. Adding an SSD here or some more RAM there often yields the desired improvements, if any.
But the "core" of the problem (sorry!) lies in the immense complexity and obscurity of today's processors, chipsets and motherboards. It's instructive, when looking at benchmarking sites, to focus on the "single threaded" tables. You'll find that, without spending a king's ransom, you simply aren't going to get anything more than - say - twice as fast as the processor you've had for the past 6-8 years. Even with unlimited money, you can't get anything much faster than that.
So it's a question of how many cores your workload needs, or can usefully employ. For home users and other light applications, I feel that twin- or quad-core processors are the most anyone needs, and the best value for money.
There is definitely an "innovation hiatus". Computers aren't really getting faster or better any more, and new form factors like notepads only open up small incremental markets.
"Taking the F-35A price rises as a guide, the price per airframe of each F-35B could now be $131.4m each".
It has to be asked: with or without engine?
'We here on the other side of the Atlantic have the 'World's Reserve Currency"'.
For the time being. It's high time you began considering what will happen when that situation ceases to exist.
"His goal is clearly to rebuild a Russian Empire on the lands which were parts of former USSR".
I certainly hope that the method of Proof By Repeated Assertion does not work with the Reg's readers - wildly successful as it always is with the population at large.
Proof? Facts? I think you'll find there are absolutely none. On the contrary, Russia under Mr Putin has been astonishingly self-controlled and peaceful considering its potentially huge strength.
I say again: Russia has not "invaded" anyone since 1991, and has no plans to do so. Why would it want to, when it already has twice the land area of China or the USA and vast amounts of untapped resources? Russia is virtually the only industrialised nation to be actually underpopulated, on a realistic assessment of sustainable population.
The UK, in contrast, has a maximum permanently sustainable population of 16 million or less.
Why would it have to be a "one-off bump of money"? Couldn't it be placed in a reserve fund and used judiciously in cases of serious need?
Just check the speech for the slightest traces of coherent meaning. If they are there, the speech has been tampered with.
Your reference to the Sudetenland is inexplicable. Surely you know that the German invasion of Czechoslovakia was almost exactly the opposite of the Russian operation in Georgia? The Germans came and stayed until they were thrown out by the USSR and partisans in 1944-5. They conquered Czechoslovakia and occupied it for six years (apart from the section given to Hungary). The Russians were in and out within a week. Moreover, you have (rather amusingly) compared the Georgian attacks with those of Nazi Germany, revealing your appreciation that the Georgians, like the Nazis, were the aggressors.
Did you read the article I cited, describing how the EU inquiry determined that the trouble was entirely the fault of Georgia?
MH17 has nothing to do with it. It was certainly not destroyed by Russia or Russians. Most likely it was shot down by the Kiev forces, either as part of a false flag operation or - most likely - through sheer incompetence. Some Russians may have been killed defending Donbas, just as some British and Americans were killed defending the Spanish government in the Spanish Civil War.
I do not accept your legal standing to tell us that "Crimea was de-facto and de-jure part of the Ukraine". Indeed, until 1991 there was never, throughout history, such a nation as "Ukraine". (The word actually means "border", just like "Mark" in German). You claim that "if countries have territorial disputes they negotiate, they don't invade". So why did the new state of Ukraine (of dubious legality) annexe Crimea in 1991, without consulting its citizens or even its political representatives?
Incidentally, can you tell us how many countries the USA and the UK have invaded - with extreme violence and the infliction of millions of deaths - since 1991? Here's a clue: more than a dozen.
"The Baltics. you omitted 'yet'". Oh, so now you are telling us what the future holds? Of course, that game can always be drawn out. If Russia has not invaded the Baltics by the year 2200, you could still say "you omitted 'yet'".
"Lovely planet really".
I agree with your sentiment. However I think this expresses it rather more precisely:
"Though every great prospect pleases/And only man is vile".
Russia has not "invaded" any country since 1991. (Before that it was part of the USSR, which was a completely different kettle of fish).
To anticipate your probable thoughts:
1. Georgia. The Georgians attacked two small disputed areas with mainly Russian populations. The Russians responded quickly, defeated the Georgians and their allies, threw them right back, then returned inside Russia just as fast as they had come.
2. Ukraine. Already explained in previous threads, but briefly there was a violent revolution which imposed an illegal junta in Kiev (Poroshenko has publicly admitted as much). The junta has been attacking its own citizens in Donbas for three years, killing over 10,000 of them, but has been unable to break their resistance. Russia may have given them aid, but no Russian troops have invaded Ukraine. If they had, they would have taken over control of Kiev within a day or two.
3. Crimea. Probably Crimea has always been legally part of Russia, as it was not included when Ukrainian politicians declared UDI from the USSR in 1991. In any case, 90% of the population voted to rejoin Russia.
4. Baltics. No case to answer. Russia has neither invaded nor threatened to invade any of them.
5. Syria. Russia is legally present in Syria, at the formal request of the legitimate government (which is recognised by the UN and all the nations of the world including the USA and Israel). The USA and its allies are illegally present in Syria, but that's another story.
"... they can't trace where it goes on your internal network, so if you live in a student house for example it could have been from any one of the 8 residents".
That's OK. I am sure there is plenty of room in Belmarsh.
"I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here," he wrote. "I understand this is annoying, but still: The username is clearly not valid."
"Russia just walked over the border and took over..."
I'm not having that. It's a grotesque distortion of the truth, amounting in effect to a deliberate lie. Every time such things are said or written, many people who don't know the facts get a strong and incorrect impression. So they end up believing things that are wholly untrue. Sorry if the following is tedious, but the facts MUST be placed on record.
1. There was a violent revolution in Kiev. Victoria Nuland is known to have admitted nominating Yatsenyuk as the new PM ("Yats is our man") and openly boasted about having spent $5 billion to bring about a colour revolution. The President fled for his life (perhaps remembering vivdly what happened to Saddam Hussein and Qadafi). A new government then took over which even its "President" Poroshenko has publicly admitted was illegitimate. It began persecuting Russians and Russian speakers.
2. The inhabitants of Crimea - which had been part of Russia since 1781, before the USA existed - voted overwhelmingly to beg the Russian government to readmit them. The Russian government agreed to do so. (Incidentally, Crimea was never legally part of Ukraine - but that's a minor legal issue).
3. When the Kiev junta sent armoured columns to Lugansk and Donetsk to force the citizens into obedience, the locals put up spirited resistance. Unarmed civilians stood in front of tanks - exactly as in Tian-an-men Square - and they soon armed themselves and fought off the Ukrainian armed forces.
Russia has never invaded Ukraine. It has accepted the return of Crimea by the overwhelming popular will of its people. And it has provided a lot of military and humanitarian help to Donbas, where at least 10,000 civilians have been murdered by what is supposed to be their own government in Kiev.
Finally, if Russia had "walked in and taken over" they would have defeated the Ukrainian armed forces in a week at most, and would be in control of Kiev today. Which they aren't - any fool can see that nobody is in control in Kiev.
Russia... or "Russians"?
It makes a huge difference. Most of the harmful attacks on the whole Internet come from North America. But that doesn't necessarily mean Donald Trump wrote and launched the exploits himself.
Actually, it's quite enough to say "Good morning!" with an Arab (or Indian or Pakistani or Iranian or Paraguayan) accent.
Reminds me of the ancient joke about the fellow who consults a psychiatrist because of his morbid fear of being on a plane with a bomb on board. After the usual chitchat, the psychiatrist points out the huge odds against such a thing happening. When the patient still demurs, the psychiatrist suggests, "Why don't you take a bomb on board yourself? The odds against being on a plane with TWO bombs are far greater still".
"America throws down gauntlet: Accept extra security checks or don't carry laptops on flights".
Or, of course, just don't go there.
Wikipedia is not a source for current events.
... that if the Russian state had hacked into those systems, there would be no hard objective evidence that it was the Russian state.
If there is any more--or-less convincing-looking evidence that it was the Russian state, it will have been deliberately set up by someone who wishes to suggest that.
How do you know the Russians interfered with Ukrainian elections? Facts and sources, please, not just "everyone knows".
'What exactly does "the weaponization of stolen cyber information" mean?'
It means revealing truths that powerful people want to keep secret. What used to be known as "journalism", even in America.
"News is something someone doesn't want printed. All else is advertizing".
- William Randolph Hearst
Trump is obviously not a Russian agent. If he were, he would be fluent in English.
I believe it's known as "fixing the intelligence around the policy". Often conclusions are presented by a "director" (as in this case) who may possibly turn out to be a political appointee without any personal expertise at all.
Tony Blair pioneered this kind of procedure in the run-up to the Second Gulf War. The intelligence services kept on telling him that Iraq did NOT have WMD, that Saddam Hussein was a deadly enemy of Al Qaeda, and that - whoever carried out 9/11 - it wasn't Iraqis. Blair just kept on telling John Scarlett "try again - get it right this time" until Scarlett told him what he wanted to hear. Scarlett is now Sir John Scarlett.
"how did that AC up there with the lecture get all those downvotes?"
Criticized Microsoft. That's almost as bad as criticizing Israel or praising Trump or Putin.
How do you "escort" an immense, clumsy, slow-moving target against the threat of hypersonic missiles?
During (and around) WW1 battlecruisers were based at Rosyth, and regularly passed under the bridge. They were the biggest warships in the world at the time - actually longer than battleships.
I hope the QE ends up in better shape than Ross's sofa.
I am glad you didn't see fit to tell us what it would be in Australian.
Well, someone has to hold back the vast Soviet tank armies as they come flooding through the Fulda Gap...
... for Maverick's erratic behaviour and mood swings.
... because senators understand technology so much better than we ever could. And they could never be biased in favour of the corporations that pay them vast sums of money.
'For example, UK defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon recently said the Kremlin is "weaponising misinformation"...'
What he really meant was that Russia - among others - is getting good results by telling the truth. As this is so unusual in the West these days - and almost unheard of among politicians and the mainstream media - it provokes shock and horror. Much as Donald Trump's amateurish habits of telling the truth and trying to deliver on promises appal the US political and media establishments. I mean - if you can't rely on a politician to lie and break his promises consistently, where are you?
It seems to be a common tactic nowadays for people who are economical with the truth themselves to impute such bad behaviour to those they wish to harm.
"Well, history does have a way of repeating itself.
As Karl Marx observed, "... the first time as tragedy, the second as farce".
Which brings us back to the F-35.
I was waiting for the mention of beautiful chocolate cake, but it never came. Colour me disappointed!
Thanks for reminding me - I recollect what a great book that is, but most of the details are long gone.
Also - what a quintessentially pointy-haired thing to be doing! Are you sure it was an assembler and not a manager?
"... the "Sgt Yorke" anti aircraft done did a 180deg turn and attempted to open fire on the assembled top brass in the grand stand behind the gun".
Now that's what I call a smart AI!
Your old-fashioned and narrow view of the matter misses the point. Judged as an effective fighter-bomber, the F-35 is no doubt a heap of expensive junk. Judged properly, however, as a mechanism for transferring as much of the taxpayers' money to the pockets of industrialists and politicians as quickly as possible... it is the biggest success story EVER.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017