Re: Last time this happened...
Although if, as described, the windscreen cracked, it may have broken up and blown out in separate pieces.
861 posts • joined 9 Jul 2016
Although if, as described, the windscreen cracked, it may have broken up and blown out in separate pieces.
Yes, Murphy's Law applies always and everywhere - especially when you least expect it.
"But he didn’t believe the MoD would reduce its planned F-35 order, on the grounds that without the full order, Britain’s two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers would be left in a sticky situation".
Actually, if you think it through you will see that the carriers would be in a far less sticky situation without any aircraft.
They would then pose very little threat to anyone (unless used to ram, or beached as in the attack on Zeebrugge). Which would vastly reduce the chances of their being blown up by a hypersonic missile or a salvo of torpedoes from a silent diesel submarine.
So someone like me - since I have never bought a mobile phone, and do not wish to - will become a criminal for that reason alone?
What's next - quotas for buying British goods and services to keep the GDP rising? With prison sentences if you fail to reach your quota, since keeping people in prison also adds to the GDP...
The real problem, by your own logic, is that voters can apparently be persuaded to change their voting intentions by the shortest and simplest of "messages" seen on a screen. Which implies that they have no political understanding and no principles. Their votes can be controlled by anyone with enough money to pay for TV or Web commercials.
That being so, the US system has worked that way for centuries. It is a plutocracy, not a democracy at all.
Yes, but if they had any capacity to learn from experience, their decades of experience would have taught them that political promises are never fulfilled.
Therefore everything any candidate says should be ignored. The choice can be made randomly - although as all candidates lie continually, the best choice is not to vote at all.
If nobody voted, it would have a considerable effect.
"Most people don't spend decades assiduously following politics, usually they don't give a shit until election time and then get quickly bored, and many haven't even been alive long enough to accumulate decades of anything".
Do you realise that you have just described a nation that is wholly unfit for democracy?
"You should be disgusted that your system made the only viable choice between Clinton and Trump".
Actually, that gets it backwards. Given that Clinton and Trump were the only two candidates, the only viable option was to stay at home.
"You may need to use a Dick Van Dyke Cockney accent".
No! No!! No!!! Anything but that.
Please... please... not the Dick Van Dyke Cockney accent!
Where is the B-Ark when you need it?
His point may be that, dangerous or not, the dogs can be taken around in public legally.
"Intel & Microsoft: a marriage made in hell".
But bloody profitable.
Say what you will about companies like IBM and DEC - they produced extremely clear, comprehensive, professional documentation.
I used to know a DEC technical writer who knew so much about the VMS file system that the developers used to consult her when they were in doubt as to just how something worked.
Sort of the exact opposite of this present situation.
A tax bill should never be unexpected to an educated adult.
Any more than death...
"Every major OS maker misread Intel's docs".
From which it follows that the docs were unclear. If OS developers - highly intelligent people with excellent knowledge and understanding of their domain - misunderstood, almost by definition the documentation was faulty. The principle has been clearly understood (and enunciated) for more than 1900 years:
"One should not aim at being possible to understand, but impossible to misunderstand".
- Marcus Fabius Quintilian
And he was just talking about trivial matters like law and politics. Computer architecture is far more important.
"Technology is dominated by two types of people: Those who understand what they do not manage. Those who manage what they do not understand".
- Putt's Law
I just took delivery of a brand-new PC, and I very carefully chose an AMD Ryzen 5. As I ordered no OS, it arrived with a copy of Windows 10 which will presumably stop working in a while if I don't "activate" it - which means paying M$ at least £100.
After a little experimenting, I now have my existing Windows 7 system working smoothly. All it took was a PS/2 keyboard and mouse, downloading and running wufuc, and reactivating (which, to my surprise, was immediate and pain-free).
For a few minutes I was tempted to adopt Windows 10. The user interface looks fairly crisp, a few things have been enhanced, and I am inclined to believe some of the talk about improved security.
But then I thought about the data suction, the advertisements, even the rather unpleasant startup screen... and, most of all, the whole ethos of an OS that assumes the user is a junior partner in a joint enterprise, rather than the owner.
So I am going to remove Windows 10 and continue dual-booting Windows 7 and Opensuse Linux. Until Microsoft withdraws support for Windows 7 - at which time I shall commit wholly to Linux.
So at least two of the world's biggest and wealthiest corporations are focusing heavily on cloud provision. Probably many others are, too; copying Amazon and Microsoft presumably looks like a fairly safe bet.
But that implies, surely, that large numbers of corporations - and even government departments - are outsourcing their IT to "the Cloud".
Is this wise? Do they really understand the balance of risk and reward?
"FBI has high confidence that Russian state-sponsored cyber actors are using compromised routers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks to support espionage, extract intellectual property, maintain persistent access to victim networks, and potentially lay a foundation for future offensive operations..."
Is there anyone reading this who knows about network thingies?
Because I would love to hear an explanation of how the FBI discovered
1. That it was "Russian state-sponsored cyber actors" responsible, rather than a fat guy sitting in his bedroom (as Mr Trump so eloquently put it).
2. That they were attacking people's routers "to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks to support espionage, extract intellectual property, maintain persistent access to victim networks, and potentially lay a foundation for future offensive operations..." rather than for any other given reason? Is there some special revealing bit pattern that shows you are planning espionage, extraction of intellectual property (whatever that may be), maintenance of persistent access to "victim networks", or "potentially" laying any kind of foundations?
Last I heard (when I read "The Cuckoo's Egg" about 30 years ago) most of the US government's computers were pwned - some VAXen still had the credentials "System" and "Manager". So how would they know if any information they get through those systems is right, wrong, not even wrong, or exactly what some unknown black hats want them to think?
""FBI has high confidence that Russian state-sponsored cyber actors are using compromised routers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks to support espionage, extract intellectual property, maintain persistent access to victim networks, and potentially lay a foundation for future offensive operations..."
Shouldn't that begin with "FBI believes it is HIGHLY LIKELY..."? I think that is the new officialese for "untrue".
"When I was a Sky customer..."
Well, there's your problem. You have a filthy great digger stuck in your router pipes.
... the US State Department has issued public warnings declaring that the terrorists in Syria are known to have chemical weapons, and to have used them.
And the Syrian government's remaining chemical weapons were destroyed four years ago by a team including the USA, Russia and the UN specialists responsible.
And it is very much against the Syrian government's interests to use chemical weapons - which means it is very much in the terrorists' interests to give that impression.
Three good reasons why it could only have been the terrorists ("very likely" with the active help of Western governments).
Not only didn't they wait for the OPCW on-site visit - which is due today, I believe - but they even suggested that it isn't worth doing.
Because... wait for it... because OPCW is not chartered to assign BLAME. No, they are only responsible for determining whether there was any chemical weapons attack or not.
Got that? Because it is the standard Western government line. It doesn't matter WHETHER anyone used chemical weapons or not - all that matters is that RUSSIA DID IT.
"10-20% would be a jolly good show by that lot".
Why is it that Westerners take such joy in mocking and decrying people of other cultures?
Would you talk about "jungle bunnies" or "gooks" or "towelheads"? Well, maybe you would.
But believe me, if the study of wars throughout history teaches any one lesson, it is this:
War is God's way of teaching human beings not to despise their fellow human beings.
"It is criminal in its stupidity".
Well, it would have been if the NATO planners had the slightest belief that there were any actual chemical weapons there.
Just as they would never have dared to attack Iraq if they had really believed it had WMD of any description.
"A trial by fire against an Arab run air defense system is not really a trial by fire".
Er, Minister, that sounds really really racist.
That's a natural misapprhension, which comes from getting the Washington hierarchy upside down.
In fact, the billionaire arms manufacturers are at the top of the tree; they give money and orders to Congress, which then tells the Pentagon what to do.
"Pentagon High-Up Attitude Readjustment Tool".
Against hypersonic anti-ship missiles, a carrier with no aircraft is precisely as effective as a carrier with aircraft.
But a lot more expensive.
What in the name of any specified deity is a "warfighter"?
Mad Dog Mattis?
" It is an accounting fraud plain and simple".
Yes. As he said, classic capitalism.
Your comment displays an attitude not uncommon in those who don't understand (perhaps never having even considered) the ethical issues connected with using computers to save yourself trouble.
If you ask people to fill in a form with details to which you are not entitled, mperhaps as a sequel to some impertinent message, and you then fail to read what they have written; and then you use that data unquestioningly for a mail merge; you are a bloody fool.
"That being said, isn't there ANY Co out there that just once, will start something AND KEEP IT GOING"?
Only if it's profitable and convenient for them. Not you.
That is something all consumers should make sure they understand thoroughly. Corporations are not in business for your good - indeed their profit inevitably comes out of your bank account.
"The internet is a real-time, continuously-changing environment".
That is a rather naive, sweeping statement.
On the face of it, the Internet is a network. Nothing more. Some people may choose to connect to the Internet various pieces of kit and software, some of which are drastically immature and unreliable. Others may prefer to stick with the classic definition of a legacy application: "one that works".
The idea that "a real-time, continuously-changing environment" is necessarily a good thing is naive in the extreme. No doubt it is very useful to have such environments here and there - a kind of IT brainstorming - but it's very foolish to place any reliance on such systems. Nor do we: almost all of our society's vital IT tasks are still run on mainframes, for the simple reason that nothing better has been invented.
4. You become the wealthiest software corporation in the world.
As always, that is Microsoft's standard MO - which explains the high level of user discontent, as well as Microsoft's longstanding position as the world's most successful software corporation.
Many companies have come and gone with better ideas, better implementation, far greater emphasis on quality and much more dedication to customer satisfaction.
Sadly, they have all either gone out of business or been taken over by more pragmatic rivals such as Microsoft, IBM, Oracle or HP. (The last-named has a fantastic, almost unbelievable record of destroying healthy software companies after it has bought them; recently this trend has even seen HPE itself damaged).
The trouble is that, in spite of all the fine words uttered, the market as a whole is unwilling to pay for any high degree of security, integrity, reliability or quality. Hence the corporations that make the most profit are those that systematically keep quality and its costs as low as possible.
"Why do so many american consumers just accept this?"
I think American citizens are quite well aware that their government is not there to help them. If they try to contact their congresspeople, unless they are large contributors they may have difficulty getting in touch.
As for voting, that doesn't help either. As Ron Paul said just today, forget about getting a third political party - right now a second one would be a huge step forward. People voted for Obama, hoping for a change - and got more of the same. People voted for Trump, hoping for a change - and got more of the same.
"Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with".
Mr Ji is quite correct. It is Huawei's business to research the market and build superb equipment. If Americans do not want to buy "the best camera phone in the world", that is up to them.
The USA has slightly more than 4% of the world's population. There are plenty of people in other countries who will be happy to buy Chinese products - even if they are better and cheaper than US products.
If a British aircraft carrier were sent to the Black Sea, it would survive on Russian sufferance from the moment it passed Sicily.
"If you have to kill someone to win an argument, you're basically declaring to the world that you're an idiot".
If you win an argument - to your satisfaction - and are then killed by your "defeated" opponent, you are an idiot.
"Yup Putin. Or everybody. Russia does not have powerful conventional forces - as compared to NATO".
Well, that remains to be seen. Always remembering that military effectiveness cannot be measured by money spent. Russia is not going to attack anyone - unless they attack it first. And if they do, they will lose in any conventional war.
At which point the lunatics in Washington, London and Brussels will go nuclear and we will all die.
"Indeed, it has not been entirely without reason that the UK has oft been referred to as 'Perfidious Albion'."
Important correction: England has oft been referred to as 'Perfidious Albion'.
We Celts have been among those who most often felt the effects of that perfidy. Indeed, one reason why so many of the early American colonists were Scottish and Irish was that they were felling for their lives from the English. Or had just had all their land and property confiscated without compensation. It's not surprising they wanted to be independent of London, and it's hardly surprising if their descendants don't much like the ENGLISH.
"By the way - every Russian or anyone with honest business interests related to Russia will only applaud you for that".
Including the Russian government. Those rogues left Russia precisely to avoid prosecution for their criminal acts and industrial-scale embezzlement.
It's significant that they all headed for London, where blatant criminals are obviously welcome as long as they are rich enough.
"I thought that after the second mouthful it simply absorbed all the moisture in your body, leaving you a dried-out husk".
You sound as if you have been eating VERY cheap, nasty ersatz shortbread.
The proper stuff is made with plenty of butter, and literally (and I do mean "literally") melts in your mouth. The only thing you can do to improve the experience is to drink a wee dram of single malt with it.
Brilliant name for the next major release of Windows.
"The Shuttle's SRBs and their o-rings were 'aerospace grade'".
But used outside their safe temperature range, as explained in fairly simple language by Richard Feynman.
Because PHBs couldn't stand to disappoint the President, and maybe lose out on their promotions and visits to the White House.
"Absent gas revenues, the Russian state is bankrupt".
Apart from being the world's largest exporter of wheat, second-largest exporter of arms, and major constructor of nuclear power stations. Among literally dozens of other things.
Yeah. Russian drivers are so terrible that they just keep crashing into the President's official car - when it's on the other side of the road.
I've lost count of the number of times that has happened.
"Conspiracy theorists claim car crash that killed Vladimir Putin’s chauffeur was an ASSASSINATION attempt on the Russian president’s life".
Because of course the Daily Mail could not imagine it having been a deliberate assassination attempt. Mr Putin's car is demolished by another car that somehow loses control, crosses the central barrier and smashes directly into it. What are the odds of that?
If in any doubt, take this into account too - just one month before the crash in Moscow, former acting director of the CIA Mike Morell made this public statement:
"You don't tell the world about it. You don't stand at the Pentagon and say we did this. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran. I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to scare Assad. I want to go after his presidential car. I want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night. I want to destroy his presidential aircraft. I want to destroy his presidential helicopters. I want to make him think we are coming after him".
"Assad is not a nice person. Churchill was not a nice person".
Very probably, no one who runs a country (at least with any semblance of success) is not and cannot be "a nice person".
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018