Posts by Eponymous Cowherd 1596 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Nov 2007
Having two kids in school, I can honestly say, from first hand experience, that Blair would have been more accurate if his election slogan was Indoctrination, Indoctrination, Indoctrination.
It really is quite scary the amount of Government "spin" (passed off as "fact") that kids are being fed in our schools.
The problem with the "Freedom" of the Android Market (when compared to the App Store) is that the decent apps get lost amongst the total and complete dross that makes up 99% of new apps released to the Market.
The problem is caused by a handful of developers who release crap app after crap app, and then re-release them (without change) so they constantly reappear in the "most recent" list.
Anyone with an Android phone will know *exactly* what I'm talking about, and who these developers are.
It wouldn't be so bad if the Market offered facilities to filter out the problem developers, but unfortunately no such feature exists.
So, you have two extremes. the App Store controlled with an anally retentive zeal which bans many a useful application, and the Android Market free-for-all where the useful apps do exist but are outnumbered 100 to 1 by utter shite.
Personally I'd prefer a halfway house between the two. More control than Google, but less than Apple and where the control is based on quality rather than some arbitrary list of Commandments (thou shalt not use thy Private Frameworks, etc).
If I had to choose between the two as they are now, I'd probably go with Android. The plethora of crud is intensely annoying but, generally, there really *is* an app for most things that Apple ban (including some very useful wireless tools).
I have both an HTC Magic (Android) and an iPhone 3G, so the comparison is from real experience.
***"Is this the same government that wont have any new power stations on stream by 2017, or the same government that wont be starting any major rail link until 2017, or the same government that pisses money away on IT schemes that fall over when someone tries to enter some data?"***
Yes, the very same.
But, more importantly, its the same Government that will sell your name and address to any wheel-clamping crook who presents them with your car registration number.
Anyone seriously believe this cash-strapped Government will treat the (much more personal) data on the NIR any differently and won't sell it on to the highest bidder?
How do the Government expect to get 49 million people to "volunteer" to sell their souls to the National Identity Register by 2017?
By making life virtually impossible unless you *are* enrolled.
Want to leave the UK? You have to be on the NIR.
Want to buy alcohol? You have to be on the NIR.
Want to open a bank account? You have to be on the NIR.
Want to buy a house or rent a flat? You have to be on the NIR.
And, before we get all of the ovine "nothing to fear" brigade start saying ID cards are used in the rest of Europe, etc, lets not be under any illusions here. ID cards are *NOT* the issue. It is the biometric NIR database that is behind the cards *and* passports (from 2012), and that has *no* equivalent outside of (other?) police states.
So we don't have detention without trial? Yes we do. (See Terrorism acts 2000, 2006)
So we are all innocent until *proven* guilty? No we are not. (Re: retention of DNA profiles of innocent people)
So we can go about our legal and private business without it being subject to Government and/or police scrutiny? No we cannot. (DNA Database, NIR, CCTV, ANPR, etc)
So we don't torture our citizens? Actually we don't, we just turn a blind eye while other countries do it for us.
No, we probably aren't a fully fledged "Police State", but on a scale of 1 to 100, were 1 is a liberal democracy and 100 is a full Police State, I'd place us at about 75 to 80.
And its getting higher every day.
***"There is a lot of talk about us being a police state," he said. "I think people who say that have obviously never lived in a police state."***
No, I haven't, and I don't want to either.
It isn't just the "Police State" features of communism that New Labour is adopting, either. They are intent on controlling every aspect of our lives, from cradle to grave.
I have no problem with ID cards. I don't even have any problem with biometric ID cards as long as the biometrics are one-way (i.e. they can be used to confirm my ID but can't be used to ID me directly).
What I *DO* have a problem with is the Orwellian National Identity Register (NIR) that is behind the UK ID scheme and will also be behind all passports from (IIRC) 2012 if the Labour muppets stay in Government. That *does* allow you to be identified by any fingerprints you happen to leave lying around and will also track you as you use your ID card and/or passport.
Ask yourself this. If the Government are pushing ID cards as a simple way of confirming your ID ( and people such as Igamogam are actually swallowing this line), why *do* they need a (much more expensive) system that will allow you to be tracked and traced wherever you go?
Android phones don't synchronise with "connected PCs". You can mount the SD card and copy files, but nothing happens automagically unless you are stupid enough to have auto-run enabled on your PC.
(Android phones synch calendars, contacts, etc, with your Google account and, obviously, do that without being connected to a PC and is why there is no Android equivalent to ActiveSync. iTunes, etc ).
It wasn't the phone that had the malware on it, it was the micro SD card that was supplied with it.
I would guess that this was a re-issued phone and it was the previous owner who, deliberately or otherwise, infected the SD card.
I assume Vodafone did a factory reset on the phone before re-issuing it, but forgot about the card (which isn't affected by a factory reset).
***"A senior Google exec yesteday suggested that if the company doesn't get its way over Street View data retention, it may stop prowling the European Union's highways and byways"***
A bit like a mugger saying "If you don't give me all of your cash and valuables I'm going to stab myself".
There are two side to this. There's the technical issue, and there's the business issue.
On the technical side the problem is related to software bloat and hardware maintenance. For most office purposes any computer hardware from the last 8 or so years is perfectly adequate. A 2004 box running XP and Office 2003 will do the job.
So you have a perfectly serviceable box, that is eminently suitable for its purpose. The trouble is it becomes increasingly difficult to source parts, its software goes out of support and other machines in the organisation use different versions that the older boxes can't run.
So both sides of the argument are correct to some extent.
One thing to note, though. This "4 year obsolescence" is actually *driven* by the likes of Intel, Microsoft and many 3rd party developers. Application X needs Windows 7 and a machine with specification Y. Want to run application X? You need an new PC.
Bottom line. For corporates it *does* make economic sense to upgrade hardware on a 4 year cycle, but this upgrade cycle is driven by the Wintel cartel itself.
***"Do you think all gay boys want to be girls or something?"***
Many apologies. Didn't realise. If I'd known I would have used another analogy. Will remember for future reference.
I rather imagine that Verity is *well* aware of the difference between Java and JavaScript. The phrase "teaching your granny to suck eggs" comes to mind when I read your diatribe.
First rule of commentard posting. When being all smug and better, make sure you have read and understood what the author has written before making dumb comments.
What was actually written was:-
***"The ActionScript language evolved, becoming more like Java.........."***
Just because something has become "more like" something else does not mean it has actually become anything akin to the something else.
As in "John wore a dress because it made him more like a girlie".
You may note that I said "*I* voted....", not "people vote.....".
I. that is me, personally, have previously voted *positively* for the party I, personally, believed would be best suited to run the country.
This time, for the first time I, personally, will vote *against* the party that I believe will be an absolute *disaster* to leave in charge.
What other people do I leave to them.
In previous elections I have *always* voted positively (i.e. for the party whose policies I support).
This time, such is my dislike and anger at New Labour and, in particular, their Orwellian agenda, that I will vote for the candidate most likely to result in them losing the coming General Election.
If this rabble get in again it will be DNA samples at birth and compulsory ID cards for us all.
You do not need a TV licence for iPlayer (apart from live streaming) and you certainly don't need one just because you have a device that can receive streaming content (though you do need one if you have a TV card).
The argument is that because iPlayer is funded by the licence fee then licence holders should have free access to it without recourse to propitiatory software. In other words the BBC should use open standards because to do otherwise may deny some licence payers access to services they have paid for.
It has nothing to do with the legality of accessing iPlayer.
The most damage that can be done to my heap is around £500 for a total write-off.
Boy, are those Audi driving arseholes surprised when you *don't* move out of the way when they *try* to cut you up.
BTW, what is it with Audis and arseholes? It used to be that if some twonk cut you up at a junction it was either a white Transit or a BMW. Now its always an f'ing Audi.
***"The government has issued an interim code of practice which requires airport operators to put in place a privacy policy to protect passengers. This should include putting the security officer viewing the images out of sight of passengers."***
How the flying **** does not being able to see flunky looking at your genitals "protect passengers"?
unless you need Windows.
To run applications you need for your work (that aren't available / no alternatives on other platforms)
To play most games.
As to the "piracy" issue. WGA is notorious for its false positives, requiring the user to beg the old chair-chucker and his buddies for their blessing to allow them to use *their*, bought and paid for, computer again.
***"The DVLA also made clear it does not profit from the sales - £2.50 simply covers the cost of processing requests."***
So what? They are still giving your personal details away to what amount to legalised racketeers.
Anyone still wondering why this cash-strapped Government are refusing to scrap the twin white elephants of ID cards and the NIR? Could it be that they expect to make more money out of it, by selling our personal details, that it costs?
Big Brother. He's in it for the money.
Merchantmen crewed by Navy personnel and Marines armed with the latest in shoulder-launched weaponry and small-arms. Rotate the crews between different ships so the pirates won't know which ones are armed.
Pirates attack, down goes the merchant flag, up goes the Navy ensign, kaboom, splat, no more pirates.
Pirates are in the piracy trade because its (currently) easy money with minimal risk. If there was a somewhat higher chance that they won't return from a raid they may decide a career change is in order.
People are running IE6 because their bosses make them use it. The installation of alternatives (including the MS ones, never mind FF, Chrome or Opera) are strictly verboten and non-compliance can result in being fast-tracked to the job centre.
Stupid, I know, but when have corporate stuffed shirts ever made much sense?
Vista *was* pretty dire and Windows 7 *is* a big improvement.
The point is that the improvements in 7 aren't new features, they are largely the sort of things (bug fixes, performance tweaks and minor improvements) that usually go into service packs.
Windows 7 is largely Vista with the bang-your-head-repeatedly-on-desk feature removed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
