Posts by Andrew Orlowski 1435 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
And the Guardian sub headline on that story?
EXCLUSIVE: Paper deleted missing schoolgirl's voicemails, giving family false hope
Followed by:
Milly Dowler's mother tells Clegg deleted messages gave her hope (BBC)
She's picked up her voicemails. She's alive!' Murdered Milly's mother tells Leveson Inquiry of the moment phone hackers gave her false hope (Mail)
etc
@Tim:
A story claiming that elephants can fly does not become true (or 'not false') because the story also happens to (correctly) point out that elephants have trunks.
"What seemed fairly certain was that they were not maliciously deleted by the NotW or it's agent in order to make room for more messages - something that was being alleged."
Yes.
The Guardian story insinuated that NoW staff deleted voicemails giving the Dowler parents the false hope that their daughter was alive.
This caused huge public revulsion, leading to the NoW closure and Leveson. It was wrong: NoW staff did not delete emails. Voicemails were removed by the system as they were replaced by newer voicemails on a FIFO basis.
Your bias is preventing you from acknowledging this.
Yes, there was no rational basis to refer the takeover on competition and plurality grounds. To block the merger on these grounds, Ofcom had to bend the rules. This is what it did.
As for "suitability", YMMV. But that's a separate argument.
Hunt referred the bid to the CoCo after BSkyB withdrew the undertakings, it had basically changed its mind about the takeover by then.
The rest of your post is interesting but speculative.
"There is far, far to much teaching of button-pushing and nothing about the actual fundamentals (and how to tinker)."
Amen.
Teaching everyone the basics of network architecture, "what's a server?" would be useful.
Optional programming is fine by me.
Specialising earlier (as in France) is probably a very good idea.
But Mystical Rory's claim that we understand "the digital world" better with a bit of coding - induction? osmosis? - is weird.
"You can delete the whole journalist doing HTML part from the article and lose nothing."
That's very true, but I thought Rory's article was illustrative of the make-programming-compulsory campaign's mindset. And his Tweets were quite revealing too: kids won't start coding unless the authority figures says so. Really? It's very patronising.
Your point about Excel is a really good one: instead of "teaching programming" shouldn't we be teaching skills which use just happen to use computers? Excel can help with calculating NPV and regression analysis, the important thing here being the NPV or regression analysis.
"I also find it somewhat bizarre to find anyone arguing for the status quo in education today"
I would as well. But that bit has been inferred and was not implied.
@RobL:
You make a good argument for teaching any one of 500 (or 5,000) subjects. It's not an argument for compulsory programming.
"how many great potential coders are there out there that don't even know it?"
Fair point. How many great potential pastry chefs or brewers are out there that don't even know it?
You're making the case for a broader education, not specifically for why programming should be a compulsory part of the curriculum.
" it'll expose them to something that completely inspires them and harnesses their analytical and logical skills."
Really? HTML. Drag and drop smartphone apps. Now you're projecting.
"There's nothing in the idea of teaching all children to do some programming that means we can't teach some children to be real programmers."
There is, and it's called opportunity cost. Teaching time is not infinite, so he one hour a week spent getting 30 pupils to dick about with HTML is an hour not spent doing teaching the good codeers those conceptual and analysis skills.
I dunno James, you're not selling it to me. Let's agree there's a dearth of good (elite) coders, that the UK economy would benefit from more, and encouraging the talented (maybe by streaming) in the education system would help create more.
What in buggery has that got to do with 15 year olds learning HTML?
Excel is a tool for doing lots of things. Eg,
http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/themes/excel
A spreadsheet is essential for running a budget, or a business. Why would anyone have a problem with schoolchildren learning something so useful?
Ross, I didn't dive into the issues because it's a mailbag not a soapbox.
Cracking interview coming up putting the case for programming in schools.
Is there are actually any disagreement that ICT today is rubbish, and that programming should be an option? None that I can see.
Extending copyright to APIs: well, you know what I think about that.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/17/google_oracle_copyright_on_languages/
I'm really surprised more people haven't picked up on it, because it has huge disruptive effects on the industry. And not in any good way.
The Lindholm email is just what it is. Page asked a very knowledgeable Java veteran what to do. The guy said: we need a license to do what we're doing. Google chose to poker bluff its way into court instead.
"Essentially, these bodies are fighting a war they cannot possibly win."
A bit of wishful thinking.
"When will these idiots realise"
As I wrote during the SOPA storm, legislation will keep coming back - creative industries (in music this is mostly small not large players) need to enforce their rights. Calling them idiots and pretending they don't have rights just makes sure nobody listens to you.
If you don't want legislation, enlightened self-regulation will do. Be part of the solution.
Howay! @Ross:
"Fracking is fine if they do it safely, but it;s a fairly big if."
...Driving is fine if they do it safely, but it's a fairly big if
...Open-heart surgery is fine if they do it safely, but it's a fairly big if.
...Commercial flight is fine if they do it safely, but it's a fairly big if.
(etc)
Let's find out how big that if is, then. And the benefits. CBA.
Herr Spart,
"...and requires parties to pander to the reactionary middle ground"
Translation: "they don't pander enough to raging eco-zealots, like me"
But actually, you'll find MPs do little else - and the 0.5M rule is a terrific example of that. So are ROCs, the wonderful CO2 reduction targets legislated in Climate Change Act, which passed by 463 votes to 5, and so on.
If "reactionary middle england" objects to these proposals, it may be because it's the people who are paying the bill for the cranky ideas. As the costs and benefits become apparent,
"And the difference between that and Dropbox is that the US Justice Dept. haven't shut Dropbox down yet ?"
It must be Talk Like An Idiot Day.
Megaupload deleted files which weren't accessed, and told uploaders *not* to rely on the service as a backup. Dropbox doesn't.
Megaupload was a criminal enterprise designed and used for copyright infringement. Dropbox isn't.
If you're finding any of this difficult to understand: just stay clear of the fat kid with the STONED, GUILTY and HACKER number plates.
Andy the Hat:
" legitimate account holders are now fighting to get their data "
Too bad. It is conceivable some legitimate users were hurt. Just about. The clues that this was a huge, honking criminal enterprise was not hard to spot. Even for a freetard. Megaupload warned people not to use it for backups.
"Why shouldn't any virtual host provider be subject to the same incompetent, iron fist approach?"
One you don't need me (or anyone else) to answer.
"We need less power, and less consumption"
Well, you're not going to get it I'm afraid. Unless you make a hobby of lost causes, you probably need to rethink your politics from the ground up. Praying for lower consumption is like hoping monochrome comes back to replace colour screens.
Freeman is good at playing a fool - the part requires cunning. That would rule out Rowan Atkinson, a natural goof.
Fry would be too posh. And he has only ever played Stephen Fry.
"lefties are writing decent political satire again. "
Where? Laurie Penny isn't supposed to be satire.
"Enforce the laws that exist rather than creating new ones. "
Yes, agreed.
"There's no need for the increasingly repressive and unworkable new copyright laws "
Yes, agreed.
"Stop making new laws and enforce that which already exists."
Yes, agreed.
There hasn't been a new copyright law for a very long time. Moral rights were added to UK law in 1988 and copyright was extended to cover collections in the early 1990s.
SOPA and DEA strengthen enforcement, they don't extend it to new areas. SOPA and DEA are doing exactly what you want - perhaps not in the way you want it, but you haven't suggested anything better.
Your post shows how deeply you misunderstand what's going on - at every level.
"It would be perfectly logically consistent to have strong privacy protections and weak copyright."
No it wouldn't, and isn't.
Unless you own your data you're always going to be "borrowing" rights from, and negotiating rights with, the Government and its agencies - including the spooks. And they'll find endless reasons to give you a shit deal.
You're going to have to think about this a little deeper.
@CaptSmeg
Property rights are the foundation of effective law in each case. You OWN your creations and you OWN your communications and traffic data in each case. The individual is sovereign. Ownership means you have the right to exclude others. Others may include Governments, corporations and Kim Dotcom.
There's really no other way to have effective privacy, unless we put the individual, your or me, as the ultimate owner. The Hive Mind is not an effective. good custodian.
"I also do not understand the arguments for treating the digital realm as some other special place removed from the rest of the world with its own special laws, that just seems absurd".
The Utopian argument seems to boil down to this. It makes an exception for digital stuff - which can't be owned, and so people can't be excluded. The Unicorns run wild, and run free.
But it means there will be no markets and no privacy in the Unicorn Meadow.
Individuals own their copyright and negotiate it away through license or contract. Computer programmer's sign away theirs by contract in exchange for a full-time salary, just as many contract writers do too. The contract or license doesn't change the philosophical basis of the law and ownership though.
The answer to Big Bad Corporations "owning" individuals' copyright and exploiting it unfairly, is to have better choices when an individual goes to market. Richer, broader, more diverse markets benefit the creator. Choices are good - see the choices Adele made, for example.
Because (c) enforcement is so expensive online (as well as ineffective), only bigger companies can afford to do it - which tilts the playing field even more to larger players. One positive step would be to fight market consolidation, another would be to make enforcement easier, so smaller companies can afford to do it too.
Why is he talking rubbish? If I were you I'd give your arguments a good shake to see how well they stand up. To me, you've got a worldview that is based on several assumptions about constraints and innovation, which in practice, don't stand up.
"If we want to preserve standards of living and not destroy our environment, then the only logical behaviour is population control"
OK, you want coercion - control, the removal of choice from people. Fine. But increasing prosperity is the best known contraceptive there is - fertility falls to replacement levels (or below-replacement levels). That's a choice made by individuals - and why it's called "desired fertility".
(By the way, "preserving a standard of living" aka a static economy is not a goal for anyone except a few cranks. High growth is the goal.)
Basically you've lumbered yourself with an argument that ignores the reality that a) we can do more with less. b) we invent things all the time. The UK in the 1990s grew, and used fewer resources than it did in the 1980s. We have more forests now because we don't need to chop down trees for wood. We can leave uranium in the ground, because we have thorium.
So your predictions of doom can only come true if we stop doing the basics we've always done - find better ways of doing things. And you say Kareiva is unrealistic, and misunderstands your philosophy? I think he understands your philosophy pretty well. He's really nailed it.
Once again, you're repeating the philosophy (and rhetoric) Kareila criticises: that when humans do something good there must be a downside because we've harmed "Mother Nature". The downside will get us in the end. Stop, everybody!
Scientific innovation and technology transfer (to make sure it spreads around) are making people healthier and have more choices. It's that simple.
You are arguing that prosperity, good health, comfort, freedom, choices for women - all are bad. You think this is awful. The rhetorical device here is that there's a "price" - but you don't say what it is. We know what the costs are. We consider the benefits outweigh those costs.
You don't really have offer evidence of irreversible costs, or quantify them - just rhetorical devices ("Waaay too late" - er, for what?) and hand waving.
Example:
"Wherever I look the price of good land keeps rising which suggests otherwise. I know China is trying to buy land left, right and center. Why do you think that is happening?"
I can only guess what that means. Facts, figures needed please to make a convincing argument.
"If you look at what is happening in the world you can see that most people will never sacrifice convenience for a chance at a better future."
Yes, good - and why the hell should they sacrifice anything? Because you're shouting at them. Because you feel guilty about having these things yourself, so have to invoke an imaginary, ontological entity (Gaia) to make your case ethical somehow?
I think everyone should have the choices we have - and the prosperity we have. You're not convincing me why we can have them and others shouldn't at all. To me it just sounds like guilt.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
