Re: @ VinceH
@jake
Try looking down the back of your sofa, behind the fridge, or in whichever cupboard you look in least often. That'll be where it is - your misplaced sense of humour.
3483 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Nov 2009
"Among the boss' claims were “I have a Cray supercomputer in my barn” and “I'm friends with Richard Branson.” He also claimed to have been picked for the UK's Olympic archery team and to have studied six degree courses concurrently, and to have won prizes for all. Oh and it took just 18 months to study those six degrees."
His name wasn't Jake, was it? :p
"Ah, the joys of a teacher who doesn't want to be shown up. Far too many of them in the world..."
Yeah, but things did change. I can't remember how far into the year that was - but as it progressed, the guy did come to realise what I was capable of. Somewhere down the line I stopped being a student and started assisting, and at one point while the class was learning some rubbish or other he tasked me with writing a nice little database for his model cars.
With all the 'clever stuff' snipped out for the example, it may have been slightly less obvious; there may have been references to SUCCESS in that, but which didn't set it at all, so it becomes a wood for trees situation.
It does bring to mind my younger days. On a YTS at college, when the class was doing some programming. The instructor was trying to help a girl with her program, but couldn't understand why, when run, it appeared to do nothing.
I took a glance, pointed to a part and said it's an infinite loop - with a quite similar cause to the example here. The instructor told me I was wrong (IIRC, I was told I couldn't possibly spot such a problem so quickly) so I stepped in, added something at a key point to display the contents of the test variable on screen, and ran the program again. Unsurprisingly, the screen just scrolled the same number on each new line.
I then got told off for "breaking" the girl's program.
"**USA** Yes. Sorry. We lied. But we won't do it again
**Europe** Promise?
**USA** Sure!
**Europe** That's all right then."
You've forgotten to take into account the 'annual joint review' - a written commitment by the US, and an audit by both sides:
[Once per year]
** US ** Dear Europe, we can confirm that we will not snoop on your citizens' data. Yours, The US.
** US Sock Puppet** Yup, Europe, I've checked, my country is definitely sticking to its promise, you can take my word on that.
** Europe ** Is your Sock Puppet correct? Are you definitely sticking to your promise not to snoop on us?
** US ** Oh, definitely, definitely. There's no way we'd do that again. No way.
** Europe ** Promise?
** US ** We swear!
** Europe ** Okay, then! We'll be back to check again next year!
"Wireless or Gigabit direct into the router?"
"But give Reg readers the benefit of the doubt, since on the whole we're a pretty sharp bunch technically, so I doubt that was the case here."
Well, in this case it is a bit of a facepalm moment. And a double one, at that.
When doing speed tests in the past, I have done it both ways - and got broadly similar results, at around the speeds mentioned above.
Post upgrade to 200Mb/s, though, I completely forgot to try with a wired connection. Trying it now, I'm getting close to 90Mb/s. Still not the speed I'm supposed to be getting, but an awful lot better - and would be enough to stop me wanting to thump the Virgin Media router when I need to eke a little more out of it. (Not that that would actually help.)
Why is it a double facepalm? This is a new Cat6 ethernet cable. The previous one was unmarked and cheap (bought in a hurry to replace a broken one) and may have been a piece of crap not been up to the task - so it may be that with a [decent] wired connection, I could have gotten a better result previously.
This cable belongs to something else, though, and it's not practical for use with this computer - to make it reach, it's hanging between my face and the screen. I'll get a new [longer] one and go wired when at my desk.
Hmm.
My 152Mb/s broadband, from which I got at best 40-45Mb/s, has been upgraded to 200Mb/s, and my first speed test suggests I'm getting 40-45Mb/s from it.
So previously, I was getting 26--30% of my ISP-claimed speed, and now I'm getting 20-23% of my ISP-claimed speed.
I suspect the limiting factor for me is the distance from the Virgin Media cabinet, and the fact that from there to here it's copper.
Most of the time, 40Mb/s is more than enough - but there are times when I'd benefit from the speed I'm actually paying for.
Can't say I remember seeing El Reg double up words for a TalkTalk related headline before.
I'd like to think they've been inspired to start that as a policy by my comment of a couple of weeks ago. ;)
(Although one further up this comment thread is better.)
Before anyone clicks on the Twitter thread linked to by Adam 1 - seeing as it's [almost] Friday, I'd suggest having something alcoholic ready and play a simple drinking game:
Every time a TalkTalk TwatTwat TweetTweets something to the effect of "We don't allow copy and paste into password fields because..." take a swig of your drink.
"If we ever found evidence suggesting that life might exist on a planet orbiting a nearby star, we would most likely need to go there to get definitive proof and learn more about its underlying biochemistry and evolutionary history."
If we don't want them anally probing us, we shouldn't be thinking about doing the same to them.
"I'll have to change both of mine, fortunately I wrote the codes "1234" and "5687" on the shackles so I didn't get locked out."
The mistake you made was writing the right code on the right shackle. What you should have done was write the code for each on the other shackle. That way, you'd be perfectly safe.
"Which sounds very much like a legalistic way of saying because everybody's ignoring the law, the law is irrelevant."
Well, what will happen when the deadline is reached and no new agreement has been made? Absolutely bugger all - things will just continue as now, which pretty much shows that at this level, the law is as good as irrelevant.
And as far as Joe Public is concerned? Although only a vanishingly small sample, I've tried explaining the situation to friends and family both in the run up to and after the downfall of "Safe Harbor". They really don't give a flying frell, and what I've said probably just helped to secure in their minds that I'm a fully paid up member of the tinfoil hat brigade.
The only thing that will make them sit up and take notice is if, come the deadline, the likes of Facebook et al are completely blocked in Europe, at which point they'll come back to me and ask why, having let what I said previously go in one ear and out the other, briefly triggering the "Ignore Vince, he's just paranoid" synapse en route.
And we know damned well that a block like that won't happen: See above - both this post and further up in the comments.
Heads the DSA* win, tails the European public lose.
* Data Slurpers of America
Limit which sources of Javascript are allowed to run (and ensure the right one is blocked1), and instead of an embedded Flash video you'll just get a YouTube link - and clicking through to YouTube means you can see the video using HTML5 rather than Flash.
1. jwpsrv.com, IIRC. It's one of the ones that doesn't run here, and I think it's the one for the embedded videos.
No idea. I hadn't considered anything like that. It was just a GCSE thing I did in my very early 20s for fun (already had an O level from school), and I was specifically looking at Titius-Bode for the main part, then the Drake equation towards the end.
The point was that Titius-Bode works as an approximation until you hit Neptune for the ninth position (the fifth is Ceres/the asteroid belt) - and then, of course, Pluto is wrong for the tenth.
Take Neptune out though, and Pluto is in the right place for the ninth value in the sequence - so I suggested Neptune didn't originate hereabouts. (If memory serves, I suggested that its arrival could be one explanation for Uranus' axial tilt - not as an ongoing thing, but simply that it had an effect when it came too close, before finding itself in a more stable orbit.)
The two distances in my previous post are therefore 10th and 11th.
Edit: I think I may also have suggested it caused a larger body in fifth position to break up and become the asteroid belt - though these days I believe the consensus is that there isn't enough material there for it to have formed a planet to start with.
OTOH, perhaps that's because the missing material ended up scattered more widely, and some of it may have been the material in the bombardment. And if this theorised new planet has such an odd orbital plane, maybe it caused that as well. :)
Edit again: I found the file with that coursework on a while back, but didn't have the right software to read it. I do have the software now, so just need to find the file again. It'd be fun to read it again, and perhaps tidy it up/shorten it - and if necessary fix some of the out of date info - and throw it on my blog or something.
"Planets are supposed to form from the disk of matter that surrounds a young star, but the unusual orbit suggests that while the ninth planet might have started that way, it got knocked out of alignment, possibly by a major object like Jupiter, and sent on a new orbital trajectory."
Or as a result of a roaming exoplanet being caught by the Sun's gravity and mixing things up a little.
Based on some nonsense I put together for some maths course work a lifetime ago, that foreign planet is Neptune - and that same coursework suggests our mystery planet should be 11,580,000,000 Km from the Sun, which is notably less than 30,000,000,000 Km. (And if there's another one again, it'll be 22,500,000,000 Km).
Of course, I'm all grown up now, so I know just how wrong I was back then.
Or do I?
"A quick recap: Free Basics is Facebook's curated collection of web sites it deems useful to those in the developing world. The company works with telcos to make those sites available with “zero rating” so that viewing them doesn't count against subscribers' download caps. "
I wonder if that zero rating will also apply to all the crap the sites undoubtedly load from third party domains - lots of scripts, and any advertising?
(Plus all the other criticisms above...)
I'm confused. Is anyone else confused?
The article talks about how Star Wars: Episode VIII - an as yet untitled instalment - is delayed from summer 2017 until December 2017.
Then it says: "Episode VIII, a standalone flick set in the Lucasverse, Rogue One, remains on track for release on December 16th, 2016."
So, putting those two things together, the 8th instalment, which is currently untitled and is to be delayed until December 2017, will come out a year earlier than that and be called Rogue One.
Or is the "Episode VIII" in that sentence a rogue one? :p
"On the contrary, the music industry *loves* an excuse to sell you the same music you've already bought, over and over in different formats."
Yes, but Flocke specifically said the musicians rather than the music industry. The industry isn't just the musicians - it's a lot of other people as well.
“The Department of Justice does not need to wait for data to come to the United States to examine it,” he explained. “It can force countries to give it your data without disclosing that access to government, or complying with any European law.”
Did he perhaps mean "It can force American companies operating in other countries to give it your data" ?
"In 25 years or so, all facts will be total bullshit but true!"
And all thanks to the magic of citogenisis!
" And if users are bailing out before they buy, leaving a full virtual shopping cart at the checkout, you'll know that too and be offered ways to stop it from happening."
So it's "solving" a problem that is already better solved another way: Logging.
* User visits site, starting a new unique session
* User visits various product pages, all logged for that session.
* User adds something (or some things) to their basket: All logged.
* User follows through and purchases - logged.
When you analyse those logs, if you see an abnormally high number of cases where people are putting things in their baskets and not following through and purchasing, you think about why.
Mind you, with so many sites using third party analytics services (often multiple), and an increasing trend now for comments on news sites also being dealt with elsewhere, and probably other examples I can't think of, I suppose farming out every last byte of data to an "as a service" service provider is inevitable.
(And even more likely to 'enpoor' the web for those of us who use NoScript and similar.)
I believe that was real crash footage from some experimental vehicle.
Are you sure? I was thinking that as a result of the recent hackhack, TalkTalk talked and talked amongst themselves and concluded the best defence against that happening again in future was to disconnect absolutely everything - including their customers - so that they can neither be hacked nor socially engineered.
"Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux" etc
Shouldn't the full version go:
Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux,
Apple, Apple
Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux,
Apple, Apple
Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux,
Apple, Apple
Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux,
Argh, Windows, Windows, ooh, it's Windows!
[Repeating ad infinitum]
"Bit worried about this bit. Who does that apply to? What happens if you don't? It's a nice idea in theory, but if you're the only one doing it, it'll make your site look dead sketchy. Definitely not going to be an early adopter of this..."
Just hide the link in the cellar, with no lights, no stairs, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard" the terms and conditions/legal blurb. That's what the bigger companies will do, unless the obligation is to display it prominently, on every page. (The linked PDF doesn't say anything more than the article: that online retailers must have a link on their site).