Posts by Dr. Mouse 2114 publicly visible posts • joined 22 May 2007
"I have it on good authority that they're going to strap abrasive pads to a cat and push it through using a really long flexible pole."
Having attempted to use a cat for cleaning purposes before, I can attest that it is not the best idea in the world (no matter how fun it sounds!)
Although, I did have a cat who enjoyed being pushed around at the end of a mop, until I soaked the end of it and he got drenched. He didn't like it anymore after that, or me...
This can only be described as a good idea, IMHO. It's basically electronic cash.
However, as always, the devil will be in the detail. If the implementation is good, and adoption is good (from banks, merchants and consumers), it could be revolutionary. If not, it's just another interesting project. I'll be keeping an eye on it...
This does not surprise me one bit, it's how the govt works.
Govt plans "one database to rule them all", runs it through the regular channels, it gets defeated.
What are they to do next? Give up on it, because the electorate don't want it? Nah, let's call it something else and try to push it in through the back door*!
This sort of thing seems to happen more and more. The people want privacy in the IPB? OK, we'll add the word "privacy" to the title of a section, that'll appease them without changing anything.
* Fnar fnar!
Accusations of mindless conformity are, however, wide of the mark. Britons, for whatever reason, don't like to be told what to do.
However, our reactions tend to be more understated than other countries, and often passive-aggressive. Look at a recent protest of bikers against something (I really can't remember what, maybe fuel prices or something...) - They took to the motorway, formed up accross it, and drove slowly. In a country like, say, France, there would have been outright demonstrations, blockades etc. We just react differently, often in a more subtle way, which to an outsider looks like acceptance.
I'll be honest, I'm a lazy b*****d, and the amount of work involved in applying to Oxford or Cambridge put me off.
However, you cannot deny the following.
* The application process is intense.
* It is also quite different to applying to any other UK university.
* You are more likely to have teachers who graduated Oxbridge in a private school than a state school.
* Those who have graduated Oxbridge are more likely to understand the application process, and will be more helpful to those applying.
This does, intrinsically, give those who had a private education a greater chance of gaining entry to Oxbridge.
Let that last one sink in. Like the Anonymous Coward before me said: rise up. Not against the EU, its time will come, but against our own piss pot career politicians who are only in it to make a few quid for themselves and only care about you once every 5 years.
HERE HERE!!
My personal view about the EU referendum is that it's being used as a distraction by our government, to let it push through unpopular legislation while everyone is slinging mud.
Let's be quite frank about this, BOTH sides are just mud slinging, name calling, and spreading FUD. In order to find any facts, I have had to ignore what the politicians and media are saying and do my own research. For anyone to come to an informed decision, this is what must be done, yet I find VERY few people who have done this. They trot out quotes from politicians who are on their side, and "facts" which support their view (which are normally nothing of the sort). They raise confirmation bias to an art form, and end up in blazing rows where NEITHER side are right, both both are utterly convinced they are. It's practically religious in nature!
In the interests of full disclosure, I am a Remainer, but only marginally. I believe that there are pros and cons of staying and leaving, but on balance staying just edges out leaving. That said, I doubt much would change in either event, looking at both my own life and the bigger picture, when the dust settles.
There is one site I use, F1Fanatic, which offers an ad free option. It costs £1/month and I'm happy to pay. Indeed, I'd be happy to pay the same for El Reg. It's a small price to pay to support a site I regularly visit without putting up with irritating adverts!
Although much more than that and I'd probably balk...
"Keep it simple, a static image, some text and a hyperlink to a product page, no tracking."
I agree, I do not block such ads either.
The Register has incurred my wrath on this with their "change the whole page" ads. You know, the ones which change the colours and put adverts in the "wasted" side areas, exactly the area I tend to click to bring focus back to a web page or to allow me to scroll. Before that started happening, I had this site whitelisted, and now I don't even know if they still use them.
If adverts are non-intrusive to how you use the site, preferably text only or non-invasive images, and clearly labelled as adverts, people don't mind. When they are shoved in your face or interfere with the content you are there to see, they start looking for ways to block.
"the implied contractual part of getting paid shit wages for several years is permanent employment afterwards"
I disagree with this.
The point of an apprenticeship is that you get an education in the trade, learning both through studying and working. However, I do not believe that there should be a guaranteed job at that company afterwards: If they want to pay for your training then get rid of you, that is their prerogative. As long as they do provide the training that is required to do the job, preferably along with recognised, transferable qualifications, they have fulfilled their part of the bargain.
Most companies couldn't guarantee anyone a job for 5 years (probably not even 1 year), even their most experienced and skilled employee. Circumstances change quickly in business.
My own brother did an apprenticeship as a mechanic, and he's doing pretty well for himself.
However, I agree that there are many who use apprentices and interns as cheap (or free) labour, instead of teaching them the skills they will need to progress. This practice should be stopped. Any employer found to be doing this should be forced to pay full wages* to their "apprentices", back dated and applied to previous apprentices, as well as a hefty fine and being publicly named and shamed. Its exploitation of young people trying to do the right thing and get a good start in a trade/career, and exploitation of labour laws.
If I say I'll paint your house for a tenner, and you agree (and turn down other offers to do it), then I turn up and say "oh, I meant a grand" would you shrug and say "oh well" and give me the cash? Would you fuck.
I would suggest another analogy.
The landlord of a pub approaches a painter and decorator and asks them to decorate the pub. In return, he will supply the guy, at cost, with beer to take home and use in his own home bar. As soon as the work is complete, the landlord changes his mind. The decorator has done all that work, and has nothing to show for it.
I believe anyone who has worked, for free, on software on the promise that the platform would be open, should consider a class action lawsuit. It would be an interesting case, as IMHO Luckey's previous promise could be interpreted as a verbal contract...
"It's like banning hard hats on building sites until you can prove they don't cause scalp disease."
While also restricting the weight of said hats, the materials they are made from, banning advertising of them, restricting the number of hard hats you can have on a building site at a time and the number you can order at a time, stopping you from buying them from outside the country, and generally trying to make like as difficult for manufacturers, retailers and consumers as possible.
E-cig portions of the TPD are possibly one of the most insane peices of legislation I have ever seen:
"Here's something which will make millions of people healthier and better off."
"Lets force bunch of nonsensical rules on them to kill them off."
"Great idea, our friends in the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries will be really happy with us for that! They've been loosing loads of money thanks to these devices."
That would only be justified for a major crime, such as one that carried a 10year sentence
That is a scary possibility which I hadn't thought of...
Fortunately such laws would only be used against major criminals, or terrorists.
This was my thought on the issue. Unless it is actually written into the law, saying "we will only use this for serious offences" holds no water for me. The same has been said about multiple laws recently (since the New York attacks). However, because it has never been written into the law to limit their use, police/CPS/councils will use them where they can. This is either bad planning by the lawmakers, or (more likely) intentional, planned feature creep.
Part of a cop's job is to judge the situation. If they consider the situation warrants it, a gun can be drawn.
However, it seems that many American chips consider it their first option, and point a gun at a suspect as a matter of course. This is unacceptable. Shooting a suspect should always be a last resort, and if there is another way to deal with it, they should use that.
While I don't have all the facts, I have heard that the cops shoot a lot of suspects in the USA, many of which could have been apprehended and tried (albeit with a potential increased risk to the police officer involved). Some of these suspects will have been either innocent or guilty of something with a much lesser sentence than death.
The cops have a dangerous job, granted, and police deaths are unacceptable. They still need to respond in a proportionate manner, as the death of a suspect is also unacceptable except where the cops life or the lives of bystanders is at immediate risk, and there is no other option.
There is no reason any officer should have to compete in hand-to-hand combat before escalating their response. There is no point during a fight at which the action stops while he picks his next weapon. An officer who loses consciousness loses control of their weapons and may very well die as a result. Their only option is to stop the threat NOW. You can critique it all you want when it is over. Anyone attacking a police officer should expect to be shot. That's just common sense. And yes, by a real gun, not a tazer or baton. Those frequently have no effect and by the time you know it hasn't worked it can be too late.
I completely disagree.
A police officer should always offer a proportionate response to a situation.Weapons of any kind should only be drawn when the officer feels there is an imminent danger to their own person or others. They should only be used in the last resort to protect their own lives or the lives of others. The chosen weapon should be proportionate to the circumstances, and the use of that weapon proportionate.
An unarmed man is acting in a threatening and violent manner. Is it appropriate to draw a weapon? Probably, although the officer should first use words to try to calm the situation.
Is it appropriate to draw a gun, if they have a taser or baton at their disposal? Probably not, and here is my reasoning. If the gun is drawn as a threat (a legitimate tactic, as many would back down from the threat of being shot), and the suspect escalates (attacks, or threatens to attack), there is only one escalation available to the cop: shoot him. Someone skilled with a gun may be able to shoot the leg or arm, intending to injure and incapacitate the suspect, but even that could kill them. If, instead, a baton or taser had been drawn, it is easier to non-lethally incapacitate the suspect, and there is still the option of drawing a firearm (albeit with more difficulty).
Police in America seem far too quick to draw their gun. There are many occasions where a suspect was killed when they could have been incapacitated and/or apprehended. To say "Anyone attacking a police officer should expect to be shot" shows a complete lack of thought. What if the person was mentally ill, suffering some kind of break down? Do they deserve to be shot, or should they be apprehended?
Accepting that the cops may shoot anyone who attacks (or looks likely to attack) them makes them judge, jury and executioner. If the suspect is, instead, caught and tried, the criminal justice system can determine an appropriate action (which is unlikely to be "shoot them in he chest and let them die horribly").
Do think you guys into the US need to look into why your police need to be so heavily armed
There's a simple reason: Cops in the US must be heavily armed because the population are heavily armed (or at least, are allowed to be, can easily be and often the criminal elements, who they need to deal with, are).
For the rest, I agree that, in general, police officers join the force to help people (or as the US cops say "Protect and Serve"). There is the odd bad apple who joins because they are power-hungry sociopaths with no other route to the power they crave, but I believe they are the exception.
In reality, though, there are some who are corrupted by that power. While in uniform/on duty, the cops should be held to a higher standard than the general population. They should be shining examples of how one should follow the law, among other things.
As a trivial example, my brother was once overtaken by a marked police car exceeding the speed limit (by a large margin, around 40 in a 30 zone) without blues and twos. He accelerated and kept pace with the cop. After a short while, the cop noticed him and slowed to less than the speed limit, encouraging my brother to pass him. Instead, he maintained a safe gap and matched speeds. The cop then proceeded to accelerate and slow down several times to try to force my brother to pass, which he didn't.
Eventually the cop put his lights on and signaled my brother to pull over. "Do you know what speed you were doing?" he asked. "Same speed as you, officer," my brother replied. After a brief argument, including "I'm not sure exactly what speed I was doing, but I was doing the same as you, and as an officer of the law you wouldn't have been breaking the law, would you?" he was issued with a ticket.
Luckily for my brother, we knew a high-ranking officer in the area. He tore up the ticket, gave the cop involved an official warning, and busted him down to beat work. However, both my brother and the officer involved should really have been prosecuted for speeding. In reality, this was another police cover up.
There are many more examples I could cite, but it all comes down to the fact that the police should always be held to a higher standard. They should never be speeding or breaking other traffic laws (except in an emergency, indicated by blues and twos), they should never be corrupt, never violate privacy laws, never violate a suspect's rights etc. They should be whiter than white. When something bad happens, it should not be covered up, but exposed and "cleaned" in public.
@veti
Please don't use this argument."Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is a bullshit argument that should be opposed, not adopted.
It was fairly obvious to me that he was taking the mick with that comment. The cops/law enforcement/politicians use it all the time, so he was turning it around on them.
"[S]pecialized in gaining authorized access to protected computers"
Am I the only one who is confused by this? If he gained "authorized access", he was allowed to do so, surely. He was authorized to do so, therefore it is not illegal.
Either this is a misprint, the charges don't make sense, or the legalese used twists the meaning of the words to make them unintelligible.
"older chips that are hot and thirsty"
About 5 years ago, I decided to get a real server to replace my aging repurposed desktop based server. Being on a very limited budget, and not having as much understanding as I should have, I bought an old ProLiant based on the P4-generation Xeon for about £100.
I realised this was a mistake soon after. While the management features were great, the system burned leccy, made enough noise to keep me awake, and needed the window open in summer or it overheated. It was replaced by another desktop-based unit quite quickly.
But for some people and some businesses leaving will be very disruptive indeed and possibly even disastrous.
I agree, and yet I would bet that for some people and businesses there would be a very positive effect. They probably wouldn't entirely balance out, but overall I doubt there would be a significant impact.
One thing that is certain, though, is that no one knows for certain what will happen either way. Except, maybe, psychics, if there are any true psychics out there. Oh, and of course His Noodleyness the Flying Spaghetti Monster, although he's too drunk to care what happens in the referendum.
"Both campaigns in this sordid and rather pointless referendum are very poor. I think Mervyn King put this point very well in his interview with Richard Quest on CNN: where are the arguments."
The one thing I know about his referendum is that noone knows the future. There have been groups analysing potential consequences of both outcomes, and there have been varied results.
My own view is that there are more positives than negatives to staying in the EU, so that's how I currently intend to vote. However, I don't think either result would have the disastrous effect that the campaigns would have us believe. Life will go on, babies will be born, politicians will lie, we'll pay our taxes and then we'll die. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
Unidentified Congressman: "Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another."John Hancock: "And we will call that country the United States of America."
~South Park, "I'm a Little Bit Country" [S7, E4, 2003], written by Trey Parker & Matt Stone
"So perhaps, you statement about Apple barring inclusion of other apps... might not be entirely true?"
Perhaps I just wasn't specific enough, or perhaps I have misunderstood articles on the matter.
I have, however, read several articles stating that a particular app has been removed from the App Store for no apparent reason other than Apple want them to use their own version.
If I'm wrong, fair enough. I don't use Apple devices at all, so have only ever paid mild attention to these matters.
It is common practice in the mobile space to bundle the main services with the phone. Microsoft and Apple do this, too. Apple go even further in barring inclusion of other apps which could replace their own in their app stores.
The only difference between Apple and Google in this regard is that Apple only offer their mobile OS on their own devices, whereas Google "force" these rules on other companies who wish to build an Android phone.
Personally, I would say that it is the customer's job (for these services, low cost and unmanaged) to ensure there are reliable backups, just as it would be with self-hosted systems.
HOWEVER, 123-reg's failure here is a clear case of negligence, probably gross negligence, and I would expect a clear cut case in court. If I did this as a contractor, I would expect to be sued, whether the client had backups or not.
Also, this sort of service is often used by non-technical people. They don't understand the risks of not having a backup, or expect the service provider to back up for them.
Any professional worth his salt running anything on this kind of server will have a robust backup and DR scheme, and will have tested restoring the backup on both another system from the same SP and on alternative systems. The only people outside 123-reg I can't feel any sympathy for are those IT professionals who lost data through neglecting backups. They should hang their heads in shame. While in this case the problem came down to human error, there are numerous failure modes which are down to dumb luck (multiple disk failures, natural disasters, etc) which they should have been covering off with a decent backup & DR plan.
"A wedding is about commitment and while a bit of fun is a good thing, turning the entire concept/event into a joke may indicate the level of seriousness with which they regard it."
I have heard about all sorts of themed weddings, from Alice in Wonderland to Klingon. A wedding is not a marriage, and the fact that they both share the same sense of fun bodes well for the future.
A wedding is about showing your family, your friends, and the world that you wish to be together forever. A marriage is actually staying together forever. I would suggest they have the same chance as any other couple, religious or not, of making this work.
I'll add that I'm not anti-religious. People may believe anything they want, as long as they do not try to force those beliefs on me or restrict my actions because of their beliefs. An agnostic atheist myself, I respect others' beliefs, but I don't think they make them a better person than a non-religious person. What matters is not what you believe, but how you treat others.
It is indeed all-inclusive:
"That is to say, you do not have to Believe to be part of our Church, but we hope in time you will see the Truth. But skeptics, as well as members of other religions, are always welcome." [http://www.venganza.org/about/]
In all seriousness, it's a spoof. I don't really see this as much different to any other "themed" wedding, or a church wedding for a "non-believer". They are held not because the couple believe, but because it is what the bride and groom want and it makes them both happy.
"There is so much bollocks ... being spouted as truth by both sides of this that I am struggling to not switch the radio off when discussion starts."
This is how "democracy" works. The proles can't be trusted to hear the facts and make an informed decision. They must be bombarded with FUD from all sides, designed to elicit a visceral emotional response. Some of this is true and relevant, some is true and irrelevant, and some is untrue. In the end, it doesn't matter which, as long as it encourages sufficient people to vote their way the politicians don't care.
"Distribution is the constraint which you are, can only presume purposefully, ignoring."
I am well aware that this would only apply if it is distributed. I am quite at liberty to take GPL code, modify it, mash it up with any other code I would like, and keep it for myself. However, if I (or anyone else) distribute it, this must be done under a GPL compatible license (if it counts as a derived work). I cannot distribute a derived work (to anyone), as a binary or as source code, unless it is under a GPL compatible license. If the nVidia drivers were classed as a derived work, they would not be allowed to distribute a binary driver under an incompatible license. It doesn't matter that they own the copyright: If it's derived, it's covered, if not, it's not.
Therefore, unless I am missing something (and I have done a lot of research on the GPL in the past), RMS and FSF are making a distinction that a ZoL binary module is a derived work, and yet for some reason nVidia's (and others') modules aren't. This is the distinction I would like to understand.
"The difference is, and this should be obvious, is that, as the above states, nVidia is the copyright holder of the source code they used while Ubuntu are not."
Let's take a hypothetical.
I write a kernel module. The copyright is mine. I choose to distribute it under a commercial license, but it "links" to the kernel in the same way as ZoL. If what RMS and the FSF is saying is true, it would be classed as a derivative work and, therefore, would not be allowed to be distributed as a binary blob.
It doesn't matter who owns the copyright. The only thing that matters is that, if it is classed as a derivative work of GPL software, it must be released under the GPL or a compatible license.
Hence, the defining test is purely: Is it classed as a derivative work?
So what I would like to know is how the graphics card binary drivers differ from ZoL. There must be some material difference in the way it interacts with the kernel for it to fall foul of these license terms.
"the copyright holder, for example nVidia, can build and distribute binary blobs of their own code."
"For Ubuntu to build and distribute binary blobs of ZFS, they would have to take ZFS source code, licensed under CDDL, and combine it with kernel source code licensed under GPL, which is not allowed under the terms of the GPL."
How is this different to what nVidia does? They must take their code, not under a GPL-compatible license, and "combine it with with" the kernel. Unless I'm missing something, they couldn't be distributing the binary blob without "combining it" with the kernel (i.e. compiling against the kernel).
When you compile the ZoL modules, you are creating a binary blob in the same way as nVidia. I really fail to see the distinction. If things worked the way this argument seems to suggest, anyone who released a binary kernel module would have to license it under GPL-compatible terms, and hence release the source code.
If there is a distinction, I'd love to see it.
Then there's the writing of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which are equally laughable. (The founder appeared not to know that the original books were written in Greek and Hebrew.)
I don't get this comment at all. I was a Jehovah's Witness, and all their texts are based on the Bible. They study the Greek and Hebrew in the scriptures often, and publish a book containing the Greek scriptures including the original Greek and the word-for-word translation alongside their own translation. Added to which, their bible is hardly any different from any other, just in more modern English and with slightly different wording here and there. And in practice, their beliefs only differ from those of other Christian sects in these main ways:
* They do not celebrate the fake holidays taken on from the organised Church from the pagans.
* They do not believe all good people go to heaven, rather that God will re-create the earth as it was intended later, and resurrect them to live in perfection (a slightly different interpretation of the words in the Bible)
* They believe strongly in Jesus' words to go out and spread his "Good Word"
All in all, I find their religion no more laughable than any other, it's just a slightly tweaked Christian sect.
"Everyone I've ever worked with who's responsible for premises or security has bemoaned how hard it is to get people not to “tailgate” – that is to let the person in front swipe their entry card then follow them in without doing so yourself. And anyway, we're all taught that holding doors open for people is good manners. It's a security nightmare, though."
At one place I worked, some guys nicked a large, expensive plasma TV. They walked in, went to the class room (in front of a class full of students), unplugged the TV and walked out with it. Noone questioned them, and the MD and owner of the company held the door open for them as they were leaving!
There is a simple solution to the creepiness factor, IMHO: Make a Star Trek style beep when it starts listening (i.e. it hears "Alexa"). Or, for a more human interaction, maybe say "Yes?" or something.
Personally, I would also prefer it if it illuminated an LED whenever it was listening and kept a log, too.
And include the ability to change the hotword and voice: Imagine using "computer" and becoming captain of a starship, or "Yoda" and having a reply in yoda's voice.... Some serious geekiness would be possible!
There is one thing I don't get, here. Why is this any of the government's concern?
There are rules for advertising already. There are rules for dodgy business practices already.
If websites want to serve up intrusive adverts, that's their business. It is likely to reduce visitors to their site, and/or encourage ad blockers, but it's still a business decision for themselves. It doesn't harm anyone.
Similarly, if a consumer wishes to use ad blocking software, what right has the govt to stop them? If the websites wish to put in place ad-blocker-blocker measures, similarly.
I just do not see the benefit of the govt expressing any opinion on this matter.
As a final thought, a couple of months ago I bought an Nvidia Shield TV and have been very impressed with it. Today my Shield tablet arrived - I am likewise very impressed.
I haven't bought a Shield TV (yet, it's on my "options to consider" list), but I have a Shield Tablet and it's the second best tablet I have ever used, even ignoring the gaming features. Fast, responsive, timely updates and a useful stylus.
When you combine this with console mode gaming and a controller, it becomes a pretty good games console. I could never justify buying a games console (I don't play enough games, and I have a decent gaming PC), but having it built into the tablet is great. Game streaming from your PC works well, too, for those latest and greatest games.
The only better tablet I have used is the Surface Pro, but that's a completely different kettle of fish, and is also a vast amount more expensive than I am willing to pay for a tablet.
when does loading a kernel module cross the line into linking a dynamic library?
I find the logic of the SFC questionable here.
There are many binary modules used on a typical desktop Linux system. Graphics card drivers from the manufacturer are almost always binary and non-free. I would love to know what the difference between a distribution supplying Nvidia and AMD graphics drivers and them supplying the ZFS kernel modules are...
This post cries out for the unacceptable forum reply about a certain historically bad manager.
If this is a sideways invocation of Godwins Law, then all I have heard says you are incorrect. He was actually a very good manager and skilled politician.
The fact that he and his followers committed atrocities and cause huge devastation across Europe doesn't take that away: Until he lost, he managed that very well.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
