Posts by Dr. Mouse

Re: Why use robots when the country just got a whole flood of cheap humans

That works as long as some of the tax revenues is spent on infrastructure which sadly it won't be.

Actually, Germany is quite good at investing in infrastructure, from what I have heard. Their roads and railways have a much better maintenance programme than most other countries, for instance. IIRC they are on a rolling maintenance programme, rebuilt to last on a regular basis, not just the patch-it-up-when-we-think-we-will-get-sued programme we have have in the UK.

Re: Trump?

What I am saying is that prematurely blaming Trump when he isn't even in office is stupid.

I do not think the article is blaming Trump. He is blaming people like Trump. The people, especially in the US but also prevalent all over the world, who instantly blame the victim and tell them to work harder and earn more money or spend less.

I do have to question why she allows this to continue. If other companies in the area offer a higher wage for the same job, then why doesn't she try to switch jobs? And why does she not look at moving to an area which is cheaper to live in? Yelp can only pay people this wage because people accept it.

However, I do not know all the facts. Maybe she cannot get a job elsewhere for some reason. Maybe she is tied to the area somehow (sick relative etc). Maybe the cost of travel to work would outweigh the potential saving from moving out of the area.

However, it is also despicable that Yelp is putting it's employees in this situation to begin with. What is the point in paying for Silicon Valley perks when it's employees cannot afford to even eat? Why are they paying a significantly lower wage than other companies for the same job? And firing her for what is effectively whistle-blowing is outrageous.

This is one of the reasons why I will not move to the US. They seem to treat employees worse over there than contractors are treated here in the UK, without any of the perks. I see it in the attitude of my current boss, and American who resents having to give holidays, sick pay or any basic benefit to his employees. Sorry, but I'll take a nation who actually has laws to protect it's citizens, at least in part, over "The Land Of The Free" any day.

Re: 3458127

@Benchops you got there before me, have an upvote sir.

I agree, they are not in this for idealistic reasons. All their other products are there to support ads, in one way or another.

However, you cannot deny that this is pretty cool. Submit an image and it can tell (roughly, with obvious capacity for error) what it is. It's something which has always been a challenge for computers, and now it's available to everyone (for a small fee).

(by which time SSDs will probably be closer or even lower in price, anyway)

And will need some independent, long term reliability tests done, to satisfy your previous requirement. By which time faster, cheaper, higher capacity drives will be out.

...And will need some independent, long term reliability tests done, to satisfy your previous requirement. By which time faster, cheaper, higher capacity drives will be out.

...And will need some independent, long term reliability tests done, to satisfy your previous requirement. By which time faster, cheaper, higher capacity drives will be out.

Re: Is the issue Openreach @Ledswinger

Openreach can undercut new entrants due to economies of scale, a massive existing infrastructure, and favourable terms with government (e.g. business rates on fibre).

If a new entrant wanted to provide internet access to a small area, they have large setup costs. Their product will probably be more expensive than BTs, especially as BT can use profitable areas to subsidise unprofitable ones.

However, BT won't roll out to all unprofitable areas. There are not-spots. These are the best areas for a new entrant to wire up. However, as soon as the new entrant is up and running, BT suddenly decide they do want to roll out there, so undercut the new entrant and wipe them out. This is abuse of their effective monopoly to keep new players out of the sector.

* I've used BT, when many times it was probably Openreach, but it makes no difference for the point I am making so I can't be bothered correcting it now...

I have to agree. It is the parents' responsibility to ensure their children are safe, but we now have a whole generation who think they can leave their children sat in front of a TV/Computer, ignore what they are doing, and assume they will be safe.

It is simple to implement appropriate filters to a child's internet access, and that should be the parents' job, not the government's. It is also a parent's job to take an interest in what their kid is doing and protect them from the evils out in the world (to an appropriate level).

This is all a symptom of the entitlement culture and laziness epidemic in this country (and beyond), as well as the government's wish to regulate and intrude on every aspect of our personal lives.

Re: Homo Trumpus?

Politicians are the sad rements of a primordial species that bacteria and other unwanted things evolved from.

Hey! I think that's really insulting... to the myriad of bacteria who you are lumping in with such unevolved scum as politicians!

Re: Any Republic where Jar-Jar Binks can become a Senator...

Unless he was really a Sith...

Re: It should never have exsted!

Compare and contrast that to how EU citizens are dealt with by the US

Actually, AFAIK, anyone in the US legally gets close to the same rights and freedoms and a US citizen.

It's non-US citizens who are outside the US who have no rights. This probably harks back to the old days before the internet: Why would they need rights in the US if they are not in the US?

Re: Corporation tax

Is this actually so? I hear it repeated often, but it seems unfeasible.

Ah, actually I'm not sure. I have heard it repeated many times, and accepted it, but from http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/10/24/companies-do-not-have-a-duty-to-maximise-their-profits-or-to-avoid-tax/:

172: Duty to promote the success of the company

(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—

(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,

(b)the interests of the company’s employees,

(c)the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

(d)the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,

(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and

(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

(2)Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes.

(3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company.

It seems the duty is to promote the success of the company. However, for many the success of the company is defined in terms of profit, balance sheet and PR. Legal minimisation of the tax bill, where it doesn't impact on PR, would be almost foolish to let slip, and could be considered a dereliction of this duty.

As for "The Dude":

But if we want to do this right, then we need to start thinking seriously about abolishing taxation - period - full stop.

Really?! If that were the case, how would they pay for essential services? Police, fire service, courts of law... Would you suggest that everyone has to take out an individual contract with a security service to protect them if a crime is committed? What if they can't afford it, do they not get justice? Does the criminal walk free?

What about roads and other essential public infrastructure? Do we say "No, you can't leave your house because you haven't paid the fee to this company to walk on their pavement"?

It is barmy to believe that, in a civilised society, we could actually manage without a central authority contributed to by all (AKA Government and Taxes).

Exactly what I thought. If you told the tax man "Sorry, I accidentally deleted all my records, whoopsy!"... I don't think "Well, you did it and got away with it, so why shouldn't I?" would cut it!

Re: political lies...

Actually, from what I've heard, they can lock you up forever.

They ask for the password, you refuse, they lock you up for 5(?) years. When you are released, they ask for the password again...

There is blame on all sides here, I think.

Chrome holds the majority of the blame: They are specifically stating that incognito mode keeps your session private. It should wipe anything which could be used to discover information about the session as soon as it is no longer needed. This would include the frame buffer.

Diablo holds some blame, as it should not be displaying the frame buffer until it has initialised it. It is not their fault that the data was leaked, but it is their fault that it was visible through their application.

NVidia should (although they may, I don't know) offer easy-to-use privacy hooks and APIs to ensure data is not leaked, triggering a zeroing of the frame buffer on release.

The OS (and applications) should use those hooks and APIs to ensure data is not leaked (e.g. on logoff or user switching).

Re: Business as usual for Samsung

excluding those unable to spend on lawyers

This is a failing of the legal system itself, not of the patent system. It applies throughout all arms of the legal system in both the US and here in the UK (and most of the world): If you can afford an expensive lawyer, you have a better chance of winning. This makes a mockery of justice.

As a brief example, a friend of mine has been charged with a fairly serious crime (it is definitely a false accusation). Luckily, he is able to raise the huge amount of money needed for a good legal team to defend him (albeit by making huge sacrifices). This will give him good legal advice on the matter, and skilled barrister in court, and a team looking over the facts of the case to produce the defence with the best chance of a favourable outcome.

In turn, had I been the one charged, I would likely have had to rely on a court-appointed defence. I would have to make do with whatever quality of lawyer I had been assigned/were willing to accept legal aid fees. My chances of winning would be substantially lower, whether I had done what they say or not.

My chances in a civil suit would be even lower, as I would probably not be able to get help defending the case, although at least I would be able to claim costs if I managed to win (something you cannot do against the CPS in the UK).

Re: re: Expect government back doors in games in future....

A (video game) cracker is someone who removes the copy protection of a video game, so lamers like you can copy it and play it for free the legitimate owner is able to use it without the ridiculous restrictions put in place by the writers

FTFY.

I have, on many occasions in the past, had to crack games that I legitimately own in order to use them in the way I want. For example, I cracked Quake 2 so I could run it without having the CD in the drive. Had I not, I would have ended up with unplayable game I paid good money for, simply because the CD had become scratched. I would also have had to find the CD every time I wanted to play it.

Things have moved on, of course, but there are still legitimate reasons to crack a game you own. Many games, for instance, now require an internet connection, so you have to crack it to play it on a laptop away from home.

Also, even if your original statement is true, most crackers don't do it so that people can play for free. They do it because they can, because it is a fun and interesting exercise for them.

Re: Yes, methanol fuel cells are readily available

Yes, methanol fuel cells are readily available

And cost about as much for a 100W fuel cell as a 3kW Diesel genset. They are not very good at power to cost ratio

I can't see cost being the massive issue for such military uses as it would in most other areas. I suspect there are other downsides which took precedence over cost.

Re: Facebook stats, pah!

I think there is a big difference.

I use Facebook to connect with friends, as an addition to tools like phone calls, texts, whatsapp, and the good old-fashioned face-to-face meeting (usually for several pints in a drinking establishment). If I do something and would like to share information about that with my friends, I will use Facebook as one of the methods. Pics, Videos and descriptions of events in my life others may find interesting. This is social networking, and where such content belongs.

Youtube, however, is generally a public medium. Many people seem to flood it with stuff which is only (or should only be) of interest to their friends and family. This is similar to Twitter, an entirely public forum mostly filled with personal content...

So my view would be that the world would be a better place if personal stuff was confined to Facebook, and Youtube and Twitter were used only for content you want the whole world to see. The quality of content on Youtube would go up, giving them a chance to make a profit.

Re: Sweet!

An early prediction for you

1) They wil patent the hell out of everything in sight

As they should. This is a novel, innovative manufacturing process.

2) They will charge and arm and a leg to license it

More likely, they will charge what people are willing to pay, or keep it back for use in their own products. What's the point spinning businesses out of a Uni unless they are going to make money from it? The most obvious way to make money would be to license the technique, and to make money from that they need to charge what people will pay.

These are not patent trolls, they are universities.

3) It will die a death as other companies take the ideas and make them work in ways the circumvent the patents

Fair enough. If they can achieve the result they want without using the specific technique described in the patent, there's no problem. Patents only (or should only) protect the particular innovation you came up with, not everything vaguely similar (*cough* Apply *cough*).

Re: Ask the people

should be put to a public referendum. Give everyone the facts

Haven't you realised that's not how referendums work in this country? See the AV referendum... FUD and mudslinging outweighed any facts by at least an order of magnitude!

Re: for goodness sake

Encryption is hard to get right, even mega companies who can afford best in field experts like Google and Apple don't get things exactly right every time.

There are various open source libraries which provide encryption. You must make correct use of them, and you rely on them being implemented correctly, they generally make it simple to get "right" (for some value of "right").

If the library is compromised, you are screwed, although this doesn't happen often as is generally fixed quickly (many eyes and all that). Also, if you use it incorrectly (https://xkcd.com/1286/) you have problems. So you obviously need some clue as to what you are doing, but the job is made at least an order of magnitude easier...

Of course the politicians themselves have absolutely nothing to be blamed for and are never childish.

I agree. I mean, when we watch PMQs or Parliamentary debates, we never hear the sort of jeering and booing that a primary school class would be severely chastised for, do we? Oh, wait...

It's one of the main things which turns me off politics. It's the one profession I know of where you get rewarded for acting like a spoiled 5-year-old, and encouraged to behave as such.

Re: Good start

I haven't read it either, but the article specifically says terrorist offences and serious crime. I tend to trust Out-Law articles, and assume they have read the relevant proposed legislation and reported accurately.

Re: Anon Cluetard Yawn.

Security services are often at a disadvantage. They could stop thousands of attacks, all of them in secret, but would still be considered to have failed because one succeeded.

That said, we do need effective judicial oversight of their operations. This means that open-ended warrants (or warrants issued by a minister) should not be allowed. A judge should sign off on every warrant, and it's purpose should be limited in scope and proportional to the risk.

International "hacks" should fall under this if there is a chance of them interfering with British people's data, but should also be subject to international relations policy and international law. What is GCHQ doing attacking Belgium, who are an ally? They could, in theory, take this as an act of war (or at least a hostile act), Britain launching an unprovoked attack on their infrastructure. We should work with the law enforcement and intelligence services of our allies, each sharing intelligence but collecting it under local laws. What I see is the opposite: Each country specifically attacking each other to get around local laws, then providing that intelligence back to the local agencies.

Re: This does not happen just to sysadmin

As the previous commentard said, outrageous billing is the easiest way to get rid of these (or at least get paid hilariously for your trouble).

When I was at school, one of my friend's dads was a professor in a very specialist area. He was paid vast sums of money to do consultancy work.

One particular job he was offered involved an extended stay outside the country, and he did not want to do it. It clashed with family events and other commitments. Rather than telling them no, he quoted the job at an extortionate rate, 10x+ his normal (already very high) rates. To his astonishment, they accepted. The insane amount of money he was paid was adequate compensation for the inconvenience.

Re: I am surprised

Exactly! And here I thought "Team America: World Police" was just a comedy. They are not extending that to "Universe Police".

Re: BOFH getting soft in his later years ?

In fact, I believe they were about to perform a 'live' test at the end of the story

Actually, I think it was the second live test/demonstration. They had just finished testing on the boss, and were moving on to the director.

Re: Film makers?

So much of how we currently make films is predicated on being able to control the framing - which essentially is a refinement of plays which operate on a stage.

People may have said the same about TV/Film when it first came about. If this takes off, I expect the first step will be as a slight enhancement to current films. Instead of getting a single, framed shot, you become immersed in the shot, able to look around (a little) and feeling that you are actually there instead of watching from a distance, filling your entire vision. This is how films started, I believe, as an extension/evolution of theatre.

So, I predict the first VR films will still mostly control the framing, the main direction you are looking etc, but expand the frame so you feel immersed.

What a crock of shit, I mean seriously, how can you break the law in such a disgraceful way

The unfortunate thing is that, as others have stated above, they didn't actually break the law, they "failed to follow guidelines".

First, Uber insist that they aren't taxis, right?

I guess it depends on your definition. In Leeds, all Ubers are registered Private Hire vehicles, which most people would count as taxis. I believe it's the same in London.

Also, Uber generally insist that they are not a taxi company, they are a technology company offering a (booking & payment) service for independent taxi drivers and/or companies.

Second, if there are no car owners in London then who do they expect will sign up to become Uber drivers?

There would be no taxis at all if there were no car owners. I presume he meant no private car owners, as in people who own their own car for personal use. There would obviously still have to be businesses (including self-employed people) who own a car for the purpose of their business.