Posts by JimmyPage

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

Even if Assange were to be extradited to Sweden. HE COULD NOT BE EXTRADITED ON TO ANYWHERE ELSE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE UK.

Although since that has been explained clearly, many times, I have no confidence anyone who doesn't already know it will correct their understanding.

You can invent all sorts of black helicopter conspiracy scenarios whereby someone who at one point must have been the most recognisable man on the planet, mysterious appears in a US court, but real life is not a comic book.

Assange is more at risk of being eaten by an arctic lion in Sweden, than of being extradited to the US.

Jeez

there are some morons around

Icon says it all ->

Brainstorming ....

1) Use t'internet. Aggregate a few thousand web pages from a dictionary of millions (say every odd result from a Google search for cat videos, plus every even result from yesterdays most popular search), then a running XOR of a selection of bits from said pages to give you a seed ?

2) Surely there is a market for a chip with an inbuilt radioactive source, detector and a clock ? (I've seen an old XT clock chip with an inbuilt battery). You'd only need picograms of material.

3) Use next weeks lottery numbers ?

Presumably if it can't be owned

it can't be taxed.

Sounds like a result.

Or will this become another irregular noun ?

Easily solved.

When you buy your [next] smart TV, insist that you receive one which won't do this. In writing if needs be. Then if (when ?) it misbehaves, you can return the TV to the retailer under the SoGA, and bypass the manufacturer.

If more people did this, it would happen less.

How the hell ...

after millions of man*-hours testing, is this only news now.

A week after the launch date ?

* I may have just answered my own question ....

Vague memories of systems lectures

hysteresis, and learning that some buildings have a response time of days ....

Why do we put up with these morons ?

Why is there not an automatic fine for misuse of 999. Especially since we have 101 ?

I get the same rage with missed NHS appointments. Just fine the bastards.

Looking forward to a suefest now !!!!

Presumably the BBC wanted to ensure no competition from Clarkson, May and Hammond (he's not a real hamster), hence the "no UK networks for 3 years" clause.

Given that this move basically negates that clause, are we going to see the BBC sue it's legal advisers. Because given streaming services are hardly new (which, as the operator of one of the oldest and widely used on the internet - iPlayer - the BBC should be aware of) then surely the clause could have been drafted to preclude appearing on UK screens - no matter where the contract is signed.

Bet the shows get made in the UK.

Once again

the lack of *any* RFC standard about web-based identity and password handling is telling.

You'd think they'd have fixed that before they moved on to video formats ?

What part of this is news ?

Face recognition - old hat

Face recognition as security - old hat (my Android tablet has done it for 2+ years)

Payment verification - old hat

Biometric payment verification - old hat.

Or is it a Friday grump ?

So how behind *are* Google

Having seen IBMs take on artificial vision (http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=PM&subtype=SP&htmlfid=YTD03119USEN/ ) at Hursley, it seems Google are still in the 1960s when it comes to processing.

Most impressive things I saw, when they ran the network over a video of a park scene, were:

1) Although it had never been told what a skateboard was, it correctly labelled a skateboader in the same box as "cyclist". So it had worked out that "cyclist = human on wheels" and then re-applied that to the skateboarder.

2) Correctly following a cyclist dismounting, and changing the label from cyclist to pedestrian.

3) Correctly identifying a static shape (person sitting on wall) as human (technically very high probability of being a human).

Spoiler alert: some if not all of this project is funded by the DoD ...

There's a reason for that ...

There is a chronic funding gap in the UK for companies creating digital media content, as our venture capital funds do not typically invest in this sector.

UK Venture capitalists don't do investing - what a curious idea. They do do short term profits over any idea of long term growth.

As a result, while US companies such as Vice, Netflix, Hulu ...have attracted huge amounts of investment, comparable British digital content companies have not.

That's because they have a decent track record. Sopranos, Breaking Bad, True Detective, The Wire, Mad Men. All top-drawer stuff. I can't see UK TV - particularly the commercial players - investing in a 5-year drama that means you have to think. Not when shite like Dapper Laughs managed to get commissioned.

Me ? I just gave Richard Herring £30 via Kickstarter, to be able to enjoy his excellent series of podcasts on video. I think that's the way the market is moving.

Hmmm ... compare and contrast ...

people object to paying for tracks they don't want on albums. But apply the same model to books ....

I await the inevitable downvotes from people without my sense of irony.

I just don't get this "sign in with Facebook"

Why should I want to let Facebook know what other sites I use ?

Reminds me at Uni ...

I programmed a bit-slice CPU ...

And hand soldered my final year project.

Well done all !

And great to see some gender balance in engineering. Y'all deserve one of these ------------?

I feel guilty now ...

I had kinda wrongly assumed anodyne American "pop" "star" - sort of Justin Beiber without the testosterone (?) and consigned her to the appropriate part of my brain.

Seems I was wrong - certainly keep an ear out in future - her Wiki entry (usual caveats) has some remarkably high praise.

Sigh ...

20+ years ago, our street was cabled by Videotron. It was quite a comical exercise ... the sales guys were running 2 days ahead of the engineers.

Anyway, at the same time, a friend moved into a new build house, a mile away. When I first saw him, there were no pavements, and temporary roads (apparently they do a single re-tarmac on exit).

I asked if they were laying cables while building the development. His face fell, and he said he'd spoken to Videotron, and they had it on their 1995-2000 list.

I asked if my friend had discussed with the housebuilder about liaising with cable companies to pre-cable new developments. He said he had, but decided to stop when the person they pointed him at said "cable TV - what's that then ?".

My brother claimed he emigrated to the US for the weather. I never believed him.

Obviously (I wonder if Mr. Worstall would agree) the cheapest part of providing cable is the actual digging up of the roads/pavements, since this is the part no-one has tried to minimise. I say this, because NONE of the 10 or so new build estates I looked at last year had fibre. Moreover, none of them had PLANS for fibre in the next 3 years.

When did it become a thing for illegal behaviour

to get a fluffy name ?

Surely all the elements of "slamming" add up to conspiracy to defraud, or gain pecuniary advantage by deception.

It reminds me of criminal assault being rebranded "happy slapping"

Too late

some people have already thought this

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/3/2015/06/17/natwest_hit_by_another_rbs_it_cockup/#c_2546376

Idle speculation ...

For such a bug story, things have gone quiet on this ...

I have a sneaking suspicion that whatever the cause, it's somehow related to the 2012 outage. In particular to the fact that the minute the regulator had turned their back, all the "promises" (i.e. "lessons learned") disappeared into thin air, and it was back to BAU ...

Which would lead to an interesting future for RBS ... if a £56,000,000 fine wasn't enough* to teach them a lesson first time, how much should it be this time ? And will it cause the FCA to contemplate stiffer fines a priori - on the justifiable grounds that otherwise they'll be ignored.

And what's all of this doing to Gorgeous Georges plans for flogging off RBS ? How much sweeter will he need to make the deal, if any prospective buyer thinks they're buying into a future of cock-ups ?

*sounds a stiff fine - unless the outrage saved a few hundred million, in which case it's the cost of doing business.