Posts by Ben Liddicott 253 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Mar 2010
When translating from e.g. greek, to produce an accurate translation, the most exact literal translation was used with the closest English word for every greek word. Where an additional English word was required to retain the meaning or improve readability, it was placed in italics, so the reader knew the word was not in the original.
Example:
http://kingjbible.com/judges/5.htm
* If a tree falls on the power lines.
* If a builder goes through the cable
* Lines, substations or other infrastructure destroyed by fire
* Ice on the power lines brings them down
There are all sorts of ways for this to happen. Google "causes of power cuts" (no quotes) for some examples
"a range of more than 90 miles. Fire up the climate control on a chilly day and the estimated range will straight away drop by 20 miles"
So a car with a 70 mile range. But you have to stop every 50 miles for half an hour to top up.
If the house runs out of leccy I can run my laptop, phone and just about everything else off an inverter plugged into the running car. What can the Leaf do for me then?
I guess we can kiss goodbye to the idea of Wikipedia as politically neutral, even if we still believed that after seeing every page of political importance hijacked and colonised by the most motivated view...
Some good comments opposing the strike though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
* Oppose I oppose the legislation, but that's a political view. I don't ever want Wikipedia to take a political view, no matter how much I agree with it. Ntsimp (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
* And more: seeing as we actually have an article on Stop_Online_Piracy_Act, engaging in this kind of action would very obviously violate our core policies such as NPOV, not to mention guidelines like WP:COI [conflict of interest](...). We still have these "fundamental pillars" and this is still one of them, right? If so, why is this proposal even being taken seriously? Go away people. Find something better to do and stop trying to kiss Jimbo's (...) ass. And call me crazy but I happen to think that our core pillars take precedence over the "cause du jour", even if it is being pushed by the man himself.
And in response to some of the more reasonable editors whom I respect who - in my opinion - jumped on this bandwagon for the wrong reasons: (...). Next time around, it's gonna be some different piece of political phenomenon, and one in which your personal opinion might agree with it. If this precedent - of Wikipedia getting into politics with both feet - gets set, then next time around you might find yourself at the losing end of community/Jimbo's proposals for political advocacy. Take a long term view and don't try to win a battle when you might lose a war. Volunteer Marek 01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
* Oppose This is not what Wikipedia is for. Jimmy Wales may wish to make a protest, but he can do it himself with his own resources, not suborn Wikipedia to be his puppet. The cause may be just, but this is just reaching out to use the most convenient, closest tool at hand rather than the most appropriate. Wikipedia does not belong to Jimmy Wales. Whatever happened to NPOV? Kodabar (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* I'm just amazed that so many people feel that this wouldn't compromise our neutrality, while discussions of allowing advertising on WP have continued to show a consensus opposed to it. I can't understand how anyone could think advertising would compromise our neutrality while somehow a prominent message openly advocating intervention against a specific political proposal would not. Robofish (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It is the shareholders of the Coca-Cola Schweppes company telling you they think you will like their product, because all the cool kids do.
Of course it is not speech you like, so obviously it doesn't count in your book.
I also like the way you slipped "meaningful" in there as a modifier on "unconstrained choice". We meaning is good, choice is good, meaningful choice must be better, right?
Presumably this is because choices you don't like are not "meaningful" enough for you.
Just give me choice and I will make my own meaning, thanks.
According to http://www.measuringworth.com
Current data is only available till 2009. In 2009, £63176 0s 0d from 1759 is worth
£8,720,000.00 using the retail price index
£91,300,000.00 using average earnings
http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/result.php?use%5B%5D=CPI&use%5B%5D=NOMINALEARN&year_early=1759£71=63176&shilling71=&pence71=&amount=63176&year_source=1759&year_result=2011
So I guess that means we are ten times richer now than then?
Is to make sure they can afford to buy and run cars if they want to. That's not a policy "for the rich".
Secondly, socialism isn't "doing things to improve the lot of the poor". Socialism is doing things "as a society", i.e. collectively, as opposed to allowing us all to get on with doing our own things.
It's great if you can get yourself appointed to be the person controlling what is done - you can live like a monarch, get everything you want and as much shagging impoverished factory workers as you can fit into your busy schedule of ordering people around.
But as for "doing things to improve the lot of the poor"....... well, socialism doesn't achieve that, does it?
If you are only going to learn only one thing from the history of the 20th century, that should be it. If you have time to learn two, it should be that adding nationalism into the mix, to make fascism/national socialism doesn't help.
No, the question is: Do we want spy infrastructure installed and controlled by US, UK and our allies, or by the Chinese?
Embargos and boycotts will just hand the field to the opposition - just as the arms embargo on South Africa gifted them some of the best arms industries in the word. An arms embargo can only work for as long as it takes to build a factory.
a) Every little line-of-business custom app be tested with IPv6?
b) Carrier grade NAT?
Nope, what will happen is dialup users will cease getting publicly routable addresses unless they ask for them. This is already the case with mobiles - I generally get a 10.x.x.x address from wireless modems. Guess what? It works fine. That's what SIP is for, people! The only people who need routable addresses are the same ones who need static addresses, i.e. servers.
Also, why is it such a great idea to allow devices to talk to each other, without these pesky firewalls getting in the way? It's not, it's a terrible idea, which is why firewalls were invented. If I am going to talk to you, we need to be INTRODUCED by someone we both know. That's what SIP is for, people!
Thirdly, the transition technologies are just not there. We need to be able to:
* Write an app which assumes IPv6, and the OS allows it to run unchanged on an IPv4-only host.
* Existing apps which assume IPv4 must run unchanged on an IPv6 connected host.
That's NO source changes, simple configuration only. Until that arrives, IPv6 cannot happen.
IPv6 is still a long, long way away.
... for taking hard-earned money from you lot and spending it on paying my friends to try to get people to use the web who don't want to."
As long as the case is both social AND moral. What the heck is a "social case" anyway? Or is that "social morality" being something different to actual morality? Maybe it means "pay up or go to the gulag"?
I believe there is a social and moral case for firing Martha Lane Fox.
It's not like the industry hasn't spent the last fifteen years making equipment on standby as efficient as possible. EnergyStar anyone?
My telly has a standby mode and a hard power button on the side. Useful for turning it off when the kids are hypnotized and won't listen, but otherwise I doubt the cost of adding the button will never be recouped.
You know, the addresses we want to make it easy for people to send email to? Like "support", "info", "sales", "abuse", "postmaster"?
The truth is "don't publish your address on the web" or "use a graphical image" or "obfuscate it with javascript" is just poor advice that makes it harder for legitimate senders.
At some point, sooner rather than later, your address will be gotten either in a dictionary attack or from some infectee's computer. Bots collecting email addresses are not the issue.
If you rely on your ISP mail server, either choose an ISP which allows you to customise spam filtering it or turn it off, or accept their best judgement for how to do it.
The spamhaus rule "ISP is responsible as well as the customer" is because previously the same old spammers would keep turning up on adjacent IP addresses/blocks under different names. This leads to guacamole. Sorry: Whack-a-mole. Spamhaus can only react because they have no visibility as to whether these are the same people as before until they begin spamming again. Indeed some ISPs took advantage of this to keep taking the same cusomers on purpose and feigning ignorance.
The ISP is in a position to know beforehand whether these are the same people running the same "business", therefore the ISP must bear responsibility.
This is exactly the behaviour that spamhaus users expect. Remember: Spamhaus don't block anyone - they list them. Spamhaus users (mail operators) can choose to use their list on it's own, in conjunction with their own whitelists, with other lists in a scoring system......or not at all.
Spamhaus, as a matter of published policy, require ISPs to prevent spam emanating from their networks or they will be listed. To avoid listing the ISP must police it's network, and if they don't the whole ISP may be blocked.
People who trust their list, block you when you are listed by them. Not the same thing, at all.
This is in fact why they are better than having and "internet police". They aren't the only ones - there is rbl, uribl, enemieslist, and a whole array of others, and each recipient can choose who to use.
Spamhaus, at the moment, are the best and most trusted. The minute they stop being good, they will lose their power.
If only we could say that about the government!
They met a man headed for his own back door carrying a shotgun. Perhaps he'd just been shooting.
Not pointing it at them or anything. Some exaggeration there perhaps.
(Maybe he was keeping down the pigeons who were eating the corn that goes to make our bread. Or maybe he just bought the land so he could go shooting on it...)
If they can't sandbox Java, which is a BYTECODE interpreted language FFS, how the heck are they going to sandbox Intel machine code?
They aren't, obviously.
Just as this:
WebGL: Interwebs 3D tech emerges from puberty
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/webgl_one_dot_o_released/
Became this:
New graphics engine imperils users of Firefox and Chrome
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/chrome_firefox_security_threat/
This will become something bad too.
Also one for "historical purposes", i.e. keeping it all forever in case your descendants happen to be interested.
A partial list of exemptions is:
28. National security..
29. Crime and taxation..
30. Health, education and social work..
31. Regulatory activity..
32. Journalism, literature and art..
33. Research, history and statistics.
Together they are - a hole the size of a truck for the authorities.
You didn't think it was there to protect you from the state, did you?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents
Er, wait, no, the BBC sabotaged the digital broadcasting standards in this country to rip out the facility to do pay-per-view... I wonder why they did that? Surely not because it would undermine the case for the telly tax...
In which case why are they putting his picture out there?
Oh, and what will happen is it will go to trial, he will get a fine deemed paid by the time spent in custody, and be free to go. Doesn't seem outrageous.
If he really doesn't want to give his name, why not just wait it out? Seems like a plan to me.
He will be held until his trial, then he will be released with any punishment deemed served by the time spent in custody. It's really not an outrageous thing for the courts/police to do.
If he hasn't the money for the fine and/or doesn't fancy community service, it looks like a reasonable course of action for him, too.
Especially as the original offence was probably just sleeping rough.
Running them over will teach the others.
Seriously, you are suggesting that the most beneficial possible thing for users will be to convert a local privilege escalation vulnerability into a remote execution vulnerability?
Fantastic idea. Not.
"All I can say is that Tepco will be held liable and they will be made to make full compensation to sufferers of this incident," stated Edano.
In other words, Edano will use this as an excuse to grab loads of money from Tepco, and dish it out to favoured parties, meanwhile getting kudos for being a strong and decisive leader, and (he hopes) thanks from the people he is doling Tepco's money out to.
Much like the 1 Billion extorted from BP after Deepwater Horizon went to glorify BHO, and give massively overdone compensation to fishermen and hotelliers, and of course, all the middlemen who evaluated claims, campaigned etc...
Drink. It's the only solution.
The idea that email cannot be used to enter into binding contracts is idiotic. It can be and is.
What matters is what the court thinks is the truth, on the balance of probabilities. Email fits in there quite solidly alongside fax, and wet signature. That's especially true of low-value transactions.
The idea posted by other above that emailed contracts are unenforcible is wrong. You just turn up with a printout of the email - that's your evidence. It only has to be proved "on the balance of probabilities" so that's fine, unless the other party is prepared to commit fraud and/or lie on oath, which would be idiotic since that carries a prison sentence.
Wheras the "wet signature" - well that's just as deniable as email. Just say "I didn't sign that, someone has forged the document" and you are back to square one.
(Yes I know there is an exception for property contracts. If you think I would trust my house to a digital signature though you are mad.)
Anything to muddy the waters.
At some point the police, judges, juries etc. will wake up to the fact that DNA evidence doesn't do what they want it to. DNA at the scene shows only that you were *probably* there, and they should still get some other evidence to be sure.
Until then, be very afraid. If you are on the database, you are one cigarette but (or toothpick, tissue, whatever) away from arrest.
OK, there are some reliability problems around conditional probability.
But the much bigger problem is dandruff. DNA doesn't prove you were there. It proves a tiny fragment of your body was there. Maybe the rest of you was, maybe not.
If you are on the DNA database, and the police find your dandruff at the scene you WILL be arrested. Your alibi will be no good, because, hey, this is DNA right? And of course your mum would say you were at home.
Buffer overflow access straight into kernel mode too!
Sorry, I forgot - many eyes make all bugs shallow. This will be perfect because it is open source, and created by the altruistic geniuses of the FOSS bazaar. Or by Google Work For Hire oompa loompas. Whichever is best!
Cough (openssl) Cough!
People who trust their list, block you when you are listed by them. Not the same thing, at all.
This is in fact why they are better than having and "internet police". They aren't the only ones - there is rbl, uribl, enemieslist, and a whole array of others, and each recipient can choose who to use.
Spamhaus, at the moment, are the best and most trusted. The minute they stop being good, they will lose their power.
If only we could say that about the government!
More beer now.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
