Posts by Sir Runcible Spoon 5770 publicly visible posts • joined 29 May 2007
To be honest you'd be doing me a favour, as long as I get her back eventually (and in one piece!).
I had the leisure of an evening on my own a few months back, and even though my good lady wasn't there, I could still hear her saying "Come off there then" :D
Mind you, it might take me more than a weekend to regain my skills to the level I did at school when I got to the last level with both Big Bird and the little birds. I got to that level with 99 lives left (i.e. at the end of the third time through) when the teacher kicked me out.
Does anyone know what happens after that level? If it just goes back to little birds and starts all over again don't tell me, I don't think I could bear the disappointment after 27 years of suspense!
I changed my surname back in 2000, and after the initial hassle of passports and banks it's all been fine and dandy.
Even my new name doesn't come up in Google, for anything, yet I still manage to find jobs.
Although at one interview I was asked why they couldn't find me on Facebook and thought that was suspicious, until I made the guy realise that it would be a stupid thing to do by pointing out that since I usually have access to secure systems for governments and banks etc. the last thing I should be doing is telling everyone that I've just finished building the new 3rd party VPN platform for a bank (via LinkdIn) and that I'm going on holiday (via Facebook) (presumably leaving the company laptop with all the juicy details on it at home).
So no, not having a profile on the internet isn't suspicious at all, unless you only find people who are attention whores non-suspicious.
To suggest that the security services are not interested in the minutiae of everyday life is one thing, to suggest that they don't snoop on everyone because of that is disingenuous.
1. It might not matter that 'Fred' is having a row with his wife about his growing dissatisfaction of the current ruling party, but it might be 'of interest' to know that 27% of the population is getting increasingly pissed off, especially when it was only 7% last year.
2. Companies use the internet too, trade secrets, trade agreements, insider knowledge etc. - all useful stuff.
The spooks have shown, repeatedly, to be not only 'interested' in looking at peoples' private data, but are actively pursuing that data.
If would be prepared to bet every penny I am likely to earn for the rest of my life that more useful and useable data for catching terrorists has been gathered using the 'old fashioned' methods than scatter-snooping the entire population of the country. If all their snooping had been catching terrorists then they would surely say so considering all the heat they are getting.
"The first control they want is "freedom", but "power" comes soon after."
Ok, the UK isn't quite a despotic regime yet, but secret courts and un-restricted surveillance for dubious purposes are all steps in one direction, and that direction doesn't equate to more control for the citizens of the UK; it certainly isn't democracy.
The politicians treat the electorate like sheep, and they act like sheep.
There has never been a time in history when so much of our daily lives is influenced (directly or indirectly) by the media, which doesn't dance to the tune of democracy. If the inexorable advance of technology leads to tools that can listen to what people are saying in their homes en-masse, then the use of that technology has to have the highest degree of oversight imaginable, otherwise the power hungry will have a stick that, should they choose to wield it openly, would make it difficult to create any kind of organised resistance against it.
Some could argue that that is happening right now. Can you state that the media is truly independant and that government oversight of hidden agencies is adequate?
The things that people were being call tin-hatters for only 10 years ago is now taken for granted by the general populace. That there is no outcry only re-inforces my belief that people have been effectively divided. Of course, it could also mean that people don't really care, but I often hear about people's negative reactions when they are actually confronted with details of just how far state surveillance has gone, and their response is invariably 'Well, what can we do?'
I don't want to take control of the UK, and I don't support anyone else who does (apart from through the democratic process) - but that doesn't mean that I want some nameless, faceless un-accountable beauracrat to have ever increasing control over what I say and what I do.
The evidence of self-censorship is all around us, people are getting 'offended' on other people's behalf because they don't want to be seen as prejudiced, or a sympathiser of some dodgy moral outlook. It's all top-show and means absolutely bollock-all.
If a decent, hard-working sensible person tried to get into parliament - someone who spoke without weasle-words - how far do you think they would get? There are some out there, and I think they become dis-illusioned by the whole system pretty quickly.
If people like that can't get the support they need from 'the people', and the 'people' can't recognise such a person over the bum-fluffery of the morally-bankrupt (yet skillfull) career politicians, then I suppose they deserve to be herded into their little mind-boxes and fed x-factor 24 hours a day.
Personally I don't like to give in, but if there were a country I could go to to be free of this scourge, I would. Once upon a time that country would have been the UK. Who would say that now?
If enough 'small guys' gave a shit then they could change 'reality'.
Reality? Really? This isn't a fundamental law of physics* we're discussing here, it's the actions of a minority who happen to be able to hide behind bits of paper (and ultimately police, troops and guns).
To suggest that there is nothing we 'the small guys' can do to change what the 'big guys' are doing is an admission that we are living in a dictatorship, and your response? - "Welcome to reality".
Well I can't argue that you're wrong, but your whole attitude positively exudes apathy. If history has taught is anything it is to respect the Romans that no-one who ever fought for their freedom (and won) were apathetic.
You might not be able to change the world, but you can start by changing yourself, and I would humbly suggest that you address your attitude, because at the moment you appear to represent exactly what politicians have wet dreams about.
*Laws of physics are also open to debate, but they are good enough for government work**
**oxymoron alert
if parliament is fully aware of *everything* that GCHQ is doing and has authorised it as lawful and proportionate I'm assuming that anything that comes to light we can lay at the politician's doorstep?
Or do you think the politicians will just slopey shoulder the whole thing and blame an overactive exuberance on the part of GCHQ to catch those darned terrorists picking their nose in front of their webcams?
Either way, none of the slimey bastards will see a court.
"Yes, but only to the extent that everything you do in Chrome is tracked. Or possibly less."
I don't have Chrome, but why would I install a voice-controlled browser that recorded what I said to my wife about the latest government policy-gone-bad, or discussions around support for UKIP for instance?
Oh, Chrome can't do that? Well the xb180 can (whether it does it to this extent or not is irrelevant). Look up NSA and them capturing pictures from Kinect.
Couple this data-stream with voice and facial recognition plus 'always on' and 'always connected' (which was how it was for xb180 at the start remember) and you have a very effective spy network. If it's there and can be tapped, the NSA *will* tap it - they have some form in this area I believe.
Paranoid? I only wish I were.
I'm saving up my pennies for a full on water-cooled rig and surround sound and I'll be building it just as soon as OR goes retail.
I've seen some decent gaming chairs (for driving) that I can adapt, plus some custom switching gear to put the cockpit controls where they appear to be in-game (which will be modular to account for differing cockpit layouts).
I have no idea if will all hang together but who cares? Building it will be a hoot :)
@ecofeco
Just for clarification, having severe ADHD does not automatically result in designing something being unfit for purpose.
For example, I have severe ADHD and design network security systems. My designs and documentation are more easily understood and less error-prone than any other designer I have encountered thus far BECAUSE I have ADHD. I know I make mistakes, so I am always treble-checking my work.
Also, look up Will.I.Am and the stuff he can do.
However, I will agree that a bunch of baboons fighting over a banana trapped inside a keyboard could code a better UI than these damned TV's have.
I was watching a Samsung Smart TV last week in a hotel that had the option of 'Voice Recognition'.
I'm now not so sure my first gen d8000 doesn't have a microphone, but I do know it phones home with all the remote control key-presses etc.
It also has a nasty habit of turning itself on and off from standby when it feels like it - very weird the first time that happened in the middle of the night I can tell you.
Smart TV = Shite TV. I like the picture quality, but the rest of it sucks dead donkey balls. As soon as we get a new TV, it won't be 'Smart' and the current one will be delegated to Xbox duties and have no internet connection at all, 4OD be-damned :)
"If there's a company that uses more than 16 million addresses within its internal network, I'd like to see it."
Uses, no. Assigns? All the time.
And oddly enough most companies start assigning the 10 range from 10.0.0.0 upwards in large blocks (national/regional etc.) rather than random selections of /29's throughout.
"Dealing with all this numbering network nonsense should have been done away with ages ago. We only need a unique identifier for each device and the hardware should automatically translate it to the required address without any collision without even a network guru having to touch it."
And how would you connect this hardware up in the first place?
I've read your post twice now and I'm still not sure who you are responding to and which parts of your post are supposed to be sarcastic and which are supposed to be points you are trying to make.
"A problem that no one could foresee retroactively."
That appears to be the logical issue with your entire post I'm afraid...it doesn't make sense.
I don't think anyone mentioned about two companies merging, but since you did..
If you are talking about companies that are large enough to have entire departments working on migrating their internal address range then logically the size and complexity of the estate is also larger (I'm thinking of when Thomson merged with Reuters for example) - they are both using large parts of the private space.
I also think you'll find that in reality, the number of people that end up being responsible for fixing such a situation could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Part of the problem with IPv4 isn't just the lack of public addresses, it's the lack of private addresses.
As more and more large corporates connect to one another via VPN and have all been using RFC1918 address space it presents many conflicts when trying to connect companies to their trusted third partners.
It's not that hard to solve, but if it's done without a lot of thought it can create an almighty mess and massive time-sink for any support and new project related issues.
/3p
"(some say it was the cause of the infamous XBOX 360 hardware failure dubbed the 'Red Ring of Death')"
That was actually just down to a really shit heatsink fitting. I had a gen-1 xbox360 which I fixed myself with a new set of screws and paste etc. and it has never missed a beat since.
It was a bitch cleaning off the old paste though.
Whilst I don't disagree that that is possible I was referring to the statements made in the article..
"Those who mistakenly believe the anonymity of the Internet ― even on the Deep Web ― shields them from scrutiny are finding out they can't evade detection in cyberspace."
This implies that the miscreant was 'detected in cyberspace' somehow.
Whereas back in reality..
"Slomp began getting the attention of US Customs after they found a DVD case with MDMA stuffed inside, one of over 100 they eventually recovered."
So, detected over TOR (which is what they would just love you to believe) or detected because suspicious packages in the postal system were intercepted.
I would bet a large sum of money that they only found out his online dealings after raiding his crib and getting their hands on his computer - which they discovered the whereabouts of using old-fashioned police work. No cyber involved.
Perhaps the banks should stop using agencies that are unscrupulous to pick up contractors. If they started managing contract resource internally they would probably get a lot better quality.
A friend of mine recently was told by an agent that he was a good fit for a particular role and would put him forward for it. However, since he was asking for the going rate he wasn't put forward as the agents like to make the most money out of placing people.
When my friend received a contact from the company via a different route he dutifully raised the possibility of a conflict - which was how he found out the agent hadn't put him forward. Since he was such a high quality candidate the company in question was less than impressed and has decided to drop that particular agent from their preferred supplier list. If only this would happen more.
Of course, this is irrelevant to any discussion around permanent staff, so ymmv.
"Or it could just be cryptic and unreadble comments on the code..."
That would be so funny :D
#Gene Sequence #307
begin sequence 307
#stuff some code in here to activate common sense. I've got 20 to write today and Brian wants to play a round of mega-golf later on - time for a quick fix and I'll come back to it later..Bob.
end sequence
Celestial Update: In a shocking turn of events Bob was struck by Brian with a golf club after a disagreement around a Hole in 0. Brian has been sent to Earth for penance while Bob is being re-realised by the almighty. Expect him back in a few thousand years. In the mean-time, all work done by Bob will be put on hold until his return.
"Obviously, the spread has to be at least the tick size....
No, it doesn't. With multiple traders there will be lots of them in at different current prices. If the tick size were less than the spread this would just mean that some traders could not in the market for that commodity at the moment."
So, original statement says "minimum spread >= tick size"
You contradict and say "if tick size < spread " when what you've actually done is misunderstood the original statement, because you've actually agreed.
It is possible for tick size < spread, in fact that's pretty normal, but how are you going to measure the spread if it is less than the tick size? It can't be done.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
