1453 posts • joined 5 Jul 2010
Google made its fortune by capturing the labor that went into building the web
I realise google bashing is fun for many and often reasonable, but lets at least try to keep it sensible - unless 'reg is trying to be the Breitbart of tech in which case carry on..
Actually tunnelling under stuff isn't the expensive / controversial / time-consuming part.
No but it's what makes it particularly infeasible in the megacities where you'd hypothetically need this stuff most.
Honestly the best answer to transport in megacities is reducing the number of journeys people have to take which is apparently what has caused TFL to "lose" 20 million journeys a year - people working from home.
I used to smoke 20 a day and I found 12mg when I first started to be a problem if I was chain vaping for long periods, but people should start at least on what they're comfortable with. I find one of the issues is people trying to combine switching to vaping with cessation, which is trying to quit smoking and vaping at the same time; that's not going to work in most cases. Switch to vaping at whatever is comfortable (the TPD makes this a serious issue in the EU which is exactly part of the issue this article is discussing) but if you can, do it. When you're comfortable vaping you can reduce nicotine, maybe even some day quit but I find the idea of trying to quit smoking and vaping at the same time to be an absurdity in compounding issues - in my view it's why traditional quit aids themselves don't work. Quit smoking and THEN quit nicotine.. if you want to - but you don't really have to.
Re: what you never hear talked about...
I love hearing from people who haven't read any of the medical research it really makes my day. The threat to second hand vapers as it were is small enough that it's effectively zero. There's reams of research on this, this aint the 1930's, we have the technology to find out what's in the vapour.
Re: I found it stupidly easy to 'give up' with vapes.
Lady behind the tobacco counter at tescos
Yeah that stuff you can buy in a supermarket is no good for this. The juices all taste like ass and the ecigs themselves are no good for anything - and they're a rip off for refills. May I suggest finding a vape shop and asking for advice. Okay your start up costs are going to be higher getting yourself a proper mod and tank but you'll be happier with it in the long run. If anybody tries to sell you an unregulated mod walk out the shop and find another one though..
Re: "does this read more like an ad-icle"
You can ingest pure coffee in large amounts with no risk of death
You *can* kill yourself just by drinking coffee. It happens.
AFAIK there's no reported cases of anybody vaping themselves to death intentionally or otherwise. If you drank a teaspoon of the 72mg/ml nicotine I have it will kill you but if you drank caffeine that relatively strong that would kill you too. They're both poisons, deadly poisons. There's a long list of reasons they're comparable; not least because the research shows them to be about as dangerous as each other in vivo at normal usage doses, which is to say they're not at all.
Re: No Stalling here
They did analysis of why, including surveys and it's for reasons like the regulation making people think that smoking and vaping are equivalent in terms of risk when they very much are not. I linked the review of legislation, health and behaviour evidence above and it is well worth reading but here it is again.
Re: I found it stupidly easy to 'give up' with vapes.
My experience, they're nothing like cigs, barely meets the action habit, just about covers the chemical dependency.
Mind if I ask what gear you're using? It should easily cover the dependency and habitually is basically an irrelevance when that is the case. Plus the right juices and equipment you'll be happy doing it.
When I first started I wasn't interested in stopping smoking, tried a bunch of different equipment I wasn't happy with and continued smoking. Found some I was happy with and a juice I liked and I just stopped smoking. Even kept a packet of cigarettes on my desk which is a golden rule of don't do it when you want to quit smoking; switching to vaping like flicking a switch, and since gone down to 6mg/ml nicotine with no issues. My relationship with smoking is fine - I have no issue with people smoking near me because I have no craving for nicotine that I've known people who stopped decades ago longing for. I'm still not bothered about not smoking, I'd do it in a flash but I'm happy vaping and can't think of a single compelling reason to smoke over it; and I certainly don't *need* to smoke.
It shouldn't be a problem which is why I'm always interested to hear why it is for some people.
Re: Nicotine is an addictive neurotoxin however it is taken.
Yeah, in high doses. The stuff is nasty lethal, it's one of the strongest poisons there is. It isn't consumed at those levels though. Caffeine is also poisonous if you take enough of it.
Re: "does this read more like an ad-icle"
It's been proven that Nicotine is far less addictive when vaped, Proven. Also it's a "neurotoxin" in the same way as coffee is. And it's about as dangerous in normal consumption levels, which is to say it's not really. Should we also ban coffee? How about alcohol?
Also your argument is basically that people should just carry on smoking as opposed to finding some safer way to consume nicotine which is pure unadulterated nonsense.
Re: Tobacco is a carcinogen whether or not you burn it
Tobacco is a carcinogen whether or not you burn it
Vaping isn't tobacco. Has nothing to do with tobacco.
Re: Regulatory approval
TPD was written *for* the Tobacco industry, explicitly. They're the only ones who can. Products the tobacco industry are buying/producing are garbage though.
The EU is corrupt. But don't take my word for it. http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/2015/02/24/tobacco-lobbying-eu-directive/
Re: That's the theory, anyway...
More important than how many there are is how many they sell. Protip: it'll be less than the maximum.
Should have called it..
Re: All thats missing
The *only* way for the UK to "reverse" brexit now is to rejoin. Single currency and a 30 year waiting list. Not worth our time even if you're a remainer. I see at least 22 people are easily confused by truth though.
Re: All thats missing
20 months post referendum and not a plan in sight, not even a sniff of one, its as if they have no idea what they are doing.......
There is a plan I'll let you into the secret.. it's really complicated..
Want to know it?
The UK is leaving the EU. The end. Get over it already, it's happening regardless of what you want. On the what happens next - it's completely irrelevant, the EU doesn't want any sort of deal they've made that clear and for the UK that's far and away the best outcome sooooo.. The negotiations are a complete charade from both sides.
Before you get uppity downvote me for truth: I'm just relaying reality here, get a grip on yourselves.
Re: 99.995% is impossible
Here's a video we've already told you is a terrorist video. Is it a terrorist video?
TBH this isn't how that works. It's here's a curated set of ISIS/not videos. Here's another *different* set of ISIS videos mixed with other, which are/aren't, what's the accuracy rate? If they did it the way you say their reputation would be in tatters by the end of the day, I doubt they're that stupid.
That being said with real world data the reality is it's going to be massively inaccurate. It's entirely possible for a tool like this to exist and kinda work but I'd suggest only using it for flagging videos for a real person to look at - although as others have pointed out meat-based AI fails at this sort of thing too.
One man's unethical is another man's successful. Not for nothing but people are dumb when faced with legal threats, jump the shark and take the cheapest option rather than playing it smart and going nuclear, scorched earth policy. If you win and win hard and the other guy pays the fees who cares what it costs - in fact, the more the better. You might consider that unethical, I call it a smart play - for no other reason than as a deterrent.
Re: A Flagrant Rotten Denial of Justice and a Blot in the UKGBNI Landscape
Surely the fact that he is still being persecuted/prosecuted long after removal of disputed facts, is grounds enough for reasonable cause that justice has not and is not being served and servered by judges?
That he's a bail skipper isn't a disputed fact, and that's what he's wanted for - at least today - and that's all that matters. If people are allowed to hide until everybody forgets about them it brings the entire legal system into disrepute. Given the people who put up his bail were let off for being simpletons it's fairly important that he not get away with it for that and because explicitly he's high profile, which is to say it passes the test of being in the public interest to prosecute him for that alone.
Re: @ Ben ... A Flagrant Rotten Denial of Justice and a Blot in the UKGBNI Landscape
Just a nit... being a grammar Nazi... the word is regardless not irregardless. ;-)
Trouble with grammar Nazis is they're almost always wrong. Irregardless is a valid word in English, whilst being strange at a technical level it is completely legitimate to use.
Also there's no such thing as Standard English which is precisely why English is such a great language, it evolves; in contrast to for example French. Hell, English is born of evolution.
By this argument, people are allowed to choose where they spend their custodial sentences. I don't see that being allowed to become legal precedent.
Precisely. He isn't being held in an actual prison then he isn't being held is the legal standard; being on the lamb in South America doesn't count else Ronnie Biggs would have never served time when he landed back in the UK; it doesn't count as time served and arguing it does is completely absurd. Sooner Assange realises this the sooner he'll be out of prison and deported to Australia so he can be deported to the US. If you're gonna fuck with legal systems at least learn how to do it right, be in a non-extradition country before you do it.
Re: Too mild in both cases
I'm wondering how long it's going to take for the next 2008-type crash.
Not that long but the eurozone banks still haven't fixed the structural issues that caused 2008, US banks have. Next crash aint coming from the US.
Re: In the words of Sir Humphrey
Just in case nobody gets that quip about the Germans, I direct your attention here. The last time it came up the German courts backed down to avoid being ruled against; but still uphold their belief that the German courts have primacy when they don't. Basically the German courts don't understand that the rules apply to them too, which is why they [Germans] enjoy being in the EU so much when other states that are around their GDP/Capita don't.
Re: In the words of Sir Humphrey
Couple of fixes: the Germans will continue to pretend their courts are supreme to EU law they don't agree with (protip: they're not), the Irish can't afford to enforce it despite being the state where it matters most, the Italians are too busy drinking espresso to notice it and we (the British) are off. That said it's going into national law anyway - and we resent it because it's half-baked, like most things that come from the EU.
Re: 2 Countries.
because European politics and machinations are so transparent
I'm regularly downvoted on 'reg for speaking truth about the EU but this is one of the few areas of clarity. Regulations automatically apply and don't need transposing into national law, states *can* if they chose to but they don't have to, it just supersedes any law in conflict.
"just two countries having adapted their national laws"
The "R" in "GDPR" stands for "Regulation". Those 2 countries are ijuts because regulations don't require changing national law, they automatically apply and are supreme. If they wanted countries to change their own laws they should have made it a directive.
FML people are dopey. This is absurd on so many levels I don't even know where to start.
Nice to see people confusing directives and regulations - especially when it's the EU itself - it's always good for a laugh.
"the UK goverment want to hold data on EU citizens"
This is utterly untrue. That being said if you're a business doing business in the EU you'd arguably need to follow the regs for that data.
Re: Google and Intel;
So what are they going to sell instead?
Seats in the bankruptcy court.
Like Gemalto before they probably shouldn't exist at this point.
If Ford had a car where the steering wheel would randomly snap off and kill the driver nobody would buy fords until ford had a fix in place. Actually what would happen is ford would recall all the affected cars.
Oh wait too much logic. Intel still flogging CPUs not fit for purpose, so are, yes, many other companies - sux to be huge and the focus.
Said it before and I'll say it again, it's not clear we shouldn't have all gone back to living in mud huts over this. There are going to be new classes of bugs that derive from this flaw for years to come, somebody needs to do something about it in hardware, which means yes, you guessed it.
Google and Intel;
Mishandled all this right from the start. Google will get away with it because they don't make CPUs.. Intel, not so much.
Some things should stay buried, at least until there are proper hardware fixes and Intel (or anybody else) shouldn't be selling CPUs still at this point that are still vulnerable, not least because there's nothing to sue for a replacement for, which I'm sure Intel knows. Long term it's going to hurt them though.
It's a shame that..
so much of this stuff is made in the UK. Obviously people not buying PC gear made here will ruin us.
Bought a phone in this period.. So glad I paid by paypal, oneplus definitely not in my circle of trust.
Can we talk about how that's the most idiotic piece of redaction in all of history.
Firstly there's nothing in there requiring redaction from any perspective so why did it happen, and secondly what the actual fuck on being incompetent at it?
Re: Please mind the gap
that it provides some sort of gap in full take surveillance
Well it probably does to an extent but I doubt this is the real reason (certainly they're monitoring all mobile phones, all the time, c/o Gemalto). The civil service' primary role in government is witness protection for BT, anything that harms their market position must be stamped out, with prejudice. Hence the Ofcom link. natsec is just an excuse (as it tends to be).
Sure, though, if you operate a gsm gateway you can generate your own keys and decide your own cipher strength, all you need is the ability to write to sim cards which is a 10 quid on ebay type deal, and there's plenty of companies that will sell you blank writeable ones.
Not like invest to exit is a thing or anything. I don't like it myself - it's why Europe and moreover the UK has nobody who is on a level with the likes of Microsoft or Google; but it *is* where the money is coming from. If you ban it the money stops, unintended consequence is you get less start-ups, you attract less talent and you get less tax receipts.
Not those exact words, but near as damn it. I can list companies, but I shouldn't need to - people should be aware of what has been said by actual businesses.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the massive tech investment continues with corporations saying "no we don't give a shit about brexit actually, in fact, it's why we're investing here"
Most polite thing I can say about Sadiq Khan is he's a clown who won't get re-elected, and weirdly not because he's delusional - but because he's incompetent. Weird that. This City Airport nonsense didn't help his case, especially when he's claiming to be some sort of environment mayor, undoing Boris' ban on their expansion - Labour have shown to what degree they'll take money to kill people.
Re: Isn't it a small minority
This commenty says to me: 'I was rubbish at my job so I'll blame 'diversity' for the fact that I never go promoted.
This comment says to me "I'm rubbish at my job so I'll blame the fact I'm not a white male for the fact I can't get ahead". Surely you see how lame this game is?
All anybody sensible wants is an even playing field on both sides. I'm personally all about meritocracy, you get the best person for the job, no matter what they are and you go from there. Employers can't, nor should they be, artificially trying to solve society's past ills. Simply doesn't work, why would anybody try to hire somebody who isn't the best fit for the job they're trying to fill? It's a nonsense, any company doing this isn't going to be in business for long unless they have more money than sense (see: google et al).
I literally couldn't give a toss, I have no issue getting hired - but I can understand why people are annoyed; and women and racial minorities have to work with the very people they're actively trying to piss off, that's a recipe for stupidity. Regardless, companies are actively doing themselves harm which I find utterly hilarious, so carry on. Incompetence is pervasive through management culture in tech so there's nothing new here.
Re: Isn't it a small minority
Let the race to mediocrity commence.
Re: Poor Poorer.
Not wanting to go full nerd, but I'm fairly sure this is what Roddenberry was trying to say with the economics of Star Trek - that there's a point where we don't have to do anything, basically the system gets *so* efficient that people can't even work if they want to and capitalism just fails to function and people have to do things because they want to as opposed to because they need money. At that stage cash stops being a usable thing.
I'd hate to predict how far along that path but there's things coming down the mountain that when they hit we might get to that stage. Self driving cars, robots in the home that can physically do things you'd otherwise do yourself and obviously the encroachment of factory automation - the more there is the less jobs there are for less skilled workers. If I don't need a cleaner, don't need an uber/taxi driver, don't need to make the things I'd buy that's a huge chunk of the unskilled workforce, the capitalist system dies with it.
I don't think it's a huge problem in the long term, I think we'd all get by with not having to work, I could cope with a perpetual holiday if I don't need to pay for things - but the transition will be massive social upheaval and we might already be there.
Strictly speaking, if allowed to run its course, what will actually happen is it'll end the economic system.
If nobody needs to (or can) work and the rich own all the wealth and literally can't find enough ways to spend it the capitalist system dies. There's already evidence western civilisation is on the border of this point, one only has to look at the sheer volumes of cash governments are pumping into banks to keep them lending and the proportions of low paying service industry jobs in some countries.
If Germany ever near completely automates its car industry (and it will within the next 25 years, it'll need to just to stay even remotely competitive) it'll be the final nail in the coffin and the world will be forced to reinvent itself, and all that accumulated wealth will mean nothing. Peak capitalism has passed, it was some time in early 2008.
Isn't placing your trust in ONE vendor who by nature can't catch everything ALSO bad juju?
The chances of you getting hit by a virus or malware that a reasonably competent AV vendor hasn't accounted for and another has and you happen to have picked the right AV vendor combination to cover that venn diagram is almost nil - in fact it is nil. If you're a target for the CIA, usually you'd know and frankly you should be taking precautions like, I don't know, maybe not so much with the running of the Windows. Also, yeah, therein lies the trick when choosing AV.
Each to their own, but running two AV products at the same time isn't really viable, potentially it could do more damage than malware could.
I can't tell if this is serious or not ^
There are people who run multiple AV products
This kind of thing is extremely bad practice, most people who work in security and AV vendors have been telling people to not do it for at least a decade, at least as far as active protection goes. Race conditions playing around in kernel memory space is bad juju.
Just don't do it.
Now having AV soft where one does your active protection and another that can scan but actively protecting the system is kinda viable, the answer in that case would be yeah, you better hope that the one you have doing the protection is the one that is compatible. If it isn't..
You'd have to actively disable things to get into this state, namely defender. Sure defender is garb, it wasn't I don't think ever supposed to be that great but I'm sure defender will set the key (edit: Microsoft do explicitly list it on their spreadsheet). Defender will only disable itself, and will always disable itself if you're running other AV.
If you've specifically decided to go naked as it were, it's kinda your own fault and you should be paying attention to things like this. As for lawsuits, you're the one making the positive step not Microsoft, there's no liability here.
do the needful.
God I hope that is google translate at it's best and not how the complaint is actually worded - though I suspect it is.
Bohhooohoo nvidia gpus aren't artistic work.
What are you talking about. Nvidia are doing *fine*.
Couple of things, using copyright to enforce licensing clauses that don't pass the laugh test that directly relate to a piece of hardware you bought because a company makes the hardware that you pay through the nose and hands out drivers for for free to make sure you can use and therefore buy the hardware in the first place is *absurd*.
Secondly if you can't do business in the GPU space because GPUs don't make enough money (bahahahaha, again doesn't pass the laugh test) then don't make GPUs, go open a coffee chain.
Also Nvidia are having no issues licensing decades old patents thank you very much.
By the way, like I said, even if what you're saying here is valid (and it isn't, lets be clear) - how exactly could nvidia possibly hope to enforce it?
Re: Why would one want to use Nvidia?
It's not 2008, this driver thing isn't really worth talking about, AMD and nvidia have fairly solid linux drivers that perform perfectly fine. DKMS solved most issues and if you want open source nouveau is perfectly (more than, in fact) adequate these days.
Also AMD gave up on being competitive around the launch of the R5-9 which is why I abandoned the laborious wait for a RX Vega and bought a 1080ti hybrid instead.
More importantly who cares what nvidia think. They're in no position to enforce regardless. They're not going to send the GPU police to your DC to check if you've been naughty or nice. So your card dies in half the time their overpriced gear does. I bought a $1000 card, got two years use out of it by which time it's obsolete anyway, saved myself $9000 and oh dear they won't cover it under warranty (they couldn't prove regardless), oh dear what a shame never mind.
GeForce and TITAN GPUs were never designed for data center deployments with the complex hardware, software, and thermal requirements for 24x7 operation, where there are often multi-stack racks
Also this, right here, is bullshit. That's my problem nvidia, thanks.
I've been telling people for years that the nvidia DC-approved GPUs are a complete waste of time and money, hilarious that it seems people have finally cottoned on to nvidia's price gouging (which is so extreme that it'd embarrass even Apple) - and even more hilarious that nvidia think they can do anything to stop it. Stop ripping people off and people will buy your "enterprise" (enterprise here is a synonym for bullshit, as it usually is) gear.