Re: Good Grief
I can only assume from the naivety of your post that Shockwave is older than you are, in which case it should be immediately apparent that its code probably is written in C.
8168 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
"IE is no longer in a monopoly position."
Firstly, *IE* was not the monopoly that Microsoft were trying to extend. That was Windows, and by the standards set by law, MS still have a monopoly in that market.
Secondly, since when does your liability for past criminal activity lapse as soon as that activity ceases to be illegal?
You may already (since posting this) have caught up with the replies to previous posts, but just in case you haven't:
No it doesn't. Support for Win7-with-SP1 ends either two years after SP2 comes out (it may not) or with the end of the product lifecycle, whichever is the sooner. For Win7, the product lifecycle has mainstream support going through to 2015 and extended support to 2020. Using past performance (ie, XP) to interpret those statements that means MS will continue supporting Win7 in Windows Update until 2020 as long as you have whatever is the latest service pack by then.
Ergo, any corporate currently in the middle of an XP-to-7 transition has 8 years to enjoy the benefits. They probably will, too, since MS are looking increasingly *unwilling* to deliver a viable desktop platform to replace it. People *talk* about waiting for Win9, but no such product is on the drawing board and when it does appear we might find that it is another phone OS.
"In one example the Soviets initially reported taking approximately 2,710 humpback whales from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s. The newer data reveal the actual number was closer to 48,000."
All the arguments about the "sustainability" of "scientific" whaling might be affected if it turns out that the natural population is about ten times larger than previously suspected. That would immediately imply that the current population has been denuded to a far greater degree than we've been assuming.
I beg to differ. Most search engines that operate in China *do* censor results, so if Siri doesn't then that's newsworthy. I wonder where Siri is getting her information from. I wonder if the local plod are already using her to track down down people who they regard as criminals.
"the difference between the Internet and the internet"
Had you said "the Internet and an internet", I might have had some sympathy, but you didn't and neither did El Reg. Even "the one and only one true Internet(tm)" is still distinct from the web, and even people like Gove ought to be aware of this, since *surely* he has heard of email?
If you are determined to blur all useful technical distinctions, at least have the decency to call it the "interwebs" or "tubes" so that everyone knows you are doing so.
"hardly something to scoff with haughty derision at"
Unless, of course, the context was "education", in which case getting your definitions right might be considered a pre-requisite to being taken seriously. Oh, hang on, this is a government minister we're talking about. No-one was ever likely to take him seriously. (A pity he's in charge, then, but still.)
"you actually live in a world where most websites don't track your sessions?"
Er, yeah. There's an option in my browser to deny them access to the cookies they need in order to do that. HTTP is a stateless protocol.
And apropos the original remark that led us down this path: You do not "log on" to anything without some pretence at proving that you are the same person as you were last time. If there's no "state", there's no "memory of who you were last time".
"It also requires the use of a centralised body"
Ah, no. Actually it probably requires the *absence* of such a body, but ICANN have missed this point.
The old system broke up the top-level space into a handful of historical accidents (.com, .org, etc) and by country code. If you forgive the historical accidents, and accept that sovereign nations each get one top-level domain which they can then screw up as they like, the administration of the top-level in the hierarchy (the only piece that has to be universally agreed upon) is completely trivial and uncontroversial.
And so it was until ICANN changed the rules and opened up the top-level to the highest bidder. This made ICANN a distinctly controversial body performing a non-trivial role for the benefit of the highest bidder.
"BDNA's financial customer, which is migrating to Windows 7, must [sic] replace or re-write 1,500 of 2,200 apps that have been written for Windows XP."
Bollocks! An app that is even remotely well-written for XP will, in nearly every instance, run on Win7. A 2/3 failure rate means that someone is telling fibs.
Either BDNA are pumping their financial customer for unnecessary consultancy fees, or these apps were actually written for Windows 3.0 and managers have been postponing this re-write for about 20 years. Either way, I'd say this financial customer is getting what they deserve for being utterly clueless about a platform on which they run 2,200 apps.
Doubtless Mr Gartner will be along in a while to tell us how fixing this problem will cost 123% of global GDP over the next 18 months, but...
Any corporate user still running XP because they've got IE6 or IE7 apps on their intranet SURELY has their intranet firewalled behind either a black hole or a TARDIS (or both). They aren't even going to pause for breath in 2014. Meanwhile, any domestic user still running XP will be pleased that it has stopped pestering them to install updates every month.
But back on the first hand...
April 2014 is also the date when Office 2003 loses support. Does anyone have up-to-date figures for Office market share by version? My guess is that the ribbon-haters are no rarer than Aero-phobes.
Dear God, no! It's bad enough having to listen to "Honey, I'm on the train." without having to listen to some early-adopter dictate the same in an email.
Voice, like touch, is only going to work in a very small number of scenarios. You can rule out just about any environment (from office to pub) that has other people in it. However, reaching such environments was pretty much the point of making the device portable, so voice is a non-starter.
...is irrelevant, since "upgrade" presumes you already have Windows running on something. That's going to be a machine with a mouse and keyboard and there's no point in upgrading such a beast because Win8 offers nothing new on such a device. (Once you get through to the desktop and install a third party shell, there's no change from Win7.) MS clearly aren 't going after "upgrade" business in this cycle.
Instead, Win8 stands or falls on its penetration of the device market, where the relevant cost is that of a new OEM licence. (Of course, the near absence of any hardware at launch time is not a good omen.)
Don't the maps in question come from that thar internetty thing, so isn't this really just a spin on "If China doesn't like what's on your foreign website, you aren't allowed to view that site when you're in China."?
The "solution" is for Google et al to send different map data based on the current geographical location of the recipient, rather than their nationality. Or maybe not travel to a country that treats its own population as a slave workforce and executes anyone who disagrees too loudly.
Ah, but those Beetles, Kimbis and Trabants would have warp drive, big bigger on the inside than the outside, and would be free with your breakfast cereal.
Intel seem to be doing fine, despite their crappy arch. I've been hearing about how ARM were going to take over the world for almost as long as I've been hearing about Linux on the desktop. Given what Intel do to batteries and what Microsoft have done to my desktop, I'd be delighted if either scenario came to pass, but after 10 years or more, I'm still waiting.
"Chinese industry really does seem to be the unacceptable face of capitalism."
It's been many years since an officially capitalist country has been the unacceptable face of capitalism. The same is true for environmental issues. Dictatorships of any notional flavour have always been worse.
It's funny. You get these people telling you how awful your liberal democracy is and how they could create a better society, and eventually these people get a country to play in where they can make the rules and force everyone to be better, and it always ends up sucky. At the end of the day, the best system ever invented is the one where you can get rid of the bastards at the end of their term of office.
I think the cause suffers if she is just a figure head. Fortunately, we have the likes of Faraday and Babbage to speak up for her. Unlike the modern day revisionists, they actually knew her and they were demonstrably top-flight scientists themselves, so if they reckon she was in their league then I'll settle for that.
You seem to be dividing books into "reference" and "paperbacks". Looking at my own bookshelf, I'd say that *most* of my non-fiction titles are larger than a paperback and hardly any are works that I just just dip into to look something up. Also, there's a huge number of technical works (e.g., PDFs) that are pre-formatted to a fixed width. Viewing those on a standard kindle requires a combination of "smallest font size" and "landscape orientation".
Amazon seem to want to get out of the e-Reader market, having presumably sunk quite a lot of cash into establishing that market. Any economists out there care to suggest how that makes any kind of sense?
These sites will ignore the request, pompously reminding everyone that they are US-based, but within the next decade local politicians in the other hundred or so jurisdictions around the world will have had enough of this and will have put in place the legal and technical means to block these sites.
Yes it will be fairly easy to bypass, but it will be illegal and even then (as now) 95% of people won't actually know how. The big names will lose 95% of their global customers and will complain bitterly about how UNFAIR it is that these wicked foreigners are resorting to bully-boy tactics.
Earth calling the internet-tards: either you allow yourselves to be regulated by local laws or you will be outlawed in those jurisdicions. Right now you are on borrowed time. When even democracies are having serious political battles about how to build national-scale firewalls to keep you out, you know you're doing something wrong.
Be fair, the American habit stems from the fact that most of their place names were copied from Europe. As a result, for any large European town or city an American audience probably does know a tiny hamlet somewhere near where they live that has the same name.
It's still an annoying habit that El Reg shouldn't copy, but it wasn't an unreasonable invention in its original context.
Nah, they just tendered too low.
Hint: Is there any proof that Trailblazer actually did what it was paid to do? Is there any likelihood that the UK scheme will? No, in both cases. The figures you just quoted are merely what those in charge have decided is a politically reasonable amount of cash to grab for spending on projects that they don't want to admit to. There is, in fact, no absolute requirement that either project ever existed, since revealing any such evidence would be a breach of national security and revealing that the money was actually spent on something else too secret to even admit too would be an even more serious breach.
By their very nature, state secrets are where democracy stops and dictatorship begins. We either prohibit the whole notion of state secrecy or we trust that the dictatorship is benign. On the historical evidence, the latter is only likely if the dictatorship is fairly narrow in scope and its personnel drawn very widely from society as a whole. Both of those requirements can be policed by democratic representatives, but only if the latter are fairly smart and aware that this is an important part of their job.
For my part, I'd always assumed that it was just a picture of an apple. Y'know, having just called his company Apple Computer Co, for want of a unique name, he then chooses a picture of an apple as the logo because, well what else is he going to use? Taking a bite out of it was as far as his imagination went in that department. Frankly he had more important areas in which to direct his creative energy.
I think it was always the comparison that was considered grossly offensive. The dolls just got caught in the cross-fire. That is, it was easier to remove all the dolls from society than remove all people who were wont to make offensive comparisons. (Perhaps the latter approach would probably have been better in the long term.)
My reading of the article (and knowledge of the history) is that BT have not done anything to the (majority of) lines between cabinets and homes, even once. As and when they do, they will "do it right" with a fibre. The issue is not "upgrading to last century's technology". It is "not upgrading everything everywhere all at once".
Unless you know of some magic pixie dust that makes financial realities goes away, rolling out FTTC across the country before rolling out FTTH seems perfectly defensible to all except the "You've got birds in your garden so you deserve shit broadband." wing of the Me Me Me party.
If you can just hide stuff by calling it personal, what's the point?
There have been a number of cases of politicians hiding stuff from civil service (or equivalent) retention regimes. It's illegal, but it happens, so surely there would be a presumption that stuffed received at a business email address but labelled "personal" should be inspected. Otherwise the law makes an ass of itself.
"You slated LeMay"
Tell ya what, why don't you crawl back into your hole and read what I said and not what you read. Start at the very beginning, before you'd said anything, when I was replying to a guy who claimed that the US response to the Japanese had been forgotten. Along your way, you will note that I go out of my way *not* to slate Lemay for anything he might have done in WW2.
Once your reading comprehension has grokked both the original context of my remarks and the remarks themselves, you may be ready to re-enter the discussion, but given that I've already addressed your points several times without you acquiring anything resembling a clue, I shan't wait for you.
You're still missing the point about scale and self-sustaining.
You're still missing the point about the OP referring to the response to Pearl Harbour being forgotten.
And yes, it was called WW2 for a reason, but only Britain and US actually fought in all theatres. The enemy didn't.
"Don't confuse a prior lack of resource with a lack of prior intent." Don't confuse intent with actually doing. A self-sustaining firestorm is a qualitatively different thing from dropping indendiaries. The damage of the latter is limited by what you carry to the target. The damage of the former is limited only by what is already at the target.
"Neatly ignoring that Axis cities were number two on the list of agreed targets after military and industrial buildings." How is that even relevant to the point I was making? Having chosen the target, for whatever reason, they sat down and figured how to attack that target in such a way that the firestorm would be self-sustaining.
"Oh puh-lease, get a clue! Science has always been used to make war more effective..." Nowhere have I said that it wasn't. My original point, which you seemed to miss entirely, was that it was quite ridiculous to describe the US response to Pearl Harbour as "forgotten", like the OP did. I cited LeMay and the A-bomb attacks on the assumption that just about everyone would be familiar with how the US response in the Pacific had proceeded.
Given that LeMay was in charge in the Pacific and the OP was talking about the Pacific, I see nothing particularly mis-leading in saying that LeMay was one of the inventors of the technique. Yes, it evolved over several years and hundreds of people presumably had a hand in it, but history tends to credit the generals with the victories.
Matt: go do some arithmetic.
The scale of bombing raids against Germany and Japan from about 1944 onwards was quite unlike anything that had gone before. Merely dropping incendiaries and burning the buildings that they hit is *qualitatively* different from sitting down with weather forecasts and theoretical models to plan where incendiaries would be dropped in order to create a self-sustaining storm. (The attack on Tokyo made conscious use of the fact that Tokyo's architecture was mostly wooden and the weather leading up to the attack had been hot and dry.)
People had bombed cities before, but LeMay was quite emphatic at the time that he was trying to step up a gear and exploit the self-sustaining nature of a firestorm to create a new weapon of war.
Perhaps the OP was correct, and the majority of folks *have* forgotten how WW2 ended. That would indeed be very sad. Future generations should be free to decide for themselves whether the allies over-stepped the mark or were merely doing what they had to in order to end the war with the right result. (Personally, I reckon the people best placed to make that judgement were the people fighting the war, so I'm reluctant to criticise even LeMay, although I think his subsequent behaviour during the Cuban Missile Crisis hardly inspires confidence in his general sanity.) However, we should not pretend that the war ended by the heroic efforts of GI Joe. It ended because the systematic annihilation of the homelands of the enemy was treated as a scientific problem and its solution resourced by everything that a fully industrialised society could throw at it.
"It should be a relief to many that none of the bulletins requires immediate attention, as none of them address vulnerabilities being exploited in the wild; all were privately reported vulnerabilities. This means that there isn’t any publicly known exploit code for this month’s bulletin cycle."
Well, not until Wednesday, by which time the black hats will have reverse engineered the patches. But I suppose if sys admins are going to lose sleep over the certificate change, it is probably fortunate that there aren't too many other crises in play.