Re: It's one way to get it watched
... or go for someone good looking instead?
4281 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
Mate, you're the one obsessing about it. Chill, or maybe seek help?
An article about tech, on a tech site tangents off into child pornography *twice* and I'm obsessed for calling you out?
What help do you suggest I seek?
A very strange comment - I can only assume there is psychological projection going on.
Cheers
The tech was bound to come eventually. There will come a time when video evidence will become useless (remember the doctored video of Arnie in "The running man")
We can all extrapolate the consequences without you having to mention child porn... twice!
While we're at it, the internet can be used to distribute child porn!
Cameras can take pictures of kiddies!
That recent article on 512GB flash? It forgot to mention how much child porn that would allow someone to store!
And the Meltdown/Spectre bugs? They could allow people to hack family kiddie photos!
(Writing this as someone personally responsible for the discovery, busting and jailing of a child porn pervert)
Naah. A global effect will be minimal. This is all about how American consumer ISPs deal with consumer connections.
If the worst of the worst happened, and companies became less profitable, they'd still cater to their international audiences. Costs may rise globally, but companies with a strong global reach will keep going.
Hypothetically, if Trump 'banned' google, or any of the others with a global reach, they'd not close down, they'd shift their base to another country.
We tried that already IIRC. See Pentium 4 and NetBurst.
Ahhhh. OK. Thanks. Now you mention it, I vaguely recall some people complaining that the P4 was less complicated than the P3, and thus was less powerful when running at the same speed - the idea being it would allow them to crank up the speed as it ran cooler. I didn't realise that predictive branching was one of the things they sacrificed.
From what I gather, they couldn't easily achieve the increased speeds needed to surpass the P3's power.
Cheers, J
All this speculative/predictive stuff is done so that the CPU doesn't waste time idling...
At the same time, we are rather limited in CPU speeds due to the temperatures reached when the chips are working.
Without any speculative stuff, and using the philosophy that it's OK for a "busy" CPU to be idle, how much could the speed be ramped up due to the otherwise cooler core?
Instead of bloatware and throw big tin at it, how about actually learning how to write good code?
But we've been saying that ever since MS brought us the "Too slow? buy a new machine. Uses too much memory? Buy more!" mantra in the mid 90's.
And nothing ever happened, until 'almost-smart' phones became available, and suddenly everyone was concerned with lean, efficient programming. Then phones became more powerful, and once again, that philosophy died.
Same will happen this time around. Lowest-common-denominator programmers and techniques will still be employed - "You just need to but a more expensive machine! More cores, more Mhz!"
They are Chinese, but they advertise heavily on youtube, and I presume they paid a packet to get the wish.com domain in the first place.
You're right of course that any legal claim would be fruitless, but I wonder how much their reputation is worth? I may buy one just to find out!
EDIT: Oh sod it, I just have :-)
People can politely ask something on here, and if their original premise is wrong, some reg users downvote them, even if they state it as a question like you did.
I can understand downvotes if someone stubbornly asserts something incorrect, but why this happens for posts like yours is a mystery. I think it may be some kind of elitest geekyness - how dare anyone ever be wrong about something!
EDIT: Sorry, incoherent, not slept since Saturday
Wrong. So-called NN regulations prevent ISPs from giving the best service to their customers because traffic from all other ISPs has to be give free reign on their network.
Like you, so many people get this the wrong way around. (Most do so intentionally)
What you need to realise is that from a conceptual point of view (i.e. avoiding technical pedantry on how services may literally send requested data) with a consumer ISP, the customer is pulling in data over the ISP. You and others are thinking of it as internet providers pushing data over the ISP.
Customers pay to pull data over the ISPs network. The amount that affects the ISP is related to how much the customer pulls. Therefore, it's fair that ISPs can have plans with various data caps if they want.
What is not fine is them somehow differentiating between the data. Bits are bits.
I'm sure the whole argument against net neutrality formed because companies got stupid, and offered larger monthly data caps (or uncapped usage) that they couldn't afford, but assumed the customer would never attempt to use up.
Then, along comes youtube and netflix, and people are using more data (out of their already paid for allowance) and the ISPs want to get netflix and youtube to pay for their screwup.
Obligatory analogy:
If my bus company offers free transport on a little-used bus route, and then one day some big shopping centre opens up along that route, making the route more popular, then it's up to the bus company to renegotiate how much it charges passengers whenever it's contractually able to. You and others seem to think the shopping centre should pay the bus company for the fact they are getting more passengers...
Especially when the Demorats would rather shutdown the whole of Government
What planet are you on?
The democrats fucked up, yes, but they fucked up BECAUSE they gave in to trumps demands - THEY GAVE IN TO AVOID A SHUTDOWN, they should have stood firm oh their demands, the spineless wimps.
But even though they gave in, the republicans still couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery even with the democrats bringing the beer.
The republicans control the senate, congress, and have the current President. 3 for 3. Full House. Strike! Yet when the government shuts down, it's the democrats fault? You sure you don't want to blame the Greens, or maybe BRexit?
I would say that "we" own .UK and the government manages it on our behalf.. Don't let the government assume personal ownership of a public resource!
But yeah, why can't we say "bye bye nominet" and give the tender to someone else. It shouldn't be Nominets property - let them play with the domain they bought.
Mage: I'll forever associate .gb with x.400/x500 .. arrrgh!
A colleague and I eventually got FreeBSD in official use in parts of the company we worked for (large UK/worldwide IT company - I even got it into HMRC via a contract the company had at the time.
We initially met A LOT of resistance from management, mainly because it was free, and worse still "unprofessionally has 'free' in its name"
In fact, we probably wouldn't have got anywhere if it wasn't for the fact my colleague ignored them, replacing a decrepit old unix server with FreeBSD and only telling them after a few weeks when they said they were impressed with the speed and stability of the new system - not realising it was an abandoned Pentium desktop, whilst the new £10,000 server which was meant to run NT was never made stable by the windows team, and was just sitting in a corner running a screen saver.
This was back in the 90's though, and although it's better today, there is still a mindset of "more expensive is better" amongst non-technical management.
Indeed, the same philosophy is often used in marketing generally
"Why is it 'neoliberal' and not just 'liberal'? Do you think the Conservative party is 'liberal'?Would this issue have been solved by 'neoconservative? Alt-Right? Who?"
Oops. Google it. Neoliberalism is NOT liberalism.
Basically, neoliberalism is Thatcherite conservatism.
Neoconservatism only really exists in America, and basically applies to the current bat-shit crazy republicans
Damn, there are some arseholes here.
I was raising a question about *who* should responsible for accidents .
My example was not meant as a detailed physics experiment or some sort of commentary on anyones driving ability.
Maybe I should have said "A car on the wrong side of the road, in your lane approaches you at 120mph." or something similarly preposterous, though of course, then some of you smart-arses would have still avoided the question and described how such a situation was implausible in the first place.
It's no wonder people who work in our industry are stereotyped as being socially-inept nerds.
Now go ahead: downvote and criticise my spelling/grammar.
HAND.
I have no idea until I'm in the situation.
However, as the decision won't be based on precise mathematical algorithms, I won't be blamed for whatever the outcome is, as long as I haven't been negligent.
This is why people who have been in accidents which they didn't cause have never been blamed for the eventual outcome.
I'm puzzled to why it seems you don't see the difference.
... Your driverless car is driving down the motorway, currently in the middle lane, driving in it's stopping distance behind a lorry.
Suddenly, the lorries doors burst open, and loads of falling logs come rolling out (ala "Final Destination 2")
Your car realises it won't stop in time. It can take the impact, possibly risking your life. It could swerve to the right, hitting the motorcyclist alongside you - most likely saving you, and killing the motorcyclist, or it can swerve to the left, hitting the family car with 3 kids in the back. This may kill you all, yet you may all survive.
What should the car do? And more relevant, what will the car programmers want it to do? No doubt the people who designed it want to minimise legal costs and bad PR.
"I think it's fair to look at the alternatives: while May may be somewhat of a gaffe prone incompetent politician with control freakery issues, she's not elected in a vacuum.When your principal opponent goes on the record supporting Chavez, not 10 years ago, but considerably more recently after the actual misery caused by his policies have become amply apparent, then yes, in my book that does count in your favor."
I agree entirely. Unfortunately I wasn't clear in my original message. What I meant was that if I critiscise May, then someone who responds by critiscising Corbyn, as if to win an argument, then I don't think they are very bright.
The names in the example could be swapped around - I wasn't referring to the fact they have a critical view, but the fact they assumed that because I criticised something by a politician on one side, I must therefore be a total diehard supporter of the other side.
"Naturally a Democrat politician is exempt from such trickery, no matter how culpable."
Repeat after me: Just because someone critiscises the Republicans, it doesn't mean they don't critisice democrats
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
You and Bob are typical of the current right wing "snowflakes" (to use your stupid term where it most applies)
You seem to worship your side. They can do no wrong. You see any criticism of policy as a biased partisan attack.
And even if someone is directly critical of Trump or the party, you always assume it's a one sided attack from the left, and therefore your best response is a criticism of the democrats.
This behaviour - like the most obsessed sports fan is with his sports team - is quite fascinating, and almost unique to the right wing. Is it because of low intelligence or the constant bullshit from Fox?
As hard as it obviously seems, you must realise most outside your team don't think like that.
They will criticise bullshit wherever they see it, and most don't align strictly to a "team".
If I critiscise Theresa May, I expect either agreement or disagreement. If anyone replied "Yeah, but Corbin did xxx" my thoughts would be "when did I ever mention Corbyn? This person is simple"
I'm not a labour supporter either, although they are better than this current government, so if someone countered an opinion on May with an attack on Corbyn, they are probably not all that bright.
Dammnit Bob. By the time I managed to filter out the ranting, bad grammar, and RANDOM use OF capital LETTERS, you almost managed to make a good point.
But then you wrote "SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP" and your Fox-and-Friends alarm went off.
Please explain what it worse about the (rare) Socialist dictatorships, compared to the much more common religious or capitalist-anarchic dictatorships?
Quoting Alex Wong:
"There's nothing inherent about communism or socialism that leads to being a dictatorship. There are democracies that are communist like Nepal, there are oligarchies like China and you have social democracies like Sweden, or flawed democracies like Venezuela. In comparison, look at capitalist countries. You have a brutal monarchy in Saudi Arabia that leads the world in human rights abuses, failed states like Afghanistan or Somalia, flawed democracies like Italy or one party states like Singapore, South Korea and Japan."
Really?! Gimbal, gimlet, gibbon, give, gild, gift (one letter more than gif) and of course git. It doesn't seem like there is much of a general rule there.
As I said, there are exceptions.
When I wrote "the general rule" I didn't mean "my general rule" or "what bob down the pub says." - I even linked to an article by an expert who mentioned it.
Look it up in any English book, it is the defined general rule for words beginning "gi" . I suggest doing research before posting - it would save you from looking silly!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=soft+or+hard+g+general+rule
If gif is "jif" then what am I supposed to put on my pancakes,Gamie Gones?
The rule is abour an 'i' following a 'g' is generally soft. It has nothing to do with how a 'j' is pronounced.
My beef has nothing to do with a soft or hard 'g' -- I'm equally good with either. My problem is that he pronounces it with a long 'i'. He's the only one I've ever heard do that, and it's like nails on a chalkboard to me.
Oh.. .I see.. .Really? I haven't heard that, but in that case, I'm in full agreement with you! *shudder*
, combined with his painful insistence on pronouncing "gif" as "jife", was a bridge too far.
So, how do you pronounce "Giraffe", "Gibberish", "Gin", "Giant", "Ginger"... ?
A 'g' before an 'i' is a soft-g is the general rule in English (though of course there are exceptions)
The argument that it's "GGraphic, not jraffic" doesn't make sense either - many other acronyms don't fall into that scheme.
Even Steve Wilnite, the person who created and named GIF, correctly pronounces it with a soft 'g', http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBtKxsuGvko&t=0m45s, so what's your beef with Tom again? :-)
I was reading this today:
Reuters UK: World is losing the battle against climate change.
I couldn't help laughing at all these idiots, these so called scientists with their Phds, all getting it so badly wrong.
The savvy amongst us all know it's all a big hoax... Bob from the internet told us.
You don't absorb information very well, do you? The whole point of this exercise is that the new bill is NOT like the old one.Who's the troll again?
You are.
Lying in the hope that people believe you without checking is a popular thing amongst you guys, isn;t it?
Trump and Fox have it down to a fine art.
But it won't wash here. We're not right wing sheep with no minds of our own.
You only have to google to find many sites saying the same thing, or heck, why not go straight to the horses mouth? https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/
Tell me, in a firefight which would you prefer to have, a drone or a gun? A gun of course, because guns project physical force and might keep you alive. IOW, guns are not like any other objects in our lives, so comparing them to those other objects (as you have) is being less than honest.
Strawman. The post you are replying to mentioned a database, not a ban.
They wanted to just do it anyway, because the 2012 FAA law didn't actually give them the right to do what they did in 2015, viz, the drone registry. But it was the Age of Obama, when anything seemed possible...A somewhat anal hobbyist lawyer (who happened to be completely correct) rightly got it struck down. And now Congress in their lazy way have finally brought out a version that DOES address the registration issue directly. And not a moment too soon!
Yes, they now brought out a version that Big John finds acceptable.... It's literally exactly the same bill, except that it's signed by Trump not Obama.
Seriously, John, you've had your fun. Now will you and Bob please stop trolling - it's not really nice to take the piss out of the right wing so accurately.
At the last place I worked, an automated password cracker was used that did email users if their password had been cracked.
These were internal users, on the corporate network.
This lead to one support ticket that simply read: "How do you know my password is 6inches? Have you or your staff ever slept with me?"
True story!
haha bob, i didn't think your parodies could get any more extreme!
stalling tactics? during obamas time,republicans had the fillibuster down to a fine art.
Tell me, if socialism is evil, how can you justify using opensource software? The model behind BSD, linux etc. is so far beyond socialism, if's virtually commie!
and as you think being social is evil, I unsociably suggest you go back to fox where you can hero worship those unamerican bastards who are trying to discredit mueller... you know, the republican appointed by bush.