Posts by Ilmarinen 254 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Mar 2014
The reality is that millions of smart meters contain a SIM card that connects to 2G and 3G wireless networks, and second-generation devices will be able to upgrade and connect to 4G with provision of a new SIM from 2025.
And there's me was thinking that the "4G" bit needed a 4G radio, not just a "new SIM". I guess that I can now upgrade my old phone to 4G - or even 5G - all I needs is a new SIM from Tescos ;-)
Yes, was at a lecture by an ex captain some years ago. He was not kind to AF or Airbus.
Nevertheles, we can get a P-38 out of a glacier and have her flying again after 50+ years; what could be done with Concorde?
Bit too heavy for the BMAA. Maybe get it on an LAA permit? Or chop off bits till it's under 70kg like the jet doodle bug?
Or just shoot some regulators (purely to encourage the others of course) ...
Just days after taking my hard-earned for a 3-year renewal, they announced they were "migrating" (sic) their email system. Buried in the announcement email was the bit about no longer supporting catch all emails. Which I used.
Tried to query this with their passive-aggressive support creatures from Hell who first said no problem, then agreed "problem" - but no refund. All the while their documentation still says "Catch-all email forwarding is a great feature which comes with any 123 Reg domain name."
So, after many years with 123-Reg, I moved the last domain I had with them to join its friends at TSOHost - cheaper, good support and with catch-all forwarding. Should have done so a long time ago. And I'm doing a credit card chargeback for the money they took, knowing they were about to break the product but not telling the customer.
I was so miffed that I went to Trustpilot to give them a 1-star rating and I see that quite a few other long-time (now ex-) customers are doing the same. Strangely, there has been a rash of 5-star "invited" ratings, all saying stuff like "resolved my issue. There is as no problem at 123-Reg". So I guess that's OK then.
123-Reg now appear to have done a reverse ferret on the catch all emails, but only if you pay them twenty-something quid a year for a mailbox. Good luck to them with that...
The original (including the graphics missing from AC's link) is here:
https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
You can also find various interviews with the bloke on the interwebs and make up your own mind whether he has 'personality issues' or not.
He seemed OK to me, other than a naive belief that facts trump politically correct dogma - I think that's been beaten out of him now :-)
El Reg: "James Damore, the software engineer fired from Google after ironically firing off a neurotic memo about "neurotic" women, "
I've read Damore's memo: "Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber - How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion".* It was well argued, moderate and does not contain any of the sentiments indicated in the El Reg article.
This is "fake news" of the worst kind, and exemplifies why I rarely read El Reg these days.
I only came here today to verify what the Beeb was saying about Intel's little problem. Don't think I'll be back anytime soon.
* https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f
(copied by email to Editorial director John Lettice)
I just emailed this to John Lettice, Editorial director:
Hi John,
I just clicked the "report abuse" tab on one of Kieren Mccarthy's posts
(https://forums.theregister.co.uk/post/report/3258478). I was expecting
to get a dialogue about why I was reporting it, but didn't, hence this
follow up to you.
It's not that the individual post is abuse, it's that the original
article itself, and the many follow up posts by Mccarthy, taken
together, show a really quite bigoted attitude, a disregard for facts
and a contempt for anyone who attempts to express an alternative view -
even when Mccarthy is quite plainly wrong.
Now it may be that you are happy for El Reg to become click bait,
driven by a fact free troll. He's certainly got a lot of comments.
It's your publication, up to you. I'm just making you aware of the
opinion of a once daily reader who dosen't visit so much these days -
and articles and authors like this are most of the reason.
Kind regards,
Gareth
(usename Ilmarinen)
PS: I originally looked at the article because I was looking for a
factual, truthful and informed piece on the subject. I did not find
that.
"my comparison to creationists is completely valid because you asserted that if you believe something to be true that makes it true"
ROFL - no I didn't, read the words. I said that I didn't agree with you and I couldn't see how you you thought the memo was "garbage". I even said that it was "my opinion".
I also said that your article was pants (several people have said this but I don't think you've responded).
Obviously I believe what I'm saying is true, and I think you must be barking if you really believe what you are saying, but I was completely assertion-less about believing anything to be true making it so.
It would be silly to assert any such thing: obviously, I might be wrong. I have been in the past (like when I believed all that Climate Doom nonsense). I suspect that you however might be someone who is never wrong. You do seem to be having a bit of a leftie style sense of humour failure today.
Anyway, great click bait if that was what you intended, and very amusing even if you really think all that stuff. I'm off now to post a link on Worstall's blog to share the mirth :-)
Oh dear!
You can't know what I know - not without telepathy that is.
Now, you might think, as you say, that it's "garbage" and I accept that you might hold this view. I don't agree with that view, I wrote what I meant and what I said is my view. I don't understand how you could hold the view that it's "garbage" other than thinking that you can't have read it properly or you could possibly be a bit "challenged" in some way, but that's just my opinion.
I also found the article very poor. I have just gone back to try to read it again, but lost the will to live somewhere in page two. IMO it was poorly written and mostly nonsense, but life's too short even to begin deconstructing it. I'd just add my vote to the earlier commentard who described it as a "turd".
Sorry, there it is.
(PS: does this get me a FOTW entry?)
@joeldillon " This guy stood right up in front of the entire company and said a chunk of said employees and co-workers were biologically unsuited for their job. "
He didn't.
As they say, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your "own facts".
Read what he wrote*. To help you with this, here is the link:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
*presumably while sitting in his cubicle or whatever, and certainly not standing up in front of the entire company
I clicked the downvote to your comment, but then immediately realised that, actually, I agree with you in part.
I think it's a very poor article, but agree that there are some good insights. It's just that the insights are all into Kieren's world view and journalistic abilities ;-)
Well I read Mr Damore's document in its entirety. I didn't agree with all of it, but it seemed to me well written, well thought out, respectful and made good points.
Unlike the load of bollocks that Kieren McCarthy has written above, where I gave up after reading page one and skimming page 2. I think the picture at the top sums it up for me.
I appreciate that folks may disagree with my take, but I rarely now read El Reg and this article is a good example of why.
I don't think the £750 was a good plan - better to select someone on the basis of whoever fellow Christians believe should be in Jesus' place.
And sod the safety elves.
And to add a simple engineer's say - I just realized, one Easter, a few years ago: "Fuck me - this bloke died for me" - go figure...
"Why didn't that clever Mr Farage warn us about this last June?"
My guess is because he's not that clever, or maybe just in a bubble of yesmen, as May appears to be. Impervious to fact that doesn't fit their narrative.
Richard North (eureferendum.com) has been warning since before this lot even knew what Art 50 woz.
May et al were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off - instead we look set for customs gridlock as we suddenly become a "Third Country" - by our own volition. They have ruled out the only safe transition path, via continued EEA single market participation in EFTA so we will be more than a bit stuffed.
It's been said that civilization is only 3 meal-less days away from riot. I'd prefer not to test this, but as it looks like we will be I'll be stockpiling dried goods and hoping not to get shot for hoarding...
Thanks for posting the correct link (I should have known that the Beeb one was just wrong).
Seems to me (though I recognize that you probably disagree) that it's fair enough. IIRC refugees only get the right to the nearest safe country, so Uncle Sam is going beyond that in accepting the numbers he has.
And it's their country. And the order makes it plain that they want to exclude folks that don't agree with American Values: "the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation."
Their gaff, their rules (I write as someone once deported - long story). And they are prepared to evaluate individual cases - they want to be satisfied that each individual is not a threat.
Finally, it would be good (probably much better all round) to encourage countries nearer to Syria, etc and with more similar cultures to take refugees, which I don't think is happening at present (correct if wrong).
Has anyone else actually read the executive order that is supposed to have "banned muslims" or whatever the Bad Thing (tm) was ?
Can anyone explain to me how the ban works?
I read it and it seemed to be mostly about the Mexico border and just to insist on the application of existing legislation - presumably enacted by previous administrations.
Just asking (but taking cover ahead of expected "point & shriek" attacks ;-)
Executive order is here
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/executive-order-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements
(link from BBC site http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660)
...kept silent (although they allowed themselves an inward snigger at all the collective "outrage" and pantie-wetting of the petitionards).
Also amusing was that the Dear Old Beeb seemed to be loosing the Fake News "War on Trump" (see most popular of 7,000+ comments on www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38795998/comments)
Nope, it was possible because that's what Art 112/113 of the EEA agreement says you can do (go read). There is no qualification for size of state, nor does the EU get a veto.
However, the point is now moot as May has ruled out the single market (even though on the basis of the plainly wrong belief that it mean ECJ still having direct legal authority), preferring instead the Exciting and Challenging Opportunity (tm) of negotiating and getting ratified a trade deal in a timescale never before seen in the field of human endeavor. Such fun awaits...
"he keeps on seeing the EU as a mere trade agreement"
This is incorrect - quite the opposite of the truth. I'd recommend the book "The Great Deception" that he wrote a while ago with Christopher Booker. The main thesis is that the thing always was designed to become, stealthily and bit-by-bit a Supra-National European State.
Your comment illustrates how difficult it is for engineers (such as I am) to navigate in a political world. I ask myself - Is he just spouting stuff ? Does he actually believe what he writes ? Has he any actual knowledge of what he write ? Is he just politiciking in some way (i.e. making stuff up with intent) ?
I fear that you are right. Yes, North does facts and detail whereas the political world does lies, ignorance and vacuous stupidity. And it does look as though we will end up with something bloody and irreversible (but probably not short, the rubble will bounce for quite a while).
North is, and has been, arguing for a carefully managed process, using EFTA as a vehicle for the journey. I don't agree that this would mean that you never leave. EFTA is not the EU, and has great potential to be the route to a true Common Market, much as envisaged by Churchill and others back in the day.
Instead, what it looks like we are going to get is an "Event", rather than a "Process", more akin to a high speed plane crash than to a skillfully piloted voyage.
(This is OK I suppose if you like the sound of screaming passengers and have a good stock of tinned goods stashed away. Personally, I'd prefer North's itinerary)
Read again and more carefully:
Article 112 is part of the EEA agreement, it does not require EU permission for EFTA states. The EU only gets a say in the case of EU member states. EFTA states can (and have) applied safeguard measures (aka "emergency brakes") unilaterally.
Yes, UK is not Liechtenstein, but apples and oranges are both fruit, and Article 112 *is* Article 112 (and does what it says in the text). Also see Article 113.
The EEA agreement is here:
http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main%2520Text%2520of%2520the%2520Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf
North's take on it is here: http://eureferendum.com/documents/BrexitMonograph010.pdf
@ AC Defaulting to WTO?:
The UK is a WTO member in its own right. It takes only a few seconds to verify this.
(https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/united_kingdom_e.htm)
Unfortunately your comment is typical of the quality of the debate, not only amount Anonymous Commentards, but amongst our leaders, press and TV too, which probably explained Richard North's conclusion "We are so totally fucked."
@ AC crappy portmanteau:
You really need to go and read it, and all of Dr North's stuff. Because you will get no useful information from the Beeb, Sky, the press or politicians.
But then we don't information or bothersome facts if we don't mind a plane crash style Brexit...
(Kudos to Andrew for flagging up North's work)
This was my take on watching the page I cited above. Factual information on the subject, from experts in the subject, was deemed ineligible because it was "original research". References that a pilot had crashed a plane were excluded on the grounds that this was "not notable".
Wikifiddlers with an agenda are far more tenacious than ordinary folks, however expert or well informed, so their version of reality will tend to win out over time.
Although it seems fairly OK for basic factual stuff, it most definitely goes off the rails where the subject is is in any way contentious and then it degenerates into warring factions of wicki-fidelers and competing reality-distortion fields.
I was recently watching the edit war on the Tracey Curtis Taylor page - hilarious - go read the "talk" tab to see how this works. Or see anything to do with Climate Change (tm).
And it only seems to be "The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone can edit" if the "Anyone" has the correct opinions - witness the recent airbrushing from reality of the "The People's Cube" page.
Punchline: You can't trust it further than you can spit ! (but us technical folks all knew that anyway)
“Because leap seconds are only introduced sporadically, they have to be manually programmed into computers..."
It means that we still have one weapon against the Rise Of The Machines. Let's keep it that way folks!
(and anyway, with the replacement of analogue TV with digital, the New Year "Bongs" are delayed by a second or so because "codecs")
Jury nullification, as in the Clive Pontin trial, only works when the jury is aware of the evidence.
If the Crown is "making stuff up" and there is no possibility of evidence to the contrary the defendant is doomed.
And, if there is no chance of being caught out in making stuff up, why should they not do so, especially if the aim is to get a "bad-un" locked up?
Flew in G-BOAC one time. Beautiful machine.
Actually running the aircraft was profitable, after the huge dev cost had been written off.
It pains me that after so many years there is no replacement.
Nor do I think there will be because: Greens.
Remember when Bristol stopped hearing that double-boom because some activists (bless 'em) got the daily incoming flight to go subsonic earlier to stop "Noise Pollution". And all the squawking about noise in the Good 'Ole US of A when it all started (mainly cos they didn't have a Concorde).
Good luck to them, though, I hope they succeed. I'll take a ride :-)
PS: IIRC the afterburners were only used for going transonic - a little push in the back, like the kick-down on a fast car.
And so too with the Grauniad's broadcast wing, our own dear BBC, with articles such as: "A survivor's guide to unexpected voting results" complete with pictures of weepy loosers. They really cannot understand, poor mites...
(I expect the right minded will loose in the long run, but let's at least enjoy our two wins this year before they change the rules to outlaw "wrong" voting)
@Commswonk
The very words that I was about to write.
And the problem is that he won't be tried before extradition - or even have evidence presented to demonstrate that there is a case to answer. Uncle Sam just gets to say "Trust Me" and we'll ship him out.
Whereas, if it were a US citizen that Blighty wanted to extradite we'd need to show Probable Cause.
Why is it that our government is happy to deport our own people to a foreign country without examining the evidence?
"no recognised benefit of killing badgers"
Except of course to hedgehogs (now quite rare here since the Badger Boom).
And it would stop the stripey vermin digging up gardens/playing fields/churchyards.
No predators you see (other than cars)
And no, not a good idea to re-introduce wolves to swallow the badgers, as the old lady found out with the fly ;-)
I think you missed the point: why is so much money being taken by government, local, national and suprEUnational?
Quite a lot of tax seems to be spent on things that I don't think the victims of taxes would think worthwhile paying voluntarily: aircraft-less carriers, foreign wars, "Diversity Outreach Coordinators", High Speed Trains, MPs' expenses, etc.
And let's get clear about "tax avoidance", whether "schemes" or individual choices (working fewer hours, buying cheaper petrol, not smoking tobacco): tax avoidance is entirely legal. And, if you are a company director, paying no more tax than the law demands is your duty to your shareholders (which includes working folks pension funds).
Some level of taxes and public expenditure are necessary for civilisation, but more than that is not better. I think we need fewer government leaches and fewer SJWs complaining that not enough taxes are being paid (often while themselves sucking on the public teat).
Yes... and I thought "Having the Sun wedged in between made communication with Earth nearly impossible as the solar wavelengths make the environment too noisy to pick up signals from Earth" showed a real deep understanding of all the science stuff too. Maybe just a Rocket Wo/man?
(but we do like SPAAACE, so carry on)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
