Then the only solution:
1. blazing row
2. make-up sex
4. You don't care any more (aka PROFIT!!!)
1771 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
Then the only solution:
1. blazing row
2. make-up sex
4. You don't care any more (aka PROFIT!!!)
That's never stopped apple patenting everything under the sun up to now.
Brudine, whilst the correlation is not absolute, the majority of countries with a high average of children born per woman are third world, generally african and central asian.
Next time, look before mouthing off.
Perhaps you could forgo forcing the entire wrld to pay for the inentive to vissit your neighbours now and then and just go outside, you lazy bum!
We aren't. Stop asking.
What are you talking about? It works great in portrait!
Not so simple. It's stupendously rare for objects in space to meet at anything other than relatively enormous speeds, which is why the problem exists - at such speeds the objects in question would shatter regardless of their composition.
And, whatever idea is picked, it has to explain why there are so many of them here in our solar system. If it were just one or two it could be put down to fortuitous meetings and unusual circumstances, but the number of objects that display these characteristics has moved well beyond the realms of random chance into "good god that's scary". That's why there's a somewhat unacknowledged problem with the current models. They can't account for the number of these objects with craters so large that they should have been destroyed by the impact.
For asteroids there are proposals that many are actually loose conglomerations of material held together by microgravity, which works to a certain extend but can't explain Phobos and other solid objects with similar features.
So research is ongoing. :)
A fully-occupied stadium surrounding a football would have a particular, known mass that could be short-handed to "football field" in a pinch.
Putting on a serious face for a moment, I have to assume that the "puzzling structures" refers to the apparent, enormous crater that seems to be just about visible on the right, almost facing us as it rotates in to view. A lot of very small objects in the solar system appear to have these very large craters and they're quite a problem for current models, as the force required to make such a large crater would generally be enough to pulverise the object being impacted.
The most well known is Phobos, which has a crater on one end that almost can't be explained. Theories have been mooted as to how such a crater could be formed but none are really quite adequate. Research, as they say, is ongoing.
It's the subsequent bug-fixing that took millions of years. Certainly felt like it.
So the universe is written in perl? That... sort of makes a lot of sense.
+++ RECURSION DETECTED +++ REDO FROM START +++
Or it boosts it, by providing evidence that the entity in question crafted a cosmos with a high degree of variability within certain bounds that would provide both safe areas for life to thrive and other, interesting areas from which they could gain insight and knowledge and ultimately understanding of their role.
Or you could put the "lets poke fun at people who believe different things to me" snottiness aside and just enjoy an interesting and potentially very important scientific discovery.
Assuming it isn't instrumental problems, which it may be...
Friday? I'd suggest they were at the pub.
It's an odd definition of "middle class" that includes a place in the country and an acre of roof-space. Maybe it's just because I'm a dirty sooty northerner but, I've always assumed myself to be (just about) middle class and yet I live in a flat. My parents definitely are, and it's true that their house is quite large, but it also has eight people split across two families living in it.
The definition of middle class I see bandied about in the media seems very southern-centric. Up here, if you're so rich you can afford a country pile, you're a toff and possibly a banker, whereas it seems the home counties would consider you working class if your yacht is shorter than 110 feet and you only have one land rover.
End of CDs? Hardly the end of the world, is it? Then again, perhaps it's what the Mayans were predicting...
It doesn't? My entire world view has fallen apart!
<-- Hung beef?
This spot is still a tiddler compared to some of the spots the sun had in the late 80s and early 90s. They were sort that were visible to the naked eye when the sun was setting and looked like rags of cloud or malformed birds floating in front of the sun.
And I had to walk uphill to see em. In the snow! At night!
There are these things called contracts, perhaps you've heard of them? Apple and XYZ manufacturing develop a contract for the production of iGadgets, with punitive measures if either party breaks the contract. Manufacturing clones and selling them to all and sundry would break the contract so hard it makes an audible snapping noise and XYZ would face all sorts of legal wrangles from Apple.
Patents aren't particularly relevant to the manufacture of goods in east asia by American companies as they're often manufacturing goods that aren't protected by the local patenting regime; the distribution of those goods is protected by contract. Where the issue rises up is when a company in, say, China begs, buys or borrows a patented widget from Widgets R Us and begins manufacturing their own without permission, in order to undercut the patent-protected market, either foreign or domestic.
All that said, I agree that patents, as they were originally conceived, are a good thing. They were designed to encourage the sharing of new ideas whilst still providing the originator with income. Now, they're used to kill off competition by application to such generic ideas as buttons, business methods and wiggling fingers against glass. The problem started the moment the patent office dropped the requirement for a working model.
I would have bought one of these. I can't quite think of what I'd use it for, but I would have definitely bought one because it is *exactly* the sort of device I have been craving ever since I realised what a computer was. But no, Gates had to take it away before I could spend my money on it...
I had one SSD drop dead on me in a week - catastrophic total failure. One minute it was working, next it wasn't and I couldn't get a single bit off it. The replacement - exactly the same make and model - performed flawlessly. Is this typical? Maybe. I can't completely rule out murphy's static finger but it seems that the consumer drives are still a bit of a crapshoot.
Which reminds me, I really should run a backup.
The transformer is very netbookish but, as a hybrid device, it's a little hard to really categorise it as "just" a netbook. From the perspective of netbooks it looks like an ultrabook, but from the perspective of ultrabooks it looks like a netbook. And it's a tablet.
Neither fish nor fowl.
Must be why I love mine. :)
Neutrinos only interact very weakly with matter and wouldn't follow an optical fibre.
@AC They don't, they just sit in the middle of it and complain.
Actually they do have a monopoly. You can't run non-apple-approved software on an iOS device. They often simply ban software from iTunes if it competes with their own offerings. How is that not abusing a monopoly?
... I want sushi. At least that part of this fantasy is achievable.
Why is it that these things always go kaput just as I buy into them? I seem to have a habit of getting started with something just as it's about to drop dead. It's really quite annoying.
Ooh, I know, I'll buy an iPhone. Apple will be out of the phone business a week later. Rejoice world, I have come to save you from their tyranny!
Your argument seems to be "Apple made a thing, then something similar came along to exploit a similar market, therefore they are ripping off apple". By that logic apple are ripping off... HTC, who released the Wallaby (aka O2 XDA, Qtec 1010 and others) a full four years before the iphone, with a full-featured touch-screen interface. Icons on a grid...
There was a trend towards touch-screens before Apple glot the iphone out. Android was following that trend. Apple was following that trend.
Sorry, you lose. Apple may have marketing success but they did not invent this interface, and they cannot claim they are being ripped off by something that is merely *similar*, yet different enough to be noticeably so, and which is simply following the prevailing paradigm.
Android was in development before the iphone came out and has a completely different user interface. How can that be considered "ripping off"?
All right, stop that, this is far too silly!
Defamation is in the eye of the beholder. Or would you rather give people the power to have every post critical of, say, Orlowski removed from this site because it was "defamation"? Because that's what they're proposing, in essence: the ability to have posts removed simply because someone has complained, without recourse to courts or any form of defence.
The ability to speak freely and anonymously is one of the cornerstones of western democracy. It allows us to hold our "masters" to account by providing a means to disseminate information that they don't want us to see. Given that much of that information could and has ben declared defamatory in one way or another, it's arguable that people *must* be allowed to post defamation if democratic government is to function. The alternative would cripple our ability to hold the state to account; we already face the reality of people declaring the truth to be libel in this country. This proposal would allow them to not even bother having to go to court to do it.
Would it be tasteless to add something about a stylised bitten apple to that list?
I suppose it would. Oh well...
Everyone within chair range at least professes to believe it.
Well now your'e just being obtuse.
He was right, based on the information he had at the time. Subsequent information doesn't change that.
Steve Jobs took a risk and it paid off but it was a *big* risk. The sort of risk that either makes you a billionaire or leaves you wandering the streets in the tattered remains of your last suit. He was right too. They were both right, it just depends on how you look at it.
I'm holding an LG GD510, also known as the "pop". First released at the end of 2009 or thereabouts. Predates the iphone 4 by about a year. Now from a distance, if you aren't paying too much attention, it does actually look a *lot* like an iphone. It's got about the same dimensions,in bright light it's about the same colour (admittedly very bright light), it's got roughly the same radius on the corners..
What I'm trying to say is, you seem to believe that apple invented this look, but I'm holding a device that disproves that.
Now stop slavishly copying and trying to pass off on my name or I'll sue you.
Made it work... by redesigning the antenna to avoid the problems highlighted with the previous one. Problems they denied were ever there.
A failed design gets replaced and that somehow justifies denying it was a failed design.
You must be new. The only editorial line The Register seems to have is "barbecue the sacred cow!"
And long may it stay that way.
Hm. Not to be.
In the frozen north, people didn't celebrate the winter solstice. They feared it. They feasted because they might never see the sun again, and they did everything within their power to convince the gods to bring it back.
Ok, so maybe it was a n excuse for a piss-up, but it wasn't a celebration...
It was, however, the main festival of the north-europea pre-christian calendar. All that dancing around stone henge in the summer is a modern invention, a creation of ppeole too pansy-arsed to do it properly. The *original* pagans did it in the winter. Naked. And then they killed things. bring back that good old-time religion I say!
Not only that, there are regular finds of deep graves and the ruins of farms under ice on what is now permafrost. Permafrost is not easy to dig and nobody in their right minds would try to farm grain on it, let alone dig a six foot grave.
When IIS came around the web was already well established enough that it wasn't going anywhere, so the market was able to bear a license fee, which would only ever take a minority position against free alternatives. With Gopher, unless I'm misremembering, there wasn't the same entrenchment, WWW was already there to compete and there wasn't any alternative to the licensed server. So it died.
Where am I?
On the internet
What do you want?
Who's side are you on?
That would be telling. We want information, Information. Information.
You won't get it!
By hook or by crook, we will.
Who are you?
The new Social Media.
And it sort of breaks dwon there. Oh well.
An ode may rhyme, there's no rule that says it *must*.
It's true. The issue is energy density, something that fuel cell, hydrogen and battery advocates always either ignore or prefer not to talk about.
Currently the most efficient form of energy storage for road vehicles is petrol simply because it packs the most energy into the smallest space without the need for expensive, dangerous active storage facilities. Hydrogen can leak from even the most perfect of seals because it's so small and requires extreme compression to achieve even remotely the same energy density as petrol, which then requires expensive and dangerous cryogenic storage. Hydrogen fuel cells are marginally better but still suffer the same basic storage and transport problems as hydrogen. Batteries? They're largely dead weight. Look at the average battery powered car and you'll see that they're essentially useless. People complain about a phone that lasts less than a week, how will they act if they have to "fill up" their car every day? I'd only have to fill my car every day if I was doing a daily commute all the way from lands end to john o'groats.
The only solution I can see is artificial petroleum produced in some sort of high intensity centralised facility (ie not one that requires the use of vast tracts of arable land and food crops). Everything else seems to be a waste of time and effort with very little energy returned on energy invested, especially given the fundamental rebuilding of a large chunk of our infrastructure and economy that always seems to go along with them.
It's the long and curly outer coat of the Lesser American Lingual Sully. The Lingual Sully (Soliens Lingua Destructor) also known as the Typographical Sully, the Dictionary Eater and the Vowel Vermine, is a tiny mammal approximately seven eighths of an inch from nose to tail, covered in tightly wound fur often referred to as "sulfur", which is capable of expanding by some thirty thousand times, making the Sully appear to be a huge elephant in the room. Its primary habitat is libraries, where it has a peculiar habit of eating ink from the pages of books, leaving a trail of misspellings and typographical errors in its wake. By "sullying language" in this way it earned its primary name. It is also sometimes referred to as Websters Muse.
S. Apostrosplatidown (aka Grocer's S'ully)
S. Dinkum Justii (The Australian Sully)
S. Puerlargum Innitii (The Essex Sully)
Perhaps we should invent a giant hat for the earth. :)
You're kidding, right?
Our ozone layer isn't "totally hosed", it's still almost entirely there and it is constantly replenished by higher frequency electromagnetic radiation interacting with O2. But never mind that, you're apparently claiming that an "intact" ozone layer would prevent a gamma ray burst from doing anything to us?
We aren't talking a dribble of light here, we're talking the entire output of the sun hitting us in moments. The ozone layer wouldn't stop a tiny fraction of that. In fact it'd probably be blown away in the first second.
Just for once, look past the sort of petty vindictiveness that tries to blame humans for everything and realise that the universe is far bigger and more powerful than we could ever hope to comprehend.
Wrong. They have a reduced percentage. The ozone "hole" is not a hole as you seem to believe, it's a thinning, like the hair on my head, or the credibility of your posts each time you make a new one. Still there, not as much as before, and it's highly variable as well.