883 posts • joined 19 Nov 2007
"Sara Murray, who is a member of business secretary Vince Cable's "entrepreneurs' panel", said in a leaked email to staff that the ministry wanted "the development of a product which does not yet exist"."
What, a mobile phone on an anklet? It doesn't even have to look particularly stylish either, so just take a Nokia and strap it to their leg. I think with £1bn I can develop such a system, especially as electronic tags already exist.
Re: What has it got on its serverses?
"Can you do that again as Yodo?"
Computerisation of health records leads to big data.
Big data leads to cloud.
Cloud leads to suffering.
Not quite as snappy as the original.
"I'm guessing the glasses were grabbed as a very standard ploy to distract from the real theft of the purse/wallet/phone. It worked."
Sure, except now there's video of the one suspect, and probably his friend lurking about in the bar at the same time. Should make at least one arrest pretty easy, and then the fun US justice system of 100 million years unless you plead guilty and dob in everyone else comes into its own...
"This is where it gets interesting. In my opinion, data loss must move into criminal law and a way must be found to identify the top person in the chain who takes the decisions - a bit like tax evasion eventually becomes personal. That way, you can eventually sling someone into jail if they're not paying attention."
So, do we sling in jail the head of the organization, who knows nothing about programming? The person who left the XSS vulnerability in the website design? Perhaps the head of the company that did the outsourced web site design? Somebody over at Mozilla and Microsoft for leaving the vulnerability? Much as it might seem fun to throw Ballmer in jail for all security vulnerabilities in Windows, you might find it difficult to get people to take on public sector work, particularly at the coding level, if you offer a nice juicy time in the slammer if they make a mistake.
"They seem to moan, but they haven't yet said once why they feel that Google ("their rival") should be forced to give them unlimited free advertising?
Nobody else is allowed to jump up the search rankings for free so why should they? If they did allow them couldn't I claim it was anti-competitive that they are given a free advert at the top of the page and I have to pay for an adword campaign to get similar?"
But that's the point, isn't it? Google shopping is shite. So why is it at the top of rankings when other shopping sites are better? Could it be that Google is artificially inflating the ranking of its own services to the deteriment of other, better, services, and the consumer as well? Because that's pretty much the definition of abuse of monopoly powers, to use your monopoly power in one sector to attack rivals in another area.
"because the British company's accusation that Sammy was a serial patent violator hurt its image"
Shouldn't be difficult to find evidence of truth though. All we need to prove "serial patent violater" is two or more (for "serial") examples of Samsung losing patent claims (for "patent violater")
Patent violation number 1:
Patenet violation number 2:
OK, I managed to prove the truth of Dyson's statement within five minutes of Googling.
Of course, many other companies are "serial patent violators", but that doesn't mean that Dyson has lied.
Re: Not much different
I'll see what I can do:
> Another VERY big advertising company
> has forked Linux
has made Android
> and is paying huge salaries for keeping it entertaining enough
and is updating it
> just to offer them free to the individuals in order to collect their personal info.
so that mobile operators install it and Google slurps your data from it.
"...and people will start building drones with an IR cam to track the suspect from laser beam detection until reaching proximity..."
Just wondering, what happens when you shine a laser pointer at a drone? Anything much? Because if you will be flying them at people armed with laser pointers, you should probably make sure they can cope.
A couple of points here:
1) HTML, together with CSS, appears to be Turing complete, so it is programming. It might be a rubbish language, but it can still be programming.
2) I think the major benefit of programming for children is that it can teach people to take a problem and break it down into small pieces, and then how to logically produce solutions to each small piece. I personally can't code something like Java and C++ beyond the kind of things these kids are going to learn, so had to get my experience with these concepts through abstract mathematics, but it might be easier for children to experience it through something practical like writing a computer program to emulate a set of traffic lights, or something simple like this.
"I look forward to explaining my children why it's illegal to exchange messages consisting in large numbers."
It's already unlawful. See copyright law.
Re: Well, if he isn't happy with how much he's earning…
"2) Artists should be rewarded for their work. How do you suggest that we do that, other than by some sort of royalties payment?"
I don't really disagree with this, but actually, *why* should artists be rewarded for their work? There are lots of things that people do that benefit other people but they don't get paid for them, certainly not getting paid for decades after they did them. If they want to produce music then they can do, but I'm not entirely sure why they have an obvious right to protection for it. Since we have enough music in society to listen to a new track from the minute we're born, continuously, until we die, does society actually *need* any more music? Would there me greater benefit in deciding that all music should now be free to anyone who wants it than keeping the current system? Yes, much music wouldn't be made that currently is, and that might well be a good thing. People who want to do it as a hobby still would, if they find it enjoyable, it would just mean that people who can sing have to get a job that isn't 'singer', like people who are good at tiddlywinks.
So let me get this straight. She can somehow predict how many units Apple will sell of a product that, not only do we not know what it is, but we don't even know which sector it's in. Bullshit.
Isn't this the on-line version of scrawling graffiti onto roadsigns? We don't have a news story each time that happens.
Edit: before anyone says "well, why did you read this then?", I'm procrastinating.
Simultaneously stupid for two directions
1) It is meant to be an exploit that needs to work no matter what defences the criminal uses on the car.
2) It's going to have to be protected by a system that criminals cannot break to use to their own advantage.
If you think either 1) or 2) is possible, then I have a bridge to sell you.
"I suspect that it would only be a matter of weeks before the criminal fraternity found a way to counter this technology.
Presumably the same people could clone the vehicle stopping transmitters, and generate a carriageway or two of stopped or slowing vehicles to assist their getaway.
That would make a good plot for a film - something with red, white and blue Minis comes to mind."
So high tech. Or, or, fake number plates. Steal number plates off same model and colour car, hey presto, impossible to stop car. And I had, ooh, seconds to work out how to defeat this system.
"> Gates insisted that he could licence [sic]
Why the [sic]?"
In British English the verb is license, and the noun is licence.
Re: new products
"With the exception of Dick Tracy, who is still looking forward to strapping a shit phone to their wrist?"
Penny from Inspector Gadget.
According to the kind of people who write large posts on Klingon--Romulan relations on the Internet:
"According to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Journal, the Romulan cloaking device was acquired by the Klingons as an exchange for several D7-class battle cruisers for the Romulans during the Alliance. In fact according to apocryphal accounts, in Seven Deadly Sins, Romulans required the power system of the D7-class ships to provide the power required to use the new improved cloaking device. "
See: this site
Re: Appropriate punishment?
"I've often wondered if maybe Singapore doesn't have it right. I may be a heartless fiend, but to me it seems a better response to minor-but-not-trivial crimes than short jailtime or high fines."
I'll answer that for you: no. Torture isn't "right". I thought this was a position that we could all get behind...
Re: It's trolls.
"Yes, the male pill exists but it transfers risks from another patient and thus is deemed too controversial."
Well, it exists, but the current ones are either hormonal -- and not the 'nice' kind that the female one is, but the ones that result in a drop in sex drive (thus negating the need for a male pill in the first place) and a "drop in masculinity" (read, breasts) -- or aim to kill sperm (read, birth defects, yippee).
There is research on a male pill that doesn't have horrific side effects, and then we'll see whether your statement holds true, but I think it is unreasonable to ask men to take a dangerous medication so that women can stop taking a largely safe one.
Re: Would it be too much...
"Do you know WHY there's such a disparity? It's not because there were so many less great women. It's because the people who write the history books have consistently undervalued, misattributed or in the worst cases, constructively obscured the contributions of women. Take for example Rosalind Franklin whose work provided the evidence for the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick's contributions, while not insignificant, could not have been achieved without her, and yet they are credited with "discovering" it. There are plenty more of these out there and if you give a damn about self improvement you'll find out about them and stop peddling this crap."
That is quite frankly bullshit. The reason there was such a disparity is that women were (almost always) not given opportunities to do great things. Hence, there are very few important women in history, and most of those that existed did so because of birth (royalty). You cling to your view, even though it fails a critical examination, because if your view is true then it's the fault of modern historians, and not the fault of people long dead whom we cannot point finger at. The postmodern rewriting of actual history is a fun intellectual exercise, but doesn't mean anything in reality.
Your example of Franklin is one, who did important foundational work, and as someone else on here said the results leading up to the breakthrough are often forgotten (see Einstein's special relatively, or should that be Einstein--Lorentz special relativity?), but you'd need to find thousands of others to back up your thesis.
Re: the app name was what now?
"All Candy Casino Slots – Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land"
Every time I read that I think it's somehow related to the doge meme, e.g.,
All Candy Casino Slots. So jewels. Many big blast. Wow.
Get Godwin's law out of the way first
"Dubbed "the most hated man on the internet," by Rolling Stone magazine, Moore..."
I raise you a Hitler.
Re: Next time ...
"Maybe the cops will be waiting outside with a ticket for "driving with obstructed vision"."
They are glasses, with stuff on the outside. They aren't obstructive.
"The use of batteries is central to Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, which is touted as the most fuel-efficient airliner in its class."
Is that because it used zero fuel for the entire time it was grounded?
"They could always make ARM chips for people."
People already have two. How many more do they want?
"[Alternatively] the day after they are paid staff could use the funds in their bank accounts to buy bitcoins."
But, but, innovation!
Re: The bigger Question is :
"The state of Bavaria is the rights holder, as covered here:
Isn't it 70 years after the author's death? In which case, we only have to wait until the 30th of April next year before the royalty-free bonanza begins.
Easy to factorize. That's 6*9.
Re: So what they are saying is:
"All of the American people (as well everyone person in the world) along with Congress are all suspected terrorists?"
They've watched Homeland.
Re: Shakedown time
Why is it a shakedown though? I thought it's called Intellectual Property. Premium Interest owns some property -- the name Pinterest -- and an American company wants this property. So it has to buy it. Or choose a different name.
"i fear the EU would shy away from it due to the public who do like pinterest being outraged and crying censorship."
I don't think anyone would cry censorship over a website operating illegally being shut down for contempt of court. The most likely course of action though is that the company that wants to be known by 'Pinterest' will buy off Premium Interest.
We should give some advice to Pinterest. I seem to recall a quotation from a recently deceased US technology company CEO about how names of companies aren't that important and can quite easily be altered. Any Reg readers able to furnish us with this?
That is all.
I'm not involved in anything illegal, I just happen to have $30m of Bitcoins that I didn't immediately cash out and live the happy life of a multi-millionaire on.
Re: vertical search?
"t's far, far worse than you imagine. Google is analogous to JUSTIN BIEBER!!!!!! It's famous. It continually dellivers 'high quality content', and people also go to it because all of their friends go to it, and it's never given people a reason to stop."
No, that's not a good analogy. People will use Google because it's *good enough*. As long as people get what they want from Google they will continue using it. If some company doing online mapping is bankrupted because Google Maps is "good enough" and is massively promoted over other map websites, oh well, no need to worry. Unless of course we want any websites other than Google.
Re: vertical search?
"Does the alternatives to Google give me the same sort of user experience that I get from the Chocolate Factory?
If the answer is no then... [insert bleedingly obvious sentence here]
If the likes of Bling were any good then they would get the hits."
I thought this wasn't about Google's control of the search market. I thought this was about Google's control of the search market meaning they can decide whether any web-based business goes bankrupt or not, and that they may pull these levers with impunity. When you have that sort of power over an entire industry, it's amazing that you aren't already tightly regulated.
Think that Google's position for the Internet is roughly similar to utility companies'. Imagine if water companies had the ability to simply turn the tap off to a business if they don't like it. They can't, because there are rules that say they can't. Google is the equivalent for the Internet, but has no such regulation to stop it from doing whatever it wants.
Re: Keep your stinky fingers off productive capital
"Keep your stinky fingers off productive capital "
I'm not really convinced of the productivity of Apple's $100bn tax-haven-based cash pile, and at any rate it would be productive in the US, not Europe, when quite a chunk of it came from European operations that we tax free.
"A student thinks about how a feminist programming language might look. Perhaps it won't be particularly useful or essential research, but that is what academia is for and it can bring out useful questions."
That's just the thing. It isn't useful thought that programming languages are mysogyinst. It sounds stupid, looks stupid and is stupid. Every time a 'femininst' comes out with some insane idea* it just makes the movement look less serious and less important, the same way as the standard remark "oh, so all other crimes have been solved" when the police arrest someone for making 'threatening' remarks about Robin Hood Airport.
* e.g., rockets and missiles are penis shaped because of men trying to pierce things, rather than keeping the hot bits away from the bits that go bang/contain humans, or that fluid mechanics is unsolved but rigid dynamics is solved because mathematicians are male and don't care about fluids -- both of these are true stories and beliefs held by people with academic positions.
Re: trouble already
"I can't say too much because I'm not sure if the cops are going to pursue this matter.
Let's just say that in a certain pub a certain person was secretly recording someone and their phone got destroyed somehow. Allegedly.
With GG this is going to happen regularly."
It's mostly going to be people who already have a propensity to cause criminal damage who do this, but this time with the added bonus of their crimes being broadcast online, for easy pursuit in the civil courts if the CPS is the complete bunch of useless twunts that they were when my Dad's car got broken into and there was "insufficient evidence", despite him catching the guy who was doing it, and CCTV footage of him catching the guy while he was breaking into the car.
Re: Cue lots of pictures appearing on the internet
"Cue lots of pictures appearing on the internet
of a big fist about to strike the wearer of the dumb things when they try to take pictures of the fists owner without permission.
Don't forget that google will no doubt add them to their library of faces and fists that they supply to the NSA, ad men and other users of your data.
I am looking forward to the time when someone had F**k Google' tattooed on their fist just for this purpose."
Of course, if people do start punching people for wearing glasses (Google or not), the ability to upload pictures of the attacker's face and fist to the Internet, maybe together with an automatic phone call to the police to arrest the person for assault, might be a useful app for them.
Edit: In general, I think committing a violent crime against someone who is recording the whole thing might not be the smartest move on someone's part, in which case we can expect to see more violent thugs, who attack people already but with relatively little consequence, to end up in front of the beak more often as the evidence is so overwhelming that the CPS cannot drop it for "insufficient evidence" (read: we cannot be bothered).
"Not trying to be a smartass - more likely being a dumbass - I'm curious to know what happens to monetary systems if an absolute ceiling is imposed?"
The standard argument is that it kills growth and tanks the economy, which is why many countries left the gold standard, which is essentially the same thing.
The theory says that, as the economy grows, the price of everything must fall as the same amount of money still exists. This deflationary pressure means that you are better off waiting to buy things as the price drops, so people delay purchases. Normally this causes an economic death spiral a la Japan, and hence why the QE inflationary attack when it looked like Britain was heading for a deflationary period. However, as the amount of money is fixed, this should correct the deflationary contraction of the economy.
And one big question: how would debt work in such an economy? FRB coud still exist, but with a fixed monetary supply interest payments cannot work. Moreover, with deflation one would have constantly falling wages so that young people get completely screwed over.
Re: Wait until China outlaws the stuff
I think Britain could get very close to outlawing Bitcoin with its web-blocking tools, if it felt the need to. Bitcoin is fine, but the choke points are where you convert it into cash. Block those, and you get rid of the ecosystem.
Re: @AC 09:05
"I don't think the people behind this are particularly bad. To those caught out it's a very valuable life lesson and, at the end of the day, it's only a console...."
Is the life leson "Don't trust people because they are twats"?
Re: Corporate sponsorship is the key
"And on the way back it could check for expired tax discs[...]"
Not for much longer.
"People are inherently populists, but ideas that are commonplace today (round Earth, heavier-than-air flight, jet engines, nuclear submarines) were, once upon a time, not only works of science fiction - but fantastic science fiction."
Oh, you were doing so well there until you came up with the flat earth belief myth. The earth's been known to be round for millennia. This is the reason that Colombus had such a problem getting funding for his trip: people knew how big the world was, and if you remove America from the globe you are looking at a suicide mission to last that long at sea.
Re: These figures are fairly irrelevant
"Yeah it was a throwaway figure, fair enough. However, the basic point still stands: as there were over 20 people queuing outside a major Sainsbury that ended up getting 6 PS4s and a similar number outside Argos not all of whom got one it's still a test of availability."
I would at this point assume that they went somewhere else and got one rather than queueing up, not getting one, and saying "oh well, sod it"...
Re: These figures are fairly irrelevant
"I suspect had there been three times the amount of stock, there'd have been three times the amount of sales. I don't doubt that has also happened in the past."
No. Just work it out: that would mean 750,000 units sold in the first two days. This would mean that, *after two days*, about one in thirty households across the UK would have one. More than five million of these are pensioners, and I'm not sure there will be many 70-year old gamers. (There are no doubt a few, but statistically insignificant.) Taking these out of the equation, it's now down to one in 25.
By comparison, *since release*, the PS3 sold five million units. You are saying that they would have sold one seventh of the lifetime sales of the PS3 in one weekend, when the console is at its most expensive with the fewest games.
It takes just a moment to do a sanity check on the numbers you produce.
Re: Who the hell cares what any Iranian News Agency has to say?
"I rate their trustworthiness roughly similar to that of North Korea.
Do fuck off jake, you tedious Yank."
Although to be fair to him, their trustworthiness wasn't helped by the whole "man invents time machine" and Onion-based story things. Although they haven't yet found a bus on the south pole, so they have some way to go.
Re: Dont buy your phone from an operator
"The guys at work with Android phones are constantly borrowing my iPhone's wifi hotspot. They pay about 75% of what I pay per month, and get between 1.7% and 6.7% of the data allowance my plan provides (voice and SMS about equal). Seriously."
Sounds like they get the best deal: 75% of your contract, and use your data.
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp