I wonder if you could use the sensor in a mouse to read QR codes off a screen?
Would that be easier?
3426 posts • joined 4 Dec 2007
I wonder if you could use the sensor in a mouse to read QR codes off a screen?
Would that be easier?
It isn't just children, adults also go into a comatose state and become unresponsive to locally generated input. They lose the ability to abide by social conventions, ignoring those around them and communicating only with those who aren't in the room.
Is it "worse" than alcohol etc? It depends how you define it. Is alcohol worse than heroin? In absolute measures, it causes more damage overall.
"Smart"phones' bad effects are amplified because their prevalence undermines the social rejection of their downsides.
If you need a VM, use a VM, if you need containers, use them. They are not interchangeable.
Could someone explain why the insurance bills are so much higher?
Ah yes, "because they can."
>"Isn't IT a tool to help rather than a force to takeover business aims?"
The question comes down to whether Marketing is trying to make IT decisions. You don't have to set up an IT department, but if you do, the implication is that you need their skill in the field of IT.
That's why "requirements" are so important. Vendors will often do the easy stuff cheaply, its the hard stuff which they don't do well, or don't do cheaply. If marketing says, "Company X can do Y for $Z" that's fine, but there's usually a whole range of stuff marketing haven't considered. We shouldn't expect them to - they aren't IT experts. Some things your IT dept won't be able to do easily or as cheaply as a cloud provider, but there are lots of things they can do better. What you need is not an "insource/outsource plan" but good IT personnel who know when to use external vendors and when to use internal resource.
Airport security will have a fit.
It was tooth-fillings when it came on board, and now its bomb!
Could be, but nothing drives tech like war.
Already exist. It's called "World of Warcraft."
Rift - Isn't the difference the positioning telemetry feedback?
Anyway, didn't el reg do a thing on this kind of tech and come to the realisation that VR isn't anywhere near realistic enough to be interesting, but that telepresence was the thing? I guess cartoon-style visuals may be fast enough to model and render in real-time.
I'm not convinced that mechanical realism trumps imagination in this scenario. I'm with Stallone on this one.
When a nerd gets hot and heavy, there's a two kilo copper air cooler and three-way SLI titans involved. It seems... wrong.
I guess that makes el reg a smut-rag and pimp.
I arrived via RSS feed though, so had no indication there was a red dress before it appeared.
ps. Is she a cylon?
You've been in IT that long and you've never accidentally typed your password in the wrong place and had it display on the screen?
Rules are not always about someone imposing their will on someone else, they are often about protecting people from themselves, like road rules. Everyone should drive on the left because that rule helps prevent collisions. Stopping at a red traffic light isn't impinging on your freedom, it sets you free to live; it grants you life which you (and others) may not otherwise have.
Most password policies ban *all* single words, not just the naughty ones - perhaps you should have set that up? Most rules in companies which appear to be morality-based are in fact just an attempt to stop employees looking like juveniles which reflects badly on themselves and the company. Common-word passwords are easily recognised by shoulder-surfers. I did this once to someone. He was in the UK and his password was the name of a district of Colombo, Sri Lanka. I only caught a couple of letters, but I happened to live in that district when growing up - I didn't need to see it all to know what it was.
Google are restricting things because (surprise!) people do bad and stupid things. That has always been the case. "Certain religious elements" are not usually to blame for this sort of thing, despite your prejudices. It's just a (corporate, geographic, industrial, whatever) cultural norm and the rules are there to stop you making cultural blunders which can lead to causing an offence which causes disharmony and/or loss of profit.
> They all get lead home
I wonder who got the magic beans...
You can kill all the beef breeds you want, but its a sin to kill a milking cow.
>'Tidal' is short and snappy,
... and the synapses auto-fire the sound following it as "Wave" which will wreak havoc on infrastructure and might kill me if get too close. Death and Destruction all round then!
I'll stay away.
Is it just that I'm old, or does music not actually matter that much? Maybe I'm too poor, but I can't imagine wanting to pay for a music streaming subscription service, even if I had more money than sense. Its just too inconvenient for something I care little about. Popular music is a bit of fun, but nothing more.
I used to play "spot the product placement" in music videos, but now its way too obvious. Rubbish beats audio anyone? Nope, not for me either, thanks. If you're going to do advertising, do it properly, like the "we will rock you" pepsi ad. Don't pretend it isn't happening.
Ever seen a fat elf?
I'll bet Galadriel is fruitarian who only eats dead fruit.
No carrots were murdered in the making of this comment.
Comms kit, perhaps?
Firewalls/"feature switches" needing fast memory access but fairly low total overall memory requirements?
>What next, an annual fee to keep pop-up ads off my desktop?
Its called, "Skype for Business."
Or run Linux and get skype ad-free.
>Replacing a low-paid human with a shedload of computers, sensors and servos doesn't make it a magical new class of shared transport
True, although even a low-paid human in the West will cost vastly more over the lifetime of the taxi than a stack of computers and servos (although most cars appear to have power-steering and braking already). If that's the case, the cost of taxis may fall considerably, leading to more people using shared cars than currently.
You may also, however, attract people off buses and trains, leading to more road congestion.
The main issue is convenience. Driverless cars are possibly a bus/taxi replacement but unless there is a lot of spare capacity, people will still need their own car to ensure schedules are met.
Also missing the point is that there is a peak usage for cars during the morning/evening rush hour. You need at least this many cars.
The other problem is electric cars. Its all fun and games until you turn on the air-conditioning which is pretty much compulsory for at least some of the year in Australia. I can't see electric being an option here, even in a dense city, although you may be able to run a much smaller generator to keep such things going, or extend tram electrical infrastructure to cover all the streets.
Seeing how people try to monetise the free car-parking spaces in the US, what happens when people hail shared cars and then try to auction off availability?
Enough of the CSMA/CD, what we need is token-ring for key fobs...
Program like its 1995!
Does anyone have any thoughts on the actual legal reasoning behind that?
>Yet more proof that relying on an aging copper network is a recipe for failure.
Failure for whom? Doesn't Telstra get NBN cash either way? Then they'll get more cash for the eventual fibre upgrade, and in the meantime they get to segment the market charging over-the-top prices for fibre, getting customers to pay for fibre installations instead of them being standard.
Seems like a win-win-win.
Unless you aren't Telstra.
>he fact that the flight control & entertainment systems are linked is proof of negligence and reckless endangerment by the manufacturer.
Maybe he hacked the entertainment system, which gave him access to a flight-sim game and he didn't realise it...
Australia uses various south pacific islands for holding nasty people (AKA refugees) so it doesn't have to comply with its domestic laws.
Same idea as gitmo, but mostly aimed at those who think Australia is a good place.
>What was the possibility to win in lotto.
A lot less likely that four quasars, doing a dance, one wearing a morris-man hat.
>(Will lie to wifey and say we're watching some drama, otherwise wifey refuses)
Just tell her its "the Australian Downton Abbey."
That has the advantage of being true...
>it's not a problem to leave your brain to idle once in a while for a few minutes, it's actually beneficial.
+1 for that. However, the problem is that these mobile amusements are not letting your brain idle. They are a focussed distraction. On demand entertainment fills every moment with something trivial, and I'm not sure that is good. Far better to actually have nothing to focus on, so that your brain can have a rest and reflect on the past, present and/or future. When I see how people use their smartphones, I begin to wonder if people lives are so horrific they can't bear to risk a pause during which they may inadvertently examine their life and ponder their existence.
Valve are the only only ones who really care at this point, though I think we've all noticed the commercial vendors locking down to "no updates or addons unless it comes through my store."
My Linux Steam library is around 1/3 of my Windows one, but I've got lots of old games from before Valve started pushing things and before OSX was common. The so-called "AAA" games might be windows-only, but I suspect that's because they are minimising investment and using old engines; regardless, I don't enjoy the twitch-shooters so much, so I don't really care. Indie stuff is usually more fun, *nix friendly and a whole lot cheaper too. I'm still a bit bitter about my BlackOps purchase so I'm not going near AAA anyway. Give me Frozen Synapse any day, I found PoE 1.3 runs well on wine now and Invisible,Inc looks rather good too. Then there's Limbo, Metro 2013, Bioshock Infinite, the Valve games, Serious Sam, Witcher 2, StrikeSuiteZero, Penubmra, Red Orchestra, Killing Floor, DOTA, Civ.
I don't run only Linux, I dual-boot with windows, but I use Linux all the time and rarely bother to boot Windows apart from to update the OS every few months. There's plenty on Linux to keep me occupied.
>Hmmm, sounds to me like he encouraged them to lie while under oath. That's the crime.
It seems weird to me, given that he knew he was skating close to the edge, that he ever allowed his clients to discuss why they wanted his services. Is he on "perverting the course of justice" charges or "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" charges?
It also seems odd that organisations involved in security would use such dumb systems. Isn't it common knowledge that if you add bad security to good security you end up with bad security - i.e. your effective security level is the lowest of all your security systems?
>this discovery is a wonderful confirmation of the theory of evolution.
and what feature could you find in an animal which would disprove evolution?
No one has a problem with variation, specialisation and natural selection but all those things, in nature, result from restricting the gene pool of a species. That isn't what most people think of as "evolution."
The problem with having more DNA typewriters is that you run out of universe before the maths adds up. The "proof" that evolution "works" is that there is stuff around and all other possibilities have been discarded. Everything is proof because the theory is infinitely flexible. Everything will always be evidence of our conclusion, if we've already pre-decided what the conclusion is and we don't have the awkwardness of having to show cause and effect or have anything be demonstrable. Is a fish warm-blooded? That's evidence of evolution. Is a fish warm-blooded? That's evidence of evolution. There is nothing imaginable which could not be attributed to evolution.
Its an amazing philosophy.
Materialists run into problems with the mind. If energy/matter are all that exists, then (a) there is no such thing as free will - you are a slave to your biology/chemistry/physics and (b) your thoughts a product of random interactions of the material world and, since they are a product of randomness, are just as likely to be incorrect as correct, including your thoughts on what is right and what is wrong. Since we can deduce that our thoughts are likely to be wrong half the time, it would be irrational to hold a materialist position and claim to be probably correct.
>It's difficult to think of a reason why anyone would go for this or why this even exists.
I don't think MS expect *nix users to come flocking. They are trying to staunch the flow of Windows users who need *nix tools from jumping to a proper *nix OS.
I think the idea is that you run your OS-independent business-logic cloudy app on a cheaper version of Windows.
If you need IIS, you can jolly well carry on paying for Windows as usual.
>What's to prevent an enterprising coder writing a module that intercepts the video stream after decryption and spooling it to disc
Not sure, but perhaps HDCP to the video card? Does this imply a closed source OS?
>piracy will always exist as it provides a better end product.
Indeed. Things like catchup tv.... horribly low quality - the torrent will always be better. Also very fragile and if you have to restart, you can't fast-forward through content and adverts. Amazingly, the adverts are even lower quality than the programme, so the marketing looks awful.
>In the DRM world, you no longer own anything.
Part of the "problem" for DRM purveyors/users is the lack of standards and distribution of the "black box." If people want to download a separate piece of software (perhaps as a firefox extension) to view the content, that's fine, but don't encourage the use of DRM use by providing it up-front. That is a bad plan.
Much of the time, I'd rather not have the facility and not rent the content. Providing the facility just encourages more people to find a way to use it. It encourages proprietary protocols as companies build their own clients and hide data from the web.
Also, its only a foil for warrantless snooping. Those idevices, gdevices and most people's pc too are susceptible to invasion by motivated and resourced parties.
>Turnbull seems smart enough but all I see is him running around proposing solutions to problems that don't exist.
You're mistaking Telstra's billing problem with Turnbull's problem of being seen to be doing something. Of course it solves a problem, just not the one anyone but Turnbull is interested in.
We've got a method - and by golly we're going to apply it to something!
Not even airplay is immune to manipulation. You'll find the same track played on multiple radio channels at the same time on consecutive days in exactly the same way you hear the same adverts on multiple channels at the same time. Its almost as if someone... paid for it to be there. Its so blatant, that I doubt even the request shows do more than pick the people who want the tracks/artists they want to play anyway.
>So are you intimating that Fox (We're Not News) is buying the rights from Steven in order to make sure it is not a success? How Machiavellian/Murdochian.
They don't need it to be a success, they just need it to not be a success for anyone else. Its like the blanket advertising around "You Aint Got Talent Factor." Its mostly there to prevent anyone else from looking significant.
>All I know is that it ain't gonna get anywhere near my Linux servers. They will remain a MS tool/product free zone.
If its GPL'd and all it does is manipulate lines of text, why avoid it? Just make sure someone other than MS is maintaining it for your platform before you jump in.
... and when they do get them up to a reasonable speed, they won't be paying the running-dog capitalist lackeys for their IT.
Bear in mind that in the West we now consolidate most workloads because we don't need all the power of our CPUs for a single job - their kit might be slower, but it may meet the price/performance criteria. The Russians may rather spend a little more on internally-produced electricity than send hard-earned foreign exchange abroad to buy Americans products.
That makes sense to me. I fail to understand why No. 10 is so in love with US IT companies, when all they do is suck money from our economy.
Something to note about free trade and movement of people.
I've noticed that Australians don't need visas to visit almost everywhere in Europe. In Australia there is also an automatic $1000 free pass on import taxes on every shipment brought in. Is there any reason not to miimic that?
As far as the UK is concerned, leaving the the EU's "ever closer union" in favour of EFTA appears to be opting out of only political control, leaving the free-trade stuff intact.
There is a problem in that our (UK) politicians are complete nutters. However, perhaps opting out of the EU will refocus minds on UK politics and stop people from hoping and assuming that EU courts will over-ride UK government stupidity. Perhaps then, with no-one else to blame, we might vote differently.
I do find Worstall's faith in free-trade touchingly naive. It isn't "best policy" which is out there, its mostly a mish-mash of countries subsidising their native industries for domestic reasons and dumping the rest on the world market, or even nakedly going out there to manipulate and destroy competitors to their home-grown industries. That isn't to say the UK is any better, its just not quite reality. The reality is also that its very hard to distinguish between tariffs with a valid effect of undoing foreign subsidies and over-protecting local industry.
That said, I see little advantage to the EU political process and the potential for great harm, because even assuming a "good" democratic structure, the larger the democracy the less my vote counts for. Self-determination is reduced and I believe self-determination is the goal of democracy. The different countries in the EU have different political requirements and interests and I see no particular reason to allow them to impose those requirements upon us or indeed, inflict our requirements on them.
But 10 years and $250k is stupidly excessive.
It brings both the legislative and law enforcement into disrepute.
Government needs to stop setting punishments by the amount the feel embarrassed when caught out doing wrong.
>Until this country becomes a republic, true democracy simply isn't possible
You mean, like the Americans have? Is that better? Does having an extra layer above the "president" with little political power actually make any difference? Leaving aside the fact that a republic is not a democracy...
Even democracy is not an end in itself, its just a means to an end. Legislation is inherently FPTP, so any laws passed ignore those who voted against them, no matter what percentage that is. We're also talking about a collegiate system. I don't think even those who voted Tory agree with much of the legislation, its just they don't want "the others" and political machine seems to have a life of its own with its own reality distortion field.
What we really want is politicians who Do The Right Thing(tm). If pool from which politicians come does not have people with moral fibre, the political process (any political process) is going to corrupt them further. As a society we've worked hard to remove the fear of God from our thinking. The people in power have nothing left to fear except that people will revolt against them. Now they operate a cartel of power. They compete in theory, they will take advantage if they can, but the products on offer are pretty much indistinguishable. They have to maintain the illusion of their legitimacy. They undermine anything which threatens them and they do not allow protest to come anywhere near them. In the past, countries had secret police and agent-provocateurs. Now they just do mass scanning of communications. With nothing to fear except being caught out in their machinations, why would politicians not seek an ever closer grip over the behaviour of those who can remove them from power? Why would they not seek to uncover journalist's sources, to track all internet traffic and make it illegal to bring harm to the State, justified or not?
The reaction to the expenses scandal is interesting. Financially it was a petty issue, it was the corruption it revealed that was significant, as was the reaction from the politicians. Draw a line under it and make sure it can never happen again, not by stopping the corruption, but by stopping its disclosure. Everything now is about national security. Everyone must bow at the altar of national security. Anyone who would cause disruption is anathema. You must take on the values of the State. But it isn't a religion, no siree.
>the conservatives have been wanting to disband the house of lords for some time now.
Really? I hadn't heard that. However, a chamber full of completely safe seats is an excellent foil for knee-jerk, sound-bite politics and the need to be seen to be "doing something." Time and again they put a stick in the spokes of the completely deranged Commons by asking awkward questions. They don't always get it right of course but its the closest we get to people who can take a party-politics-free interest in the legislative process. We may think they are privileged doddery old fools, but privileged doddery old fools are hard to bribe because they have no future career and little to gain financially from kow-towing to the Commons.
The can thank Labour for creating a constitutional crisis out of the best method to kill farm pests in order to diminish their power.
>By which logic only the unemployed and elderly should pay for social services
Not at all. Social services are paid for out of income tax which is progressive. The poll tax (poll = "per head") community charge was for things like emptying your rubbish bin.
Also, we need to find another word than "progressive" regarding taxation. It sounds inherently good, when it may not actually be appropriate. Paying for having your bin emptied is not part of social engineering and wealth redistribution since that isn't really a function of local government. Income-related tax is expensive to implement. A fixed figure, enough to cover expenses, which everyone has to pay, is cheap to collect (no assessment of income or property required), loophole-less, and provided a stable revenue stream for paying for particular services.
Even "progressive" taxes are only an approximation and don't really reflect ability to pay. Its impossible to tax everyone "justly." Now we have a system of property-based taxation. That means you can be poor but if your neighbourhood goes up in value, you pay more tax, regardless of your income. Your only choice may be to sell up and move away.
The UK poll-tax riots were a triumph of ideology over practicality. Mostly it was an excuse to riot by those who didn't like thatcher anyway. Those were the days when people actually had ideologies. I look at the riots caused by a local council tax, and a look at the lack of fuss over hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by Blair's adventurism in Iraq and I wonder what's wrong with people.
How cruel! Denying those currently evading taxes the right to influence government policy!
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
This is nothing like the Florida fiasco.
>I need to redesign my applications, my entire user infrastructure, how I handle emails, DNS and pretty much everything else,
I had a close encounter with AWS recently and discovered that herein lies the key. If you are starting from scratch, cloud (public or private) makes sense, but you need to write for the cloud not for the enterprise or the desktop. i.e. worry more about latency than bandwidth. Look at gmail: once you've logged in, the emails listed on the page load their text even though you can't see them. Even if disconnected, at that point, you can read all the emails listed. Text is small and cheap to pre-load. Going back to the database to pull the email text when you click on a subject line, is expensive and slow. Anticipate what data the user will want and pre-load if you can. Don't worry too much about browser RAM, users will have far more RAM than you will ever want to fill with data.
Bunging your exsting enterprise app VM onto someone-else's infrastructure is not "cloud" in a way that will make users happy. You probably need to start from scratch and you need software which doesn't scale licensing fees whenever you need to embiggen. Otherwise you run the risk of getting DDOS'ed in the pocket.
There are two type of company - those that under-fund IT and those that mis-fund IT. In so many places I've seen (expensive) load-balancers fronting multiple services but behind them is a web tier where lots of two-node apache clusters look after a single service. There will be lots of server-pairs running different services, instead of loading all web frontends across all servers and then using the load-balancers to scale and distribute. The reason is that the web tier is cheap: Apache, Linux and a bit of iron and service owners want control. For mission-critical things, it isn't a (cash) problem. Where things become horrible is the backend. It is a mission critical app, so Oracle or sometimes MS SQLServer. All of a sudden flexible scaling, while technically possible, becomes costly. The neatly regimented and controlled perimeter gives way to a messy corporate LAN. Load-balancers which do so well distributing TCP 80 and 443 connections, suddenly have to do deep packet inspection and fiddle with the gibblets of SQLNET which means that expensive kit doesn't scale as well and isn't quite as reliable or easy. Architects and service owners look at the costs and decide their service doesn't need to scale so they'll opt out of the load-balancing costs - after all, its Operation's job to keep the thing running.
So the thing about the cloud is that it is essentially outsourcing. It may not save you money. The fact that someone else is taking a slice of profit means it probably won't unless you have very unpredictable demand or you are too small to make the investment in load-balancers. However, sometimes the value in outsourcing is to ditch IT, IT personnel or service-owners' mentality which/who have become a drag on the ability to provide service. Sometimes the value in "cloud" is the dashboard. The automation which means that configuration is not done by hand, making it less prone to fat-fingeredness. You can load up your infrastructure if you can be confident that some admin isn't going to take your service down while dealing with some-else's. Perhaps the value in the cloud is the fact that service owners and architects don't get to cut corners because they don't have control of the infrastructure.
It will be interesting to see if the containerisation of services means more or less income for MS with Azure. Will AWS and others be able to mimic or gateway integration from areas in which MS is strong, such as corporate infrastructure? Is cloud-based Exchange/Lync vulnerable to drop-in replacements?