As is lead crystal. Keep those bombs looking like a champagne flute and you'll be fine...
2906 posts • joined 4 Dec 2007
As is lead crystal. Keep those bombs looking like a champagne flute and you'll be fine...
But can you update it to a free seat in first class?
Do we have a new favourite past-time at the gate?
Didn't they already do that?
Sorry, I know its old already.
>Small cells only make sense where there's enough profitable usage to justify the costs of building and maintaining a much denser site deployment.
This is why I have no idea why ISPs don't get into the business. Form an MVNO or partner with a telco and converge the ISP wifi box with a cell base station. The telco gets good coverage and some backbone from the ISP, some offload from the larger towers. The ISP gets some marketing funds to help with the base-station costs, perhaps some call-cost slice. They both get some lock-in as moving ISP means losing good mobile coverage too. Bundle with DECT and put SIP in the box for landline revenues too.
>More pixels are not required on a little palmtop device, thank you.
While I agree, I'm still hoping the tech will quickly reach the stage of docking with a high-res desktop KVM setup and allow a light-weight desktop OS. In that case, 2560x1440 is a good idea.
I also agree about battery life, but at this stage I'm a bit used to frequent charging and I might swap more battery life for a properly secured multi-user OS rather than the useful abomination which is Android.
>not only are they writing software for */Linux...
Not so much. They bought skype and .net is just a framework. Where's Office on Linux?
It isn't really even about the products they offer. Yes, Word, Excel, PP are available for Mac, and they are useful, but MS has never had the heart to bring the whole of the suite (Project etc) to OSX. It's far more popular on the desktop than Linux is, so why not? Quite simply it makes commercial sense to make people buy Windows. If you own the whole stack you can push the upgrade cycle by making apps dependent on software libraries in the OS. If the app doesn't depend on OS software libraries, how will you make people upgrade to versions they don't really need? The Mac software doesn't match the Windows one so you still run the risk of format errors. Everything is designed to be a second class citizen to the Windows version. Once you're in the windows ecosystem, its very hard to get out. License savings are almost impossible to realise until you've removed every bit of MS software.
MS have so much of their own stack, that I wouldn't trust them to play nice, even if we had a full Office suite for Linux. I'd be constantly worried that the next version would be substandard or unsupported. Its hard to manage a strategy which includes both MS and Linux in the same space. It isn't just MS' fault. I've seen so many tech companies start to make things worse than they used to be rather than better. They add more things I don't want and take away the things I do want. Quite a bit of MS software is very good, but its a very expensive ecosystem to lock yourself into.
Linux hasn't won the desktop industry yet. Perhaps it never will. It doesn't actually matter that much. It solves my problems, scratches my itches and that is what open source is all about - cooperation by people to solve their common problems.
... and the customers? What do they think?
$40 billion of end-of-life kit still in service seems to indicate that it isn't at the end of its life at all, its very much alive.
My recommendation to the IT industry in general: slash your sales and organisational costs because your turnover is plummeting. If you keep saying things are "end-of-life" when they are clearly not, your customers will start to get annoyed with you. That might speed their move to more whitebox suppliers.
You do it with versions:
The aim is to get devs back to windows programming. .net version X is Apache and once everyone is using it, you release the next version as proprietary. You can stay on version X but windows 2016 doesn't support it any more. If you're doing a one-off product, you might be ok, but I'd always be wary of a library that a company tosses over the fence. Libraries have no intrinsic value so you want to be sure the FLOSS community is interested in supporting it before you use it.
Paranoid? Perhaps, but gifts from Greeks come to mind.
The assumption is that the telco's were already charging the maximum they could and would continue to do so, therefore the cost base is irrelevant and can be taxed with impunity.
I'm not sure the assumptions hold. Telcos profit from the convenience they offer. That's why voice is so expensive and data (which could carry voice) is so cheap. Mobile data competes against fixed-line data+wifi and its mostly a luxury (little compelling use-case vs the existing tech) and data usage can move between wifi points without a problem. Mobile voice does not have the same competition. Outbound calls can be made from any landline, but inbound calls have geopgraphical monopoly restrictions.
Worse, I suspect there is an argument to say that the spectrum license costs is a driver for consolidation and therefore has reduced competition.
I'm with Disraeli, I want Britain to be a cheap place to live. I don't think adding financial cost where it doesn't need to exist is the right thing to do. Even if the analysis is all correct, a better way to balance the government's books would have been to not go to war.
Think yourself lucky - Tetris gave me a flashback: I was there when Brezhnev was in power.
Good for upgrades of existing short-distance services. For new cables/ADSL replacement, go fibre.
>But what about all the customer premises equipment behind the ISP's router, who will be responsible for upgrading that by your deadline?
The first step is to get the ISP to support it. Whether or not customers want to use it is a different matter.
re: the gist of the script
You forgot the killing of a pretty girl at the beginning, to show how evil the bad guys are.
>I daresay 90% if the judges fall into the "no clue of international law"
I'll bet they do have a clue, but they choose being effective over acting on principle with regard to sovereign nations.
America doesn't believe in rights for non-Americans. It barely realises non-Americans exist.
Reclassifying stuff to avoid the law... someone decided to reuse the Guantanamo idea. Yes, the rest of the world has the same opinion of that too.
No love for Mr 0o2440, as he's known to certain Mexicans, Californians and CS students from another age.
Toleration: coexisting with those with whom you disagree without forcing them to change. The word has been hijacked and twisted to mean: accepting the values and actions of other people as good.
So today, being tolerant of promiscuity means, "I think how you behave is good and should be taught to our children as an acceptable lifestyle," rather than "I think what you do hurts people, damages your ability to create strong relationship bonds, is detrimental to children's well-being etc. which makes you a bad person - but I'm not going to try to get you thrown in jail or castrated for it."
>that no group should be able to tell another group what they can and can't do. And I see
>absolutely no contradiction in the fact that by enforcing that, I would prevent those who want to
>force their beliefs on others from doing so.
I suspect most of us here agree with this. The problem is that government has become quite intrusive and is forcing people to do things they disagree with. It would be bizarre for the Labour party to be forced hire UKIP members or the British Atheist Society forced to hire ISIS members as secretaries and receptionists just because they aren't spokesmen or policy makers, but that is just what is happening for religious groups. The State starts getting involved with morality decisions in business under "diversity" legislation. It gets involved in morality education in state schools, so people who disagree retreat to private schools. Business diversity legislation and national curriculum is then used to interfere with the hiring and teaching practises of private schools, which have been set up, specifically because not everyone believes the same and some people are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the populace. Do you want to set up a B&B for people with like beliefs to come and stay with you? That's banned. Want to put biblical text up in your obviously christian-themed cafe? The police will shut you down. Neither of those things damage the public, but some lobby groups have pushed hard to try to eradicate all opposition to their beliefs from the public arena. They are the intolerant ones.
Standing up for what you believe generally means you are against the opposite. That's just the logic of "A neq not A" This is where toleration comes in. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of hate-spewing people around, but to a large extent you can't eradicate that in a free society. I would far rather deal with someone who opposes what I believe and talk about the issues than have some mealy-mouthed "everyone's beliefs are equally valued" politician who squashes my freedom trying to maintain that stance.
I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on what you are. I should be able to discriminate based on your beliefs and actions. I shouldn't be able to discriminate against you based on your skin colour, but if you always answer the phone with, "Wazzup Homey?" then its reasonable not to give you a job as a receptionist where that culture isn't appreciated. And for balance, if you use the word "like" inappropriately, you also wouldn't be short-listed for a sales job with non-teens.
The so-called "centre" of politics isn't about moderation, its about not being associated with any given course of action which might be unpopular in the future. The left and the right generally have some values - they have a standard and content to their beliefs which I can judge as good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate responses to the current situation. With stated principles I can make an educated guess as to what someone will do in a given situation. The centre of politics is about managing me so I don't upset those in power. It is about not having inconvenient principles. Sadly that puts the politicians at the beck and call of those who can sway, or appear to sway public opinion, leading to short-termism, knee-jerk reactions and preventing sustained consideration of policy, because policy is as fickle as the latest poll and long-term consideration and observation doesn't sell newspapers.
Apple like to switch suppliers so they always have an alternative supplier. Plus, Samsung might value more 14nm fab experience.
So some rich people are putting off profit-taking in order to gain market share.
Heresy! Burn the Witches with the long-term goal of breaking into a difficult market! Burn those who don't worship at the alter of Marketing; those who think a good product might sell itself.
It's a private company. Perhaps the pre-tax profit is going to the managers as salary. Maybe they haven't sunk themselves in debt and maybe they don't spend money before they get it.
>The Bible - and other works in similar vein - don't just give an option; in the instances where such violence is committed, it is actually MANDATED.
Er, no it isn't. I think you'd be hard pressed to find find Christians in your local culture who think the Bible provides a mandate for killing prostitutes. In fact, the bible writers go out of their way to note the non-Israelite prostitute (Rahab) in Jesus' genealogy and that he was friends with prostitutes and other "sinners" rather than those considered "righteous." I know its difficult to fathom, but you can't do Christianity like twitter as it deals with fairly complex real-world issues and often not in an "if X then Y" manner. It seems those who are anti-Christian are far more "fundamentalist" than Christians - its just a shame they don't actually study what they "believe." Christianity doesn't operate on the simplistic computer-game-logic of "kill the bad guy" or "use the prostitute for your own benefit" that GTA uses.
All of this is irrelevant to the shop in question. That issue can be addressed in twitter-fashion: The content of GTA offends a large percentage of their customers who might decide to shop at a rival. They serve their customers, not internet petition writers.
And the first step is "fail-safe."
Health-checks which check the limits agreed by sellers when they set up the re-pricing system.
i.e. Vary the price but don't drop below X.
Actually, I hate dynamic pricing. When suppliers try to game the system for their advantage, I'm inclined to game the system for my advantage too or possibly just to foil their plans to extract more money out of either myself or other purchasers. It makes purchasing an unpleasent experience for me, so I start to get vindictive. How high can I push the price to stifle demand without actually buying stuff?
> Except when they needed it flight GBP99 was on finals ... ooops!
Obligatory Dilbert: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-01-31/
>What would they do if their children walked into their bedroom whilst they were having sex ?
Did Macdonalds lock their door? I'm pretty sure, "Eeeewww!" would be most children's reponse.
Actually its why we put doors (often with locks) on toilets. Natural? Yes. Do we want to see other people doing it? No thanks.
Or fix your maths.
Isn't the point that 12Mb/s is quite hard to achieve with ADSL ot large populations? I only get about half that. Cable TV works but its shared, so the contention for non-broadcast traffic is higher. Fibre is the only sensible way to do high-speed networking over long distances in high concentrations. That's why we use it in the data centre and for corporate WANs.
We know that fibre is overkill for most internet needs, but the point for Oz is that there has been a politcal decision made to push internet usage and the existing copper isn't up to it. If you have to replace copper it makes sense to invest for the future beyond what the market would do (which is what government should be doing) rather than take the simple and profitable route of upgrading the copper with new copper to allow the continuing market segmentation.
There are halo effects too. Even if fibre is too expensive in places, the mere fact that fibre is a larger part of the market should make it more affordable and increases skill availability.
Telstra gets a lot of tax-payer money.
The infrastructure pretty much stays the same.
Plan for failures and make them non-lethal. I'll take Jovial on an s/390 and the occasional bout of organised delays over a new and no doubt expensive system written in .NET thank-you.
re: Jovial. How can a language be called "defunct" if its still being used?
But my main point: Why isn't NATS using the Cloud? If nothing else, the latency should be low.
Probably why twitter is doing better than FB. Storage of a little text is so much cheaper than graphics. It's also cheaper to push out. Whether FB will borg the function effectively and kill them off that way is a different matter.
What is very depressing is TV reporting on twitter trending celebrity's gossip. Now that is meta-data I'm happy for the government to collect.
I can't wait for FB to fold under the weight of its storage requirements. Perhaps then people will rethink the whole cloud thing and all the other far more important issues than ease of use.
Oi, ISP! I want you to give me a presence directory I can extend as I see fit. XML, LDAP, even just an IRC channel people can query and my software can auto-reply to. I reckon some FLOSS guys can deal with unsolicitated messages safely via IRC.
She has an amazing hairdresser?
Or is that the most accurate, adrenalin-pumping bungie jump ever?
IE users who aren't using Chrome/FF are unlikely to switch, so its really telling Chrome users to move to FF (and thus Bing).
With FF pushing Bing, and IE being more standards-based than it used to be, MS won't really care if you use FF as long as you use Bing.
I assumed that was yet another drug song.
Am I wrong?
In 1948 the Arabs were going to wage a conventional nation-state war against the far smaller Israeli military. They didn't expect the Israelis to strike first. The Arabs were fighting for territory and knew the Israelis couldn't win the same same fight. The Israelis weren't fighting for that though, they were aiming to destroy the Arab war machine massed against them (providing easy targets) and handed back the territory they couldn't hope to control.
The Bush and Blair were hoping to control territory, disregarding British military experience of the early twentieth century and were thus doomed to repeat it.
Its pretty hard to win a war when you don't know who the enemy is. Soldiers need targets to be effective. Beating Saddam was easy, but Saddam's repression was hiding what I knew from O-Level history: "The place is ungovernable by civilised means." "Don't get into a land-war in Asia." Too much of the population is battle-hardened and willing to die for their faction, against each other and against foreigners, for Western government, which relies on cooperation and losers in democracy accepting loss of control. Hence the talk of "liberating" Iraq, as if we were turfing the Germans out of France, rather than removing an Iraqi from leading Iraq. Even Serbian-Croat issues are easier than this.
The West was always going to lose the political side of things. Once Saddam was gone, they were always going to lose militarily against guerrillas. It was always going to be a no-win situation. Tech is rarely effective against ill-defined problems and military tech is no different. Long before it started I got the feeling Bush just wanted a war, though I could never pin down any reasoning regarding what the upside was beyond expressing US military capabilities to the world and the Middle East in particular. Blair was even worse. With Britain's long military experience, wider world-view and lack of massive military stuff to show off, he had no excuse for stupidity. The only thing more depressing than our leaders stupidity is our failure to apply mid-term political pressure to stop them before the war and our failure to vote them out at the first opportunity.
The recent CIA report and responses are illuminating with regard to confirming what we all knew. Policies (against torture) were abandoned because leaders felt pressure to do something. Here's the thing: the reason we have policies is that they are formulated when the pressure is off and people are thinking clearly, so that we don't make mistakes when the pressure is on. These are not just bad people, they are bad leaders, bad at organising leadership. 11/9 was a terrible event, but nowhere near as bad (in terms of effect) as the response *for our own people* never mind the Iraqis and others dragged into conflict by the lack of effective government in the Middle East.
Stupid, blind and ineffective rulers who will get richer and more powerful at the expense of the lives of those far away and the livings of those nearby whose taxes fund the effort. No wonder the West is hated.
If you route better, you don't need to worry, right?
The UK VAT threshold is where you're obliged to register. You can voluntarily register below it.
At current rates you'd be silly not to.
> why the hell would we focus on narrowing the formats into individual codecs again ?
Because using hardware skirts the royalty issue and enables free software to use it?
That would be my guess, though I hate the idea of setting standards in stone (literally - silicon).
Plus, what's the likelihood of Apple and MS supporting a Google format - even a free one?
>Pay attention especially to the sublime words "to monetize the lifetime of that customer".
Nice intent for them, but consoles have a lot of the games market and consumers have shown they can do without MS, by using their fruity and robot devices. MS will be back to their business market. A profitable one, but how long will it hold up, when no-one grows up with it?
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
The issue is not free speech (contrary to the assertion, "“Pornography is the canary in the coal mine of free speech") the issue is "what does the industry do to produce pron commercially - are the practises dangerous or abusive?"
Perhaps there are some people who feel the need to express themselves by streaming their nudity across the internet, but I'd guess this is just an industry lobby.
Of course, in Delhi, drivers don't cost anything like $50k/year. Labour is in fact, very cheap.
The other problem is that in the article, it looks as though cost figures have been averaged. The demand for cars is not even 24/7. If everyone needs a car at 8:30am, you won't cut car ownership because at that time there won't be any spare to share.
What you might be able to do is have people rent out their driverless cars off-peak, which will hammer the taxi companies and possibly leave you with a pool of vomit in your car for the next morning. Insurance may be an issue and respect for "robot" cars is likely to be low, especially from ex-taxi drivers.
The problem is that no-one is making money elsewhere in the economy which makes long-shots and "pump&dump" more attractive than it should be.
We don't need another GUI, we just just need a decent sandbox, Windows8 is like the others...
Oh sorry Tina.
Download in the browser (has lots of internet access) and save the data to disk.
Open in Excel (it, and child processes, cannot spawn network-capable processes or open network sockets - can only use file->save).
This hits the malware authors in the pocket. Even if you find a hole in Excel, they can't exfiltrate the data.
What kind of OS development have MS been doing since NT3.51? The OS is supposed to mediate access by programs to resources. That is what it is for. Why haven't we progressed beyond the file-system? It doesn't even have to be mandatory - a run-time manifest wrapper of what an app is allowed to do would be sufficient, preferred even.
It doesn't solve the problem of a hole in the browser, but it would still be a good thing!
Not sure if comcast went about it in the right way though.
Personally, I'd prefer a 4g phone cell tagged on rather than wifi, with free 4g for the cell hosters.
I take it MS is unhappy about the comparisons between TPB and Azure uptime.
Also, there's very little I feel needs to be connected even to my home network.
The analysis plays into the American's hands - talking about motivation not action.
Fine the companies who don't comply with the local laws and make it worthwhile for whistle-blowers.
Breaking local law is not "a new thing" which needs to be discussed and debated. Only the level and method of punishment needs discussion.
Oi, American politicians, if you try to overrule/bypass our legal system through corporates, we'll keep taking their/your money until they lobby you for a different policy.
Maybe not. They might not want to recognise other countries as equals or that there is a limit to American rule.
I'm still not sure about the reason for the obsession with life elsewhere.
There's plenty of it here.
If we found it, what would it prove? How would it change anything?
How much is that per post-office?
> Everything's flipped to rack upon rack of 2U and 4U servers
I'd hazard a guess that blade vendors got greedy when they saw "enterprise" whereas 2u boxes are built for the low-end.
Surely the managability is in the homogeneity. Blades enforce it because you can't drop in competing vendor's blades and everyone expects that. 2u servers are physically interchangable but it makes your management more complex if you don't strictly control the hardware.
My favourite enterprise kit is still the network load-balancer. The Crossbeam chassis is still one of the most elegant designs I've seen. F5 is also very cool, if slightly less elegant.
Now, if netgear could punt a switch with ARM/MIPS doing network frontend clever stuff...
Support DOOM: all the helpdesk tickets have an avatar.
Mines the one with the BFG.
If cloud means you can do things from anywhere, why isn't there a local one? Surely you cloud-wranglers can manage the thing from anywhere, right?
After the US court said that all MS-controlled servers come under their jurisdiction, I can't see how a local cloud could still be acceptable for government (or any other) work. Even if you don't do business in the US, you could get sued and documents recovered for "discovery."
I never really understand why ISP's don't get involved with cloud stuff. They're good with networks, stability-engineering, have data-centres, are close to customers (low latency) and often national (no foreign interference).
>Just today some plonker was hugging my tail and flashing his lights because in his opinion I obviously wasnt overtaking the traffic quick enough,
Which is precisely why speed limits shouldn't be strictly enforced. In Oz, strict speed limit enforcement (3kmph is your leeway even on the motorways) scare many people into staying well below the speed limit (often 20kmph below the limit, in the outside lane) which is frustrating. Being slightly less, er, pedantic, would allow people to drive on the limit without fear of accidental prosecution, removing all reason and excuses for those tailgating.
But Oz is weird. Going east from Melbourne, the speed limit rises when you get off the motorway and onto A roads. Speed limits vary constantly along a road, usually by 10kmph (yes - that's a fast moving pedestrian) and they don't differentiate between repeater signs and speed limit bounderies, so you'd better make sure you see all the signs. They have electronic speed signs on the motorways which never change. They are obsessed with driving slowly, with continuous exhortations to "wipe off 5." I'm not sure if they are saying they got the speed limit wrong for the road, or at what speed you should stop "wiping off 5" - zero I suppose. Running red lights, however appears to be a Melbournian hobby, probably due to the long four-way grid cycle and lack of traffic sensors. They also give turn-left traffic and crossing pedestrians simultaneous green lights. What could go wrong?