Re: Why wouldn't I spend on a Magnepan setup instead?
"...you can literally see the sound as it envelops a room."
Really? That must look strange.
897 posts • joined 17 Jan 2008
"...you can literally see the sound as it envelops a room."
Really? That must look strange.
If cheapskate audiophiles want to go for wireless streaming, they should go for the old Squeezebox stuff, which is still reasonably easily available second hand. And if they are rich audiophiles, then the Squeezebox Transporter goes for over five hundred quid second hand on eBay.
It's a damn shame that Logitech stopped selling the Squeezeboxen.
...from the same shop, a stereo amp, two small bookshelf speakers, take the sound output from the 2 phonos on the back of the telly and it'll STILL sound massively better than the TV. Add a cheap CD player and you've got a good hi-fi in the front room - add a Squeezebox classic second hand and you can stream all you like. (And the second hand squeezebox will be the most expensive item you buy).
Seventeen hundred quid? Seriously?
I have some sympathy with your point, but in the interests of accuracy, I should point out that a fag is a cigarette, and the unused end of a cigarette is known as a fag-end or sometimes a butt. Don't know of a word or phrase for a discarded unused end of a cigar.
But how did you learn to do it - and can you still do it?
I originally solved the cube without recourse to any instructions - took me a couple of months. (My first ever success was a fluke, where I did the first two layers and the third just appeared correctly - to my total astonishment.) But as a result, I have those slow but reliable algorithms fixed in place in my mind (and muscle memory!). I can still solve it now - but it probably takes me 3-5 minutes - and using my algorithms, I doubt if it could be done more quickly than two minutes.
But those algorithms work, and I suspect I'll never forget how to do it now. It's still a good trick for impressing your kids and their friends.
Yes, it's impressive the first time a Lego built machine + a phone solves the cube. I thought it was amazing when I saw the video for the first time last year. And it's quite something that it can do it under five seconds. But getting it down for 4.3 seconds to 3.5 (or whatever it is) is just improvements in technology - it's not anything new any more.
There's also the point that a random setting may have a "best" solution which takes a certain number of moves. Another random setting may have a "best" solution which takes fewer moves. If the cube happens to be in the second setting, the robot will solve it more quickly. How do you tell whether you've merely got a relatively simple start position?
Hence, the "meh" icon. It was impressive once. Now it's just more of the same.
Don't try to summon my enthusiasm, because I haven't got one.
Endorsed by Ludwig Van Beethoven
Who was deaf.
Indeed, it was a luggable, rather than a portable.
But I remember working for a small company which was building embedded systems. I went along to demonstrate a new release for a customer. They pointed out an error; I was able to fire up the Osborne, correct the software, attach a PROM burner, burn a new prom and install it, and demonstrate the problem was fixed - in less than fifteen minutes. One happy customer. Something like that simply wasn't possible before the Osborne - you'd have had to return to base to fix it.
But haven't we come a long way since then?
Can't have it both ways.
What arrant nonsense.
If a woman wears a bikini in public, it's normally in a place where she expects to be looked at - for example, on a beach or at a swimming pool. And she can't really complain if photos are taken of her. (But even if a woman is wearing a bikini in public, I think it's reasonable to be hacked off if someone is taking a photo of her as if it were an upskirt - no matter how legal it is.)
A woman who is wearing a skirt is reasonably entitled to not expect a man to be trying to look up said skirt - and is certainly entitled to assume that he won't reach down with a mobile phone to take a photo up her skirt.
And even if a man gets a glimpse up a skirt, it's just one of those things - quite a kick if you're a teenager, as I remember. But taking a photo of said view is just damn pervy. It's the difference between glancing at a woman's cleavage and staring deliberately at her breasts.
I once had to read a serial number for a customer support call. It was ridiculously small. I couldn't read it. My sixteen year old daughter could only just read it, and couldn't be 100% sure she'd read it correctly.
So I took a photo of it with my phone and zoomed in. Problem solved. I love modern technology.
There was a young man called Menzies
Whose kissing drove girls into frenzies:
Till a virgin one night
Crossed her legs in a fright
And shattered his Google Glass lenses.
Indeed. 4K TV will be for people who admire the quality of their TV screens, not for people who actually want to watch TV.
Just like top-end super-de-luxe hi-fi is the preserve of people who spend their time listening to how good it sounds, not the actual music.
So if there are pretty girls (or boys) to look at in the park, why take the laptop?
...the software makers might start coming on board too - which won't do any harm.
All we need now is a few Chromebooks at a couple of hundred quid with a better screen than 1366x768.
...creates a brand-new sensorial and atmospheric experience that utilizes space, space itself.
As marketing bollocks goes, that is pretty awesome. Sensorial, eh? You can smell it and touch it too?
Michael Gove ahead of both of those.
Also Nick "Broken Promises" Clegg.
Oh, and Tony Blair - for winning a landslide Labour victory and then spectacularly letting everyone who voted for him down.
Actually, why not just send all the cabinet members of all UK governments of the last twenty years or so? God knows they've completely failed to do their normal jobs properly.
Two people have been charged with allegedly sending "menacing" tweets to a feminist campaigner..
Oops. Missed that. Sorry.
Doesn't invalidate my post, though.
Where does it say anywhere that Caroline Criado-Perez or Stella Creasy are feminists?
And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?
Or are you just assuming (not unreasonably) that they are likely to be feminists as they are intelligent campaigning women? And what is wrong with that? Why should that irritate you?
They are simply women just trying to be treated fairly by a male-dominated world.
Some feminists are irritating - like those who make comments like "Men are all closet rapists". Most have more sense, and don't make stupid generalizations. Perhaps you should try avoiding similar stupid generalizations.
Actually, they're probably running UNIX, and sneering at this new-fangled graphical rubbish.
A vanishingly small number of the people who've so far resisted upgrading from XP may decide to put Linux on their aging hardware.
And they'll try Ubuntu, and discover that the latest version won't run on their machine as it needs super-de-luxe 3D graphics. Even my four-year-old nettop won't run stock Ubuntu 13.10 - it looks fine until you press the "flag" button, and then it all goes a lovely shade of blue. Quite nostalgic, really.
While Ubuntu is the most well-known desktop Linux, it will NEVER be "the year of desktop Linux".
Isaac Asimov, I think you'll find....
I think you're in danger of overcomplicating this.
What I think the Attorney General is trying to do is to make people aware that there ARE laws in place to do with contempt of court, so that they can't say, in all innocence "I didn't know I wasn't allowed to say that."
The contempt laws are not in place to just be awkward - they are put in place to protect the innocent (like the babies who were raped by the LostProphets guy) and to ensure that people can get a fair trial.
The second one is particularly important - one day soon, a person who is almost certain guilty of a heinous crime will walk free because some idiot tweeted information about them that gets into the public domain which will make it impossible for them to get a fair trial.
No. It illustrates that ONE WOMAN can't multitask.
Sheesh. I've never seen so much generalization from specifics as I have on this particular comment thread. Most of them are men, so presumably that proves that men always generalize from specifics.
It's not bogus in the least. The reason is because the in-group variation is normally HUGE and the between-group variation is normally tiny. Height is not a good example, as the differences are quite significant between men and women, and clearly sex-oriented. But the difference in driving skills between men and women is (a) probably not as much as people make it out to be and (b) potentially explainable in other ways that "she's a woman, therefore she's worse". For example, one possible explanation is that most people have been brought up to believe that men are better drivers, and so tend to let men drive more, so they get more practice, which generally makes them better drivers....
Who did she sleep with in order to "obtain" £200 000 for that ?
There was absolutely nothing intentionally sexist in my remark and nothing was implied, that is merely your choice of interpretation.
Simple question - would it have even crossed your mind to say "Who did he sleep with to get that?" if it had been a male, rather than female?
Don't bother to answer - you and I and everyone else here all know the answer is No.
So yes - sexist.
Hmmm. There must be a broken link somewhere. I seem to have strayed onto the Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail comment pages. El Reg - can you fix this?
Speaking for myself, I think I'd prefer to have evening deliveries....
Which works well.
But aren't you glad your parents didn't have that attitude?
"When did physics ever Trump economics?"
It never did.
But I can remember it being theoretically impossible to get more that 9600 Baud down a phone line on a normal modem.
I remember when it wasn't theoretically possible to get more than 10M Ethernet.
Wireless in the home was always going to be very slow, and only useful for emails - if you wanted to stream music, you'd have to use wired access - and films would work, but only short ones in low definition.
True Internet over a mobile phone was never going to work at a reasonable speed....
I know that your theoretical calculations say this'll never work. But I wouldn't mind betting that you're wrong.
And what do you do with a Wombat?
Play Wom with it.
"The good news is that if no evidence is found the seized items are returned to the owners. [snip] The hardware will often be returned without hard drives."
Hmmm. The [snipped] bit is "The bad news is that can take several months to happen. If illegal images (i.e. child pornography) are found on the disks, they will be shredded and destroyed without exception."
That's a pretty vital [snip].
Perhaps you should take care crafting a password BECAUSE of the care that Adobe exhibited in looking after it.
"...And every Friday Night is singalong night at the Opera Houses..."
Don't forget that in England, brothels are indicated by a blue light outside. (with thanks to Gerard Hoffnung!)
"Apple seem to think the cameras are much better in the new model."
Doesn't matter if the camera is better. You're still going to look like a prat when you take the photo.
...and that's a SMALLER screen.
The Nexus 4 is just small enough for me to use one-handed - in fact, just a fraction too big if I'm honest.
And who needs full HD on a phone? If I want to watch movies on the go, I'll watch them on my tablet.
If they were to produce a Nexus 3 with a similar pixel density as the Nexus 5 and a slightly smaller screen than the Nexus 4 at, say, £199 - it would fly off the shelves!
...saw someone wearing these at a conference last week. He watched with glee as the wearer walked straight into a pillar.
Time started on Jan 1 1970 as stated above.
Therefore Peter Gabriel.
...and a summary of the story. This, unfortunately, is a bit too much of the latter - and it also seems to me to have rather too many spoilers in it.
To be fair, last week's article about the self-service tills was laugh-out-loud funny (or at least I found it so) - and he'd have to do remarkably well to come close to that one.
Yep - my first plasma was a Samsung which got "red speckled" after 18months. They wouldn't consider repairing it for a reasonable price, so I bought a new one - a Panny. Which is excellent.
"Ruled out the Panasonics straight away. Heavy, use loads of power..."
"...And I've got a bunch of old PCs loaded up with hard drives which contain various media files...."
Anyone else feel this is a little inconsistent?
...but no doubt there will still be Tom Clancy novels released.
I'm old enough to remember when the death of an author meant that there were no more books by said author. Nowadays, it just seems to mean a short hiatus before someone is employed to churn out a book in a similar style with the original author's name on it.
And yes, sixty-six is FAR too young.
A prat? That's a description of someone who did something stupid, or doesn't get something most of us feel is obvious. We're all prats occasionally.
There are several words I could use to describe this guy. Prat doesn't even begin to describe him.
I've never quite understood the rationale of people who will spend six hundred quid on a phone then jiib at spending fifteen quid on an official cable.
...you DESERVE to get rubbish pictures.
I'm getting sick to death of people at public events, be it concerts, sports events, or even at the bloody cinema, who feel that the event didn't actually happen unless they took a photo of it - or preferably, a long video of it.
If you're watching it through a phone, you're NOT actually watching it. If you then play it back, all you're doing is playing back a reminder of you watching the event through the phone.
Oh, yes, of course, once you've taken the photo you've got to tweet the damn thing to everyone.
You're at a concert, or a sports event - a once-off event which will never happen again exactly like that. EXPERIENCE IT! Don't record it. There are TV cameras and official videos which will record it a fuck of a sight better than your stupid little phone.
Oh, and contempt multplied by ten for anyone taking photos at these events with an iPad. (It's always an iPad - never any other sort of tablet...)
"...They are too accurate."
No. They are too precise. You want a watch to be accurate, so that it shows the time accurately, without drift. But you don't need it to display the time precisely.