2345 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Re: LEGO for the modern era
> Yes, it has been done before, in other ways by other people. Apple, Samsung, Nokia would be prime examples
And the lesson we learn (at least: those who have tried / failed to productionise something electronic: or even been rash enough to put some of our work up for scrutiny on a website) is that getting the prototype to "proto" is often the easiest part of the process. The really tricky bit, as almost every OSS project is proof of, is the human interface, the support documentation, the standards compliance and the 100% perfect, works-under-all-circumstances reliability.
And when I see all of that in an amateur project, then I really am impressed.
LEGO for the modern era
> Apparently some people are way too easily impressed.
Yes, they are. But what more should we expect? The crucial aspect of this project, in the author's own words, are:
... where’s the fun in that. I got a great kick out of the first phone call I made with this thing. And it wont’s stay in one piece for long, I’ll be using those parts for other projects very soon!
So no-one is saying it's a practical solution. It was meant to be fun, nothing more. And power to his elbow for doing something that he enjoyed. CERTAINLY no-one is saying it's supposed to be educational (for the children - what an insult to adults who like playing with
Leg Pi's) and the creator himself says that it was only meant to be fun and that it will be torn down (or "recycled" if you prefer) to another project later.
However, so far as ease is concerned - and being impressed. The referenced article does point out that all the parts are Off-the-shelf, hence the LEGO analogy. However that GUI looks a bit handy, I might just use that code myself, when it comes out.
Re: Wot IT shortage?
What I was hoping to convey was that any shortfall in the number of staff that management feel they require can easily be mitigated, to some extent at least, by better leadership and a clear vision of what they are wanting to achieve. Which would lead to greater efficiencies: including less techy-time taken up with non-technical issues - ones that are dumped on techies but that don't require their specialist (and we are told: scarce) skills.
Also that given a management layer with better technical skills and organising abilities, there would be less workplace stress, less wasted effort and that everyone would be a lot happier. There is a saying:
There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it again
which seems to summarise the waste and poor leadership that IT (and other technical careers) seem to suffer from.
Wot IT shortage?
So why is it then, that every time we advertise a vacancy there are dozens of applicants?
Sure, some of them can't even submit a CV without it containing disqualifyingly egregious style, grammar and spelling errors [like that last phrase ]. And some appear to have just listed whatever buzzwords Google threw up when they searched for the published job description.
However, there are *still* more qualified applicants than can practically be interviewed in any reasonable amount of time (esp. when you have a proper job, with its own deadlines and targets to juggle)
So, I call bullshit on this IT shortage. What there does appear to be is a shortage of talent that is able to understand technical issues their teams need to solve, that has little clue how to organise and marshall its resources and has no idea whatsoever what it they actually want to achieve from their IT departments. Fix those management issues and a lot of the workplace stress would simply evaporate. Hell, they might even be able to hang on to the IT talent - instead of it (us?) forever seeking employers who don't make headless chickens look like Mastermind contestants.
Dance together, but don't get Tango'd
> Array lifespans of four to five years seems to be the minimum
The key thing about storage is to not buy too much. That's where a partnership can be helpful.
Few companies will have small or zero growth requirements. They will know that their organic data growth will be X% per year. They will also know that the price of storage is ever-decreasing. That both gives them leverage and puts them in a spot.
On the one hand, it permits a buyer to dangle the carrot of long-term sales in front of a storage vendor: knowing that they will need a certain number of TB every year can be as attention-focussing as having their nuts in your fist. However being beholden to a single supplier for upgrades over a 2, 3 or 4 year term can lead them to (mistakenly) think it's they who have you by the short'n'curlies. And extricating yourself from what seemed like a good deal, when it all goes sour, can be an expensive and career damaging chore.
There is also a danger from dealing with the "Upstarts": those storage outfits who have been going a few years, but haven't joined the hallowed ranks of the "established" vendors. Apart from the obvious: them feeling the heat if the market turns nasty, there is also a big question of how they will support customers who are not in their mainstream marketing area. Will a U.S. based Upstart be ready, willing and able to provide excellent service to an EMEA-based organistion: or will you find yourself subcontracted out to the lowest, local, bidder? And at the back of the queue where feature requests and bug-fixes are concerned? There's also a consideration that a lot of Upstart's "growth" strategy can be summed up as: race for growth and sell out at the top. In which case you find your storage strategy has quickly become a dead-end business for one of the major players - who only bought the Upstart to get their customer base, or their tech. You will have gone from being a profitable fish in a smallish pond to being an annoying sideline in a sea of enterprise players.
A solution looking for a problem
> There's always NAT, of course, to keep IPv4 alive, but we're told that's rather 20th century:
IPv4 has one enormous advantage over IPv6: it's here already.
The v4 vs. v6 situation strikes me as similar to 3D-TV. Yes, it might well be better, but the old system is good enough. There are a few early adopters who have, well, adopted it early - but there doesn't seem to be much interest in the other 99.99% of the world tossing their perfectly good, functional, tried and tested systems merely on the say-so of a few "leaders".
NAT was brought in as a workaround for the impending filling up of IPv4 space and it's been very good as a workaround or that problem (much as Intel's arcane x86 architecture allowed them to back 16-bit addresses into an 8-bit world. It wasn't as pretty as the 68k linear space, but it worked well enough.) . And as far as the IoT is concerned I would be quite happy if my personal IoT was contained fully within a NAT'd environment - with little or no external "discovery" possible: or that *my* IoT be accessible only through a protocol gateway that was under my personal control: much like a router's firewall is, today.
I hope they're not *too* good
> the Bank of England's “ethical hackers” will attack 20 major banks and other financial institutions
One of the things that old consultants tell young consultants is:
Teach them everything they know, but not everything you know.
So one should not be surprised if the "ethical hackers" don't hold back one or two of the juicier holes as a sort of pension plan. Maybe the plan needs some extra-ethical hackers (one's who've already made their pile) to watch over the merely "ordinarily" ethical hackers?
Oh, and don't have the penetration testers stationed too close to any international airports.
Re: Top Floors
> the top floors will be a bar or a restaurant ...
Given the speed of this lift (one assumes it goes down as fast as it goes up), then I think I'd pass on the prospect of taking the elevator down, after a meal. Just in case my lunch wasn't traveling quite as fast as the rest of me.
How many of those to the pound?
Not a bad price, but why does the Amazon advertisement specify the price per kilo, too?
A better alternative
> The western world slowly has become less violent in everyday life, and that is because the ability to destroy your neighbour due to rage or stupidity or drunkenness or greed has been curtailed
I would suggest that the reason for less violent crime as "civilsation" improves is that people now have more alternatives for redress (and due to better laws and better enforcement, less need to "do it yourself"). In past times if you had a quarrel with someone there wasn't much you could do about it without it getting violent. You could possibly appeal to a higher authority - if one could be found who was neither biased nor easily bought: by either side. However, that would have been a time-consuming, costly and unreliable activity, as pretty much anything would come down to one person's word against another.
The reason that people neither want, nor need to "defend" themselves: either from baddies or from injustice is that hundreds of years of effort (not all of it good, it must be said - and with no suggestion that we've reached the ideal position yet) has produced a justice system that most people have confidence in. Further, most people are also reasonably sure that if they transgress, they will be caught.¹
It seems to me that Cody Wilson is preaching to his particular choir here. There is always a proportion (larger in some countries, smaller in others) of the populace who are socially disconnected, terminally paranoid (man!), feel both powerless and threatened and/or are permanently afraid of whatever mostly imaginary evils their national media report fixate on, sensationalise and hugely over-exaggerate the incidence of. In the USA this appears to be guns and gun-related crime: as so many people have guns, it feeds on itself. Hence in America, it is easy to exploit the fear and promote guns as being both necessary and "liberating".
It's my experience of westen europe that we don't have these basic fears of violence and armed threats and have much more faith in our system of laws and detection/enforcement. I would therefore expect that "gun nuts" [ to use a not entirely inaccurate term ] would have a difficult time gaining traction over here - and I sincerely hope that they fail.
 although it's interesting to note that law-abiding individuals have been shown to over-estimate their chances of being caught, if they do something bad. Whereas "crims" or people who are likely to become criminals have a much more optimistic view: that the chances of getting nicked is very low. Both sides are wrong.
The narcissism of small differences
> If such tiny UI refinements don't impress you ...
What does impress me, when I see it, are new features: things that I wanted to do in Version 1.0 that are now possible in Version 2.0. If they are things that I didn't even know I wanted to do (until I tried it), then that is a true improvement: real innovation.
But so far as Ubuntu goes, as a full-time user since version 8, I'm still waiting. Though to be fair, I'd probably say the same about any other O/S release, including OS/X or Windows. That WinXP still has such a large user-base would indicate that there are millions of other people who regard an O/S in the same way: unless there is a new killer app or feature, why change?
But so far as GUI design is concerned, the best thing it can be, is (like a good butler) completely invisible, yet indispensable at the same time. It should "know" what I am going to want and have it ready for me - with the minimum of fuss, time and keyclicks or mouse movement. Anything that comes between me and what I want to achieve is unwelcome.
You can sell anything to the young
> Nobody makes things that bad by accident, surely
They don't (it takes years of practice). However, if you make something truly bad, then you can still rely on the young, callow and stupid (meant in the nicest possible way, of course: let's call it trusting, open-minded and willing instead) to queue for hours to buy it. Provided of course you pitch it as being the latest thing that all their friends will have. Be the first on your street ... etc. etc.
For oldies however, it's a much harder sell. They (we?) tend to ask difficult questions, such as "yes, but what does it actually do?", or (case in point the up-coming Ubuntu LTS release) "but what will I be able to do with it, that I can't do with the old one?". There's also the not insignificant point that after some years, one tends to have all the stuff, clothes, gadgets and media that's useful, decorative or beneficial, already. After that it's more a case of just replacing worn out or broken stuff.
People with life-experience tend to be a lot more skeptical about novelty. Maybe it's a once bitten thing. Maybe it's a case of the money I have, I've had to work for (rather than being given an allowance, that just drops into my pocket), so I'm more cautious about what I spend it on. Whatever the reason, it's difficult for a wet-behind-the-ears sales person to sell to someone who can ask relevant questions, often based on experience, than it is to someone who just thinks "ooooh, shiney".
What that means is that all the marketing mulah will go on persuading the persuadable to spend their cash in one direction, or another. And not on the lost cause of enticing those who carefully read reviews, weigh up the pros and cons and then go off, in search of the best deal. What use is a full-page glossy ad, or 60 seconds of Superbowl publicity to those people?
Long term support - provided you don't change anything.
> Mint LTS. Install it, get everything working then look forward to several years of stability.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that (is there a smiley missing?)
LTS releases are fine, provided you want a system that's frozen in time - or will only have whatever applications the LTS team deign to (back)port to that particular software base.
However if you want a new application, or even a more modern version of an old application: maybe one with a must-have feature or bug-fix, then LTS is no help. You often find that these, desirable, updates are only available from the application provider or from their specialised suppository (!). And that *that* new release requires the latest version of a whole slew of non-LTS libraries and maybe other dependencies. So you end up veering off the "true path" of an LTS release and having to add all sorts of other new stuff. And all that other new stuff can very easily break the old stuff in the LTS release.
So in theory it's a nice idea, for the suits. But in practice I've never had an LTS release that was much use after 12-18 months.
What's in a name
If you're going to call the "space port" Baconur, then surely the
rocket launch vehicle should be renamed Blue Streaky. Or would that be a bit too rash - errr.
People will buy this simply because the numbers are bigger than on competing phones.
They do it with phone camera resolutions (and PnS cameras, too) - bigger is better - even though no phone has a lens that makes multi-megapixel cameras worthwhile (nor do they have screens that are capable of displayng such images).
However none of that matters in the uncritical, see-want-have, mine's
more expensive bigger than yours, specification and useless feature-driven world of mobile phone marketing.
If a manufacturer wanted to really revolutionise the world of tablet and mobile phone screens, they'd make non-reflective ones. Ones that could actually be read on anything approaching a sunny day.
The immediate and the important.
> A programming blunder ... were sent out late – specifically, 368 days after the previous annual statements
Surely you mean a TESTING blunder: that the code (or more likely: the integrated environment in which it was run) was not put through a sufficiently realistic set of test scenarios. Or if it was, then nobody looked at the results.
A more interesting possibility is that the code was tested AND the bug was found. But t'management thinking was: "it won't affect us for a year ... there's plenty of time to sort it out later". But somehow that never happened.
Re: Cuing the obligatory audiophile discussion regarding sample rates...
> Thing is, signal phase accuracy is very important in producing a realistic stereo sound-field
And let's not forget that at a frequency of 10kHz, the audio wavelength is about an inch and a half. So even slight head movements will affect the phase relationship. Therefore to get optimum listening pleasure, it's vitally important to staple your ears to the back of the chair.
Real audiophiles recommend you use nothing less than gold-plated, oxygen-free staples and a hardwood chair - preferably 1,000 year-old, organically grown, english oak: to remove any possibility of unwanted reverberations.
A good whine
So Blu-ray players can provide ultra-high quality sounds (and pictures that aren't too bad, either).
We know from everyday life that apart from a very few, who live in complete silence / solitude, that decent sound quality and reproductive apparatus (!) will never get used to its full potential - or anything close too that. When was the last time that any city-dweller had a moment of perfect quiet? With no sirens, passing trucks, passing aircraft,
pissing toilets a'flushing, fridges humming, other occupants talking, playing computer games and people in the flat above with their trendy (and utterly selfish) bare wooden floors, or even the death-watch beetles chomping through your joists?
Having the ultimate in signal to noise ratio emanating forth from your speakers is pointless, if the ambient SNR is lower.
It's like video. We are constantly told to buy bigger screened TVs, ultra 4K resolution - yet so many people watch most of their video content on a tiny little phone or tablet and listen to highly compressed audio through Poundland's ear-buds. As for Youtube: how can something soooo lo-res be so popular? If the claims for HD (and other) TVs are valid?
So yes, have your FLAC formatted music if you live in an anechoic chamber, or your 4K TVs if you have a perfectly darkened room. But for most people, these things are wasted on us. Just like most of us couldn't tell the difference between Dom Perignon and Lidl's cheapest.
Not your average customer
> ordered ... in November and received confirmation it was on backorder and due to ship on 3 March.
So the guy was prepared to wait 3 or 4 months for something he could have bought off Amazon, from stock (well: in stock today - maybe not then) and presumably from any number of other companies.
He then goes "Mr Angry" on them (OK, that might be reasonable, if they'd sent him a power cord instead of some sort of headset) and starts quoting the ins-and-outs of british law to a hungarian customer services person.
Given the disparity between the two sides' stories, there does appear to be more than we're being told here. But this won't put me off buying from Misco - though I'd never wait that long for a backorder.
Free to fail
> Have you ever tried to build a business case which competes with free?
Yes, thank you.
As the next line alludes, you invoke the fear of uncertainty, the downside of the lack of indemnity (yes, it's free: but who can you sue if it all goes wrong?), and the small matter that the exec who signs off isn't spending his/hers/its own money - so "free" isn't that big a deal and can make them look amateurish if they are proposing a merely "domestic" quality product.
In the past, you could also invoke the lack of standards, ISO-ness, SLAs and all the other foundations upon which an IT empire could be (shakily) built.
However, as of now one can look at the financials of the suppliers:
> Those valuations are going to plummet
and the impending shake-out in the industry as some major players disappear up their own internet connections. Who'd be the one to recommend a free/cheap/low-cost supplier that could easily be out of business in a year, or less?
> I don't necessarily trust them to come clean
Yet you trust the results of some website's online scanner - that checks a third party's website and tells you it's clean (or not)?
The basic problem is that you can never tell what someone else's scanner will actually do. If it does find a vulnerability, will it truthfully notify you, or will it say "yup, that's fine" and as soon as you log in, run the hack and snarf your login details - or add that site to a list of known vulnerable sites and then sell it on?
The only people who have a genuine interest in securing a site is the site owners. So provided they can supply the requisite credentials to demonstrate they are "clean", there should be no reason to run your own tests. Especially when you cannot be sure the tests are valid, or legitimate.
as Alan Parsons once wrote:
If we call for the proof and then question the answers, only the doubt will grow
Re: A bit like the SimmStick
Yes it does. Or (my favourite from that era): the TINI. That was a SIMM format with everything on board - except USB (it wasn't around then) and video. It had I/O serial, ethernet, n/v memory and RAM and a 100MHz 8 bit processor. And you wrote code for it in Java.
Whaddayamean you've never heard of it? It *should* have been a success, but it wasn't. Just like this proof of concept won't be. The reason: it wasn't picked up and integrated into "stuff". And neither will this version of the Pi. There simply isn't the need for it in industrial systems.
An old dog
... see it's latest trick.
I really can't see the point of this. The Pi's processor is slow, limited and obsolete - why would people want to use it in new designs? Why would anyone expend time and effort in redesigning such a board when they could have done the world a favour: tossed it and come up with a modern design, using contemporary components and with an up-to-date specification?
Now I know that people get attached to their first car, their first computer and old valve radios. But the only reason I can think of for people to still have some lovin' for the Pi is because they haven't raised their heads up and seen what 2014 has brought in terms of new designs with so much more usability. if they did, they'd never go back.
Having a cracking time
> attempting to break them over the next 12 months ... attacking all submissions in every way possible
One would hope (but not expect) that these attempts would extend into the world of social engineering and coercion - just as they would in the real world.
Password security has technical integrity as only one part of the whole regime.
password security system would contain features that would be unknowable to, or unusable by, people to whom the security credentials did not belong
watching them watching you
> iWindow, to block out all the nastiness of the real world and replace it with shiny happy vistas
Hmmm, and then have little webcams in them so your windows can watch you.
The support that never was
> the slow but steady death of customer service
In truth, we've never had good customer service. Sure, some owner-run shops may have "the guy" who knows the in's and out's of all the limited range of stuff they sell. But that is the closest you'll ever get - and you're paying high-street premiums for their over-the-counter stuff you buy. Not exactly 21st century, chasing the cheapest price no matter what, do everything online, way of making purchases.
The biggest problem is that so much of our "stuff" is too complex, too cheap to have been designed and tested properly and too mass-produced to have spare parts available, or for every single item to work perfectly (even the first time).
So yes, it is annoying when you have to call an anonymous call-centre. While I'm not trying to defend them, they do have their own problems: such as the utter, mind-boggling, ignorance of most of their callers. People who neither know what they have bought, are aware of its limitations nor sometimes even realise it needs batteries for it to work (confession time: I was, once, firmly convinced that the TV had gone "phut" until another person, who shall remain nameless, confessed to having removed the batteries from the remote control as the ones in her torch had gone flat). It's these sorts of problems, which must account for the majority of a call centre's enquiries that their systems are meant to deal with - not the geek who calls up to know how to change the dynamic dns settings on their router.
Come and look at this!
As a senior IT bod said to me one time, when I was doing some work for a mobile phone outfit.
"it's an IBM engineer getting his hands dirty".
And so it was: a hardware guy, with his sleeves rolled up and
blood grime on his hands, replacing a failed board in an IBM mainframe.
The reason it was so noteworthy, even in the early 90's was because it was such a rare occurrence. It was probably one of the major selling points of IBM computers (the other one, with just as much traction, is the ability to do a fork-lift upgrade in a weekend and know it will work.) that they didn't blow a gasket if you looked at them wrong.
The reliability and compatibility across ranges is why people choose this kit. It may be arcane, old-fashioned, expensive and untrendy - but it keeps on running.
The other major legacy of OS/360 was, of course, The Mythical Man Month who's readership is stil the most reliable way of telling the professional IT managers from the wannabees who only have buzzwords as a knowledge base.
Pump the Primes
Judging by the specs and what the advertisement promotes, this box appears to be the "front end" for Amazon Prime users.
Although it can play android / phone style games, it's not going to supplant a hard-core gamer's platform and most people will have whatever other games they like on their phone or tablets anyway. Most of its other features and attributes appear to be aimed at content consumers: specifically the content that Prime users can get for free - if you leave aside the small matter of paying £80 a year for "free" content.
(And given that Amazon Prime costs $79 in USAland and £79 over here, what's the betting that the hardware will exhibit an equally usurious price-translation, too?)
Data is like oil
A lot of (western) countries dislike being reliant on countries that they consider less stable, or not idealogically aligned with their views, as their only source of oil and gas. What Snowden's security leaks have done is to make a lot of (western) countries think about their data security in the same way they think about their energy security. And for the same reasons.
What we learned from the story of the Natwest Three is that one party in the UK can strike a deal with another party in the UK, that is legal in the UK. However if the emails which make up that deal touch american soil, then american laws are applied and - since the UK government is about as useful at looking after its citizens interests as a Rottweiler is at guarding your sausages - you're banged up : Jim. Unless you can personally afford to foot the bill to defend yourself against the might (and drawn out proceedings) of the US legal system.
Sp apart from not wishing a foreign power to know everything you ever committed to email, phone conversations, downloads or Dropbox, there is the not insignificant matter of legal hegemony, which is just as wide-reaching and just as insidious.
Re: It's already here (and has been for years)
> I understand Trevor to be talking about generalised robotic help
Yes, I got that, too. However we'll never get there.
The reason is simply that as soon as we get a new level of automation, we'll fill all our excess free time, not with sleeping - as that needs no robotic help at all, but with other trivia. Then we'll complain that it is taking up all our leisure time - and wouldn't it be great if we could automate it away .... and so on
It's already here (and has been for years)
> something that automates away some tedious bit so that I can sleep more
Pop the bread in the toaster - go off and do something else.
Drop your laundry in the washer then go to the shops
While you're there, buy a prepacked sandwich for lunch - and a readymeal for later
On the way home, pop the motor through the car wash in a couple of minutes
Have to talk to someone in Dusseldorf, Raleigh or Wellington? Surprise! you can just pick up the phone,
We have so many time and labour saving devices - and have had for so long - that they are fully incorporated into our lives. To the extent where they are invisible and just taken as normal. However, we don't have a single robotic slave that does all of the tedious chores we are too lazy, or don't have time for (which amounts to the same thing: prioirities). No. Our "robotic butlers" are distributed through the home and our daily lives and show up in the form of gadgets and as the service industries which are such a large part of our lives - and a massive (if low paid) part of the workforce.
One good thing
That must have been the first media discussion of british IT entrepreneurship for a long, long time where nobody mentioned the Raspberry Pi. Maybe there is some hope after all.
The lost moment
> The test rocket motor enclosure sits way below the box at the end of a long carbon fibre rod:
... and when it fires, there will be (hopefully) a nice big force imparted to the end of the rod. Given that the other end of the rod is attached to something else, what will start spinning?
Re: It's the words: stupid.
> Therein lies the success of the propagandists denying AGW
Tagging anyone who asks questions about climate change is generally unhelpful. If there are any climate change skeptics about, any more - though I've never met one so I'd put them in the same category as "flat earther's" and evolution deniers, then I think the failure to convince them of otherwise must be laid at the feet of the people who write these reports. Generally once people are faced with unequivocal evidence and a consensus among the "clever bastards" they are easily convinced of a situation - take gravity as an example.
The basic issue is not one of if the climate is changing. The basic issue (now) is how to communicate to the average person what its consequences will be if no preventative measures are taken - and secondly: what they (we?) must be prepared to do.
So talking about intangibles and risks in general and non-specific ways won't sway many people. Especially if they are being asked to reduce their consumption of almost everything, pay more for the energy they use and have more taxes taken off them to pay for "green" initiatives. If you want the general population to do more than talk, demonstrate and separate their rubbish then there must be a consensus among the "scientists" regarding what tangible effects will come to pass - and how the general population (of the countries being told to change) will be. Writing a report that says one thing and then having pundits or competing scientists going to the media and saying something else (or even, as this report illustrates: not evening having a single unified definition of what climate change is) won't further the cause, or convince ordinary people to put their hand in their pockets and make material sacrifices.
Getting agreement within the climate change community of the specific effects, the timescale and required solutions is the first, and very necessary, step to winning people's hearts and minds. That has yet to happen.
It's the words: stupid.
Contents may settle
Your home might be at risk if payments are not made
We may forward your details to some selected marketing partners
The problem with the report (or at least the summary) is that it doesn't say anything definite. Yes, it claims there is a Very high risk of vulnerability to various things, and risk of loss of some others. But we hear that sort of stuff every day, so all these new risks, dangers and all the rest just merges into the clamour for our attention.
An attention which is almost fully taken up with trying to get past the next set of traffic lights. Trying to fart silently in the meeting and hoping no-one will notice. Wondering where the next credit-card payment will come from or why that if statement with 4 conditions always comes out as TRUE.
If these guys (or any of the other climate change bods) wants our attention - or even more: for someone, somewhere to actually DO something, they need much more than wishy-washy risks and dangers. They need numbers, dates, times and places. Who will die - specifically - their names please, when and what will the photos look like on the news reports. Who will have to pay. Which wars will break out and how much civil unrest will there be - and in which towns - and did they for for our party.
Without specifics, there is little for our leaders to lead us away from. People don't respond well to intangible, distant and unquantifed threats that may (or may not) happen at some indeterminate time in the future. More than that: they really don't feel the need to change their lives or shell out more cash to fix problems that they can't actually see - and for which the solutions cannot be agreed (do we need more of this, less of that -- or what?) amongst the scare-mongerers.
To get people to address the problems of climate change, there needs to be much more certainty, Reports must show clarity and be specific in their claims. Who, where, when, how-much. Without actual, actionable targets they will be producing a sixth, seventh, eighth report. All of which will say the same sorts of things, with ever more shrill language. All of which will get a little media attention and people saying "we really should start thinking about what we can do" - and then doing nothing since their attentions will be focused on the immediate problems of that day, as they always have been and always will be.
... on a website far away there was a presenter called Joanne. She had a piece of work called lpportraits which depicted (quite well, I thought) this exact same thing.
The year was 2011, the website was rocketboom and the link is here
Re: A slice off the top
> press f11.
The problem with fullscreen mode is that then I lose access all the other open stuff on my (should have mentioned: Linux Mint) workspace - and changing workspaces then means coming out of FS mode. All because the application designers need to stop, take a step or two back from their immediate applications, and think.
Linux had a small window (groan) of opportunity to get ahead of the game when Windows8
was released escaped. A radical new design, based on users and usability might just have made a difference.
A slice off the top
> saved on vertical screen real estate
Sadly that's only a token gesture.
The real problem is the application windows - and the design of the applications themselves. While they still insist on the "old fashioned" format of titles, options and menus taking up space at the top of the app, having the desktop saving a few pixels won't make a whole lot of difference.
As an example, take the system I'm typing this on. A 23 inch screen that sports a paltry 11¼" in the vertical direction.Of which Firefox gobbles 1¾" - leaving 9¼ - or 235mm for those of us in the modern era - (after the bottom margin is accounted for) of usable, content-filled space. - That's nearly 20% of my precious screen height taken up with stuff which is only there because FF was designed when 4:3 CRTs where all there was.
Now I appreciate that LCD screens only (cheaply) come in sizes and form-factors that are meant for video replay - and that I could, possibly, turn the monitor through 90°, or get a second one. However, the principle still applies: that application design has not kept up with screen layouts and could do with a thorough overhaul to get it into the 21st century.
Oh, and BTW. Trusty Tahr is an anagram of Ruthy Tarts (or Tarty Ruths, but I don't think any Ruths would be too impressed), which is much easier to say.
> it made perfect sense to bring the aircraft over
And here was me hoping it would be flown over on the back of a Jumbo Jet
Re: Margaret Hodge "shocked to her bone"
Yes, it makes you think that finally someone's put a TASER to good use.
Lawmakers and the law
> ... laws put in place to combat terrorism to investigate an employee
The most worrying aspect is that someone who plays a key role in creating laws, is so clueless about how they get used.
Hodgey-poos seems to think that once a law is enacted, there is some sort of magical process that makes lawyers read it and think "yes, this is obviously only to be applied in certain, restricted situations - it's not a general-purpose law that could be applied universally".
The basic point is that law is like badly written computer code that isn't tested before it's released. It's vague, imprecise, subject to interpretation by those (judges) who execute it and doesn't have any IF THEN ELSE protections to govern when and how it is invoked. Think SQL: it describes the desired outcome not the process of getting there.
Persons, places and things
So if you tweeted:
It's great to see Paris again or
Just got back to Devon, or even
Philly is a sight for sore eyes
Would you infer a location, the name of a partner or even just being reunited with your pet dog?
Given the old adage that There are lots of girls in Watford called Chelsea but no girls in Chelsea called Watford, this sort of "magicking data out of nothing" is a very haphazard affair.
Do this if you want to destroy IT
> "You have to let the user work in the way that they want." ... while unifying their environment
How does that work - exactly?
You can work the way you want to, as long as you use a "unified" environment. That sounds to me a lot like You can have any colour you want, so long as it's black.
Personally I have always considered standards to be a good thing (so long as they are sensible ones). So we have standard sizes for paper, at standard length*width ratios (in almost every country, except for a few "outliers") - so that you don't need to buy "HP" sized paper to fit in their, and only their, printers. We have standards for petrol, so that a Ford car will run on any brand - and we have standards for I.T. so that someone can fill your job while you're off sick, or in the slim chance you get promoted (hint: never make yourself indispensable: people that a company can't do without can't be promoted) or find a better job.
So to have every worker doing things their own way is the shortcut to chaos. Even if they do decide to document it, then "doing it their own way" doesn't even mean the documentation has to be in your national language - or Klingon.
Apart from the basic mistakes in the thinking, this piece of inspiration from Microsoft just sounds like a collection of marketing phrases and management b/s mixed together in an attempt to convince people who should know better, that following this path will get them a better, happier and more efficient IT implementation - and workers who feel enabled and valued (and since it's always and only ever about money - willing to work for less, too). Right up, that is, until the time when you get someone else's "done their own way" work to pick up and support.
It'll all end in tears,
Might want to re-think the name
Maybe I'm just having a Paris in the the spring moment, but I keep reading the product name as v-arse.
Re: Equal or !=
> It's not PC gone mad. It's PC gone mentally challenged. Thanks
Actually I was hoping for a variant on EFAULT¹ (bad address) when you get a pointer wrong - or in this case the PC (Program Counter) as a play on
words acronyms. Looks like I didn't set the gag up well enough.
 man errno
Equal or !=
> there is no place for ... any other kind of exclusive attitudes
So provided one's comments are equally offensive or abusive to all people, you're fine?
( how about an addition to <errno.h> EOFFENCE - PC gone mad ? )
A question of balance
> the 20p and 50p had an odd number of sides
Yes, but you can't have fun and games seeing how many you can stack, on edge.
Re: From the horse's mouth...
> ...an old friend of mine is a fairly senior manager at a well regarded airline. He says no one has a clue what happened and that lines up well with Mr Page's last paragraph.
And that's where the effort should be focused.
If I was the chinese authorities, I'd charter another plane of the same type and fly it over the same route. Then replicate the actions we *know* happened, gather the same information from the same radars and satellites (assuming the malaysian authorities will comply - if not, that tells you something, by itself) and see what possibilities turn out to be impossibilities and who's telling porkies.
Re: Here's more sensible analysis...
I was just about to post the exact same link (as published by a commentard from The Independent, this morning).
Sadly, I have to say that the simplest explanation is the most likely: fire & crash.
The worrying thing is that so many people are so ready to believe intricate conspiracy theories about terrorism and/or crime. Though I guess this is the news media's version of nature abhorring a (information) vacuum. Gotta instill some fear to sell the papers.
Multiverse? So 1990's, THIS universe is someone's simulation
So the theory goes:
For the TL:DR types: The universe is sooooo big that it inevitably contains beings with far more technological ability then we have. However, even at our level we build mathematical models and computer simulations. Therefore it's reasonable to expect that so do these super-beings. And since simulations are much easier to make than "reality" is, there are probably far more simulated universes than real ones.
One question that they might like to
answer simulate would be: what would other universes look like? And one way to find out, would be to run some models. Hello!!!! here's one and we're in it.
Of course, this theory fades into infinity, as those super-beings are almost certainly inside someone else's simulation .. and so on.
- +Comment Trips to Mars may be OFF: The SUN has changed in a way we've NEVER SEEN
- Vid Google opens Inbox – email for people too stupid to use email
- Back to the ... drawing board: 'Hoverboard' will disappoint Marty McFly wannabes
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- Google+ goes TITSUP. But WHO knew? How long? Anyone ... Hello ...