621 posts • joined Wednesday 10th June 2009 15:33 GMT
I could live with that - if they give my users something that's a non-terrifying incremental shift from previous versions, which they can use without extensive retraining, is policy-configurable and so forth, *then* I can see it getting a look-in. Not before, not until.
I don't know where...
...that 38% that prefer Windows 8 are coming from, but the initial reaction here when users have been confronted with a Windows 8 UI is complete vapour-lock; people draw comparisons with the Office changeover to the Ribbon, but this is not that. This is a hard mental bluescreen followed by a request for "proper Windows". So we'll stay on 7, thanks.
Stop, naturally, followed by INACCESSIBLE_USER_INTERFACE...
Google didn't implement ActiveSync to benefit Microsoft; they implemented it because they didn't have anything that worked as well, and it was cheaper to license it than to home brew an alternative.
Re: Who feels sorry for Microsoft ?
We have had an *assload* of UEFI machines delivered, with secure boot. Then we turned it off. Also, we can turn on Legacy mode in the BIOS with no hassle. "UEFI enforcement" my hairy backside.
Re: Google does not even have the choice
Then they should probably allow Microsoft to serve the ads. Sorted.
Re: Genius from MS
Well said, El Andy.
You know that thing...
...when you're arguing with someone, and it's clear that they're not replying to what you *actually* said, but rather to what they expect or want you to have said? That sounds *exactly* like this.
I know what you mean, but (leaving aside the fact that vehicular manslaughter/homicide doesn't exist in the UK) he was convicted of fraud, becuase that's what the judge here had the ability to do. If you want him to serve time for the *deaths* that he caused, I agree, but that is something that should be dealt with by those countries *where* they occurred and after he is extradited to them to face trial (which I would wholeheartedly support). We can't just make up laws on the fly when we find the existing ones inconvenient; then they wouldn't be laws at all.
Regarding your example, we actually already have specific provision for manslaughter as a consequence of an unlawful act - have a butcher's at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/ , specifically the section on Unlawful Act Manslaughter.
Re: Libretto :)
You wouldn't have been; I worked at a place where we had a pool one that we used for network diags and taking off to remote sites. IIRC, ours was something a P233MMX, and we had to install a 3Com CardBus ethernet card to hook it up to the network. It was a little gem to use, very capable, easy to hook up to monitors, mice, keyboards and so forth, so we could bob over to a site with something less bulky than a paperback, and have a decently powerful fully-featured PC when we got there. I still kind of miss it *sniff*.
That's a 1.8GHz dual-core hyperthreading Atom, so I think performance is probably going to be pretty decent.
Re: Multiple desktops on windows...
@Fatman - My experience has been that, actually, most Windows users are perfectly capable of finding whatever applications they want. By the way, could you perhaps post using the word "Microsoft", but spelt with a dollar sign? That one always cracks me up...
@Robert Long 1 - Re: Multiple desktops on windows...
Yes, only 4 - which matches Workspaces on the Dell; there are other options for Windows, however, free and paid for:
http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/ - up to 9
http://virt-dimension.sourceforge.net/ - Unlimited
http://vdm.codeplex.com/ - Unlimited
...and so forth.
I'm such a helpful soul... :-P
Multiple desktops on windows...
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/cc817881 - OK, so you have to download and install it, but it's there and free.
Tablets will continue
to sell loads until everyone who wants one has one. Then they'll drop off too. Make hay while the sun shines, slab shifters.
Re: What's That Whirring Noise?
They would have to find all the bits and weld them back into an aircraft first, after this current mob's act of spiteful vandalism.
Thanks for taking the hit for us there...
@Derezed Re: next step - outsourcing
Two words: area bombing...
Perhaps, but Nokia's are a *lot* better.
Re: Congratulations PC makers! @Ledswinger
I'm on board with *some* of what you say, but I think you're glossing over a couple important practicalities. £300-£400 business laptops typically don't have proper docking connectors (we're looking at Dell Vostros or HP Probook S machines) and thus would need something like generic USB docks (which I've used and some are OK). Some support external monitors, some don't, but typically you're looking at another hundred or so for those that do (or do adequately) - and these require the user to use their laptop's PSU, plug in a USB lead also, perhaps a network cable (although the Kensingtons we've been using have built-in networking), and generally do not work with the laptop's own video adapter (which can result in reduced graphics performance). Also, if you're running a big screen, it'd be handy if that dock were the USB3 version and your laptop supported USB3. A laptop that supports a proper docking solution is generally north of £450 ex VAT, the docking stations themselves (with built-in power supply, NIC and video out from the laptop's video adapter) are frequently north of £90 for a basic dock, another £90 for a monitor stand and so on - the costs mount up (I am assuming that one already has a monitor). Conversely, I have upgraded well-specced laptops that were three, four, even 5 years old, that work with docking stations that we already have and the users have been delighted with the effects of the £130 I spent doing so. I would also note that if one's now buying cheap machines you have to factor in a shorter lifespan for those as well.
It's all very well giving the location
...but what's the altitude?
Seriously, though, good writeup and it sounds excellent.
So the net effect of this is...
....that even if there *is* broadcast TV after this charge is imposed, we won't be able to receive it on our existing kit, forcing us to throw out anything with a freeview receiver built into it to replace them with other boxes to do exactly the same at our expense. Sod the £200m p.a. charge, Ofcom's plan will force all of us to pay for it, chucking out our tellies, DVRs, freeview boxes, freeview enabled disc player/recorders of whatever flavour just so they can show a nice little earner to the treasury. Ofcom truly are useless bastards.
That is a daft reason; it suggests that a Western cannot be serious, for a start, and that's just bloody ridiculous. The Searchers, Cheyenne Autumn, yes, High Noon, The Shootist, ANYTHING by Peckinpah, you seriously think they don't say anything about the human condition? Hell's teeth, the fact that High Noon translates so well to a different planet at hundreds of years remove indicates that its themes are universal. Suggesting that a sci-fi movie that deals with those same themes can't be serious is bizarre to say the least.
The Kings Fund estimated the additional cost of smoking related conditions at about £1.5bn per annum, last time they published any research. *Duty alone* on tobacco was raking in over £8bn and VAT was charged on the total price including duty, so that added maybe another couple of billion or so (although that VAT might have been charged on whatever else the smoker might have bought instead of tobacco). The £8bn is utterly tobacco dependent, however.
Given that nanchatte was responding to:
"But that gets all the Guardian-reading, leather-elbow-patched, left-wing, bleeding-heart-liberal-hippies knickers in a twist, because the fail to understand anything about required power output and risk!"
...your whingeing about "vulgarity and crude ad hominem" is, at best, misplaced. The "politics of the world" are a lot more compex than you allow, and nanchatte makes a very good point, which your own response tends to support. nanchatte is posting in support of nuclear power (despite living near Fukushima, and adopting a commendably calm and balanced approach), and merely noting that there appears to be rather a lot of lazy stereotyping with regard to the issue. But, one supposes, you have "no need to let facts confuse you, you have your mind made up..." eh?
Re: @Terry Barnes
Right, yes, because obviously the problem here is that we have laws against theft, not that someone broke them.
Re: @Cameron Colley
No, it marks Holwell down as someone breaking the law and consequently probably not someone particularly concerned with whether the kit was even safe, let alone whether it worked. It marks the council spokesbod as working for an organization that is responsible and law abiding. Guess what, if you start from the basis that you're half-inching your stock from stuff that belongs to your employer, and you're not concerned with niceties such as safety, whether it works or not and you build into your "business model" that utter disregard for both your employer *and* the luckless schmuck that you're flogging the stuff to, yes, you can make money at it. That doesn't mean that you're right, just unprincipled.
Re: Cameron Colley @El Presidente
That's what a lot of commentards don't seem to get - if the Council flogs old kit, they are doing so in the course of a business and *they are responsible for it*, andin most cases cannot exclude all liability for it.
Re: Go ahead, Offend the Atomic top brass. Make their day.
I suppose it 'd be a case of moving 2e2's business to the mushroom cloud...
...said no-one at all.
Re: Lewis misses the point
I thought the problem at Jutland was shells that DID go bang, all of them, at once, along with the battlecruisers containing them...?
@James Micallef - Re: Legal, illegal, scheissegal
I'm dubious of the logic behind the proposition that, say, a Nexus 7 changes from a tablet to a phone merely by being bought with or without HSPA.
@AC Re: It would be insane not to release this retrospectively for RT
Given that I can pick up my mail from and synch my calendar and contacts with our company Exchange server on *most* Android devices (I don't use Apple) and can't on RT, then your comment is simply daft.
Re: If the Conservatives win the next General Election
The LibDems are going to cease to exist as a force at the next election. They've alienated their own voters, anyone who might have jumped ship from Labour and a whole raft of undecideds. Disenchanted Tories will go UKIP, disenchanted LibDems of a lefty persuasion will go Labour or Green (possibly Plaid in Wales, maybe some will head SNP in Scotland - assuming Scotland is still part of the UK) and only the neoliberal orange-bookers'll be left. And good riddance to the treacherous bastards.
They probably should have gone for Duke though - "Don't have time to play with myself!"
Re: Doctors caring & empathetic?
Because she gets paid a metric fuckton more than a mechanic. Because human beings are generally assumed to be a little more important than cars. Because humans actually do have feelings and can be hurt whereas cars can only be broken or fixed. However, I would note that as an anaesthetist it's somewhat unlikely that she'll actually have to deal with people in any state other than unconsciousness (unless she screws up, in which case, hey, Adomako here we come), so she'll probably be able to go through her entire career without it being an issue.
Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...
"Obambi"? "Libtard"? You lose. Automatically.
Re: "Guns don’t kill people"
I'm intrigued that Matt has to cast around to 1927 to find someone using a method other than a gun to conduct a mass killing of any notable scale in the US and even that was carried out with a series of explosive devices (and those were carried out with dynamite and pyrotol which are now controlled explosives).
Leaving that aside, his central thesis appears to be that if legislation to control and regulate firearms ownership would not absolutely prevent all massacres with 100% certainty, it isn't worth doing; anyone supporting increased regulation must satisfy this burden of 100% certainty. On the other hand, he apparently believes that mandatory screening of schoolchildren and forced psychiatric treatment *is* worth doing. Presumably, he can demonstrate that *that* would be 100% effective? If not, then applying his own burden of proof, *that* is not worth doing either.
I note that he assumes that there is a test that would demonstrate that someone is "potentially problematic", which appears to be sufficient of a diagnosis in his mind to mandate a number of consequences, from removal of that person's right to own firearms (a right enjoyed by people lucky enough to not be labelled potentially problematic), to psychiatric treatment (rather negating his assertion that noone's rights would be abrogated by such measures). Equating a quick personality test used for basic recruitment screening with that is frankly laughable. There is no "psychopath test" - hell, even the term "psychopath" is hotly contested and not used by most practitioners (it's used neither in DSM V nor in the WHO's ICD) - so I doubt you'll just be able to stick a pin in someone and see whether they produce a psycho-ish culture in a petrie dish.
No-one (outside of the straw man that Matt's conjured fully formed and armed from his Jovian brow) has argued that gun control is 100% effective in preventing mass killings. What we *can* say is that mass killings are thankfully rarer in jurisdictions where firearms ownership is regulated - here in the UK, we have had three incidents since 1987 (Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria); how many have there been in the US over the same period? That they are more difficult to carry out without access to weapons with a high rate of fire and large magazine capacities. That legislation is no more onerous than the regulation applied to cars and trucks (and that, therefore, those drawing a spurious analogy by attempting to classify those along with guns as "weapons" ought to accept such regulation anyway). That the 2nd amendment has *never* been carte blanche for every person to own any kind of weapon and that it is a gross distortion to pretend that it ever was. That, yes, easy access to mental health services is *also* part of a solution, albeit that that's never going to be 100% effective either.
You are not going to be able to eliminate the possibility of a mass shooting 100% while there are guns in the world, but you *can* reduce its likelihood and make it more difficult. Better legislation is part of that.
It is hellaciously annoying and I'm almost certain that it's counterproductive. I don't generally buy stuff from companies that have honed my mild dislike of them into a thermal lance of hatred and despite...
I keep getting emails through from "Autonomy: an HP Company", but it seems as though they're to do with everything under the sun. Backup, virtualisation - not what I'd associated the name with. It almost feels as though they have a name that they don't really know what to do with.
Google Apps fo Business Ad
I know the Vulture is an ad-supported vulture, but that Google Apps for Business ad is taking the mick - how fricking tall? Seriously, it's about a quarter of the screen height. Perhps running it down one side would be less obtrusive?
Having left it running...
...with a few tabs open overnight and come back in to find it consuming over 900MB and choking when it attempted a page refresh, I'm less than thrilled. Maybe it's just my machine, though.
Yes, they should move to those much more secure open source products, like Rub...oh, wait...
@El Zed - Re: I'd be happy to lobby Google for a youtube app for ms phones
Four words: LAN Manager for Unix. Now THERE was a joyful experience...
"Ten... tech stocking fillers" - which was one of the most blatant, pathetic and utterly, irremediably worthless pieces of click-bait to ever sully the monitor of a Reg Reader. The rapidity with which its thread was closed may or may not have anything to do with the overwhelming preponderance of commenters pointing out what an egregiously worthless piece of crap it was.
Salaries still exist in socialist and mixed economies, and currently it's rather the work of the people who can't dodge their taxes that contributes to the profits of the people and organizations that do.
Re: @Steve Crook
I absolutely agree with JimmyPage - it smacks of airbrushing the less comfortable aspects of our history.
Re: Hear, hear!
'73-85 you say? I still haven't forgiven those little bastards, even if everyone else has!
No, they bail them out with taxes gathered from normal people who can't divert their income to Luxembourg or the Caymans.
Looking at the ...
...nicely understated, sleek little Galaxy S Advance on my desk at the moment, I would have to assume that you're talking about a different Samsung.