3459 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
I was at a meeting last week with one of the engineering companies we work for. They're a small firm, with only a few million turnover, in a specialist area, and the product list is only 17 pages long (which includes about 5-10 options per item. So nothing huge. Yet they've just implemented a computerised stock control / quote system. This needed a code for every part and sub-assembly. They have 11,000 product codes!
They put out work for things like enclosures, castings and obviously they buy in fasteners and washers. But there are quite a few small fittings, that they might only use on one or two products. Which sell in the hundreds a year.
So I can see a niche for 3D printing. Instead of holding stock of huge numbers of rarely used, simple, parts - I can easily see it becoming economic to have a small printer in the corner of the factory. It'll be a while before you want to use it for anything complicated, but if you need a few simple fittings it could easily be cheaper than having to maintain stock, and keep up with 10 or 20 extra suppliers.
You get those funny economies, where you could end up making your own part for 10p, that you could buy in bulk for 1p each, and still be ahead on the deal because you don't have to order, stock and store all that extra stuff.
Re: I'm all for advances in technology
Guns cost bugger all, in the grand scheme of things. Certainly if you're a loony dictator, with murder in mind. And you can always pay your own population to make them the old fashioned way. So I don't think this tech is going to make a great deal of difference.
Remember, 'guns don't kill people - rappers do.'
Re: Frickin Laser
raving angry loony,
I've got the SyFy Channel on line 1 for you. Apparently they're very interested in your script idea about a group of scientists who attempt to 3D print sharks. Don't worry if you've no experience of writing and no ear for dialogue. That's not considered important...
I can't see Elop being the right man for the job
At Nokia Elop wimped out. They had all these competing products and projects, and rather than sort out the mess and go with something they had, he dumped the lot and went Windows. A perfectly rational decision, in my opinion, despite the conspiracy theories. However, could a better CEO have been able to bang some management heads together, sort out the tangle, and make use of all that lovely R&D Nokia had so far wasted?
The reason I say this, is that Microsoft seems to be in the same mess. There are all these different management fiefdoms, and upper management don't ever seem to settle the bun-fights between them. Rather they seem to sit back, and see who wins. Which is usually nobody. The only recent exception seems to be Sinofsky, who half-managed to get Metro through the bureaucracy, on many different devices, although it wasn't as merged as he said/planned.
The difference is that MS still don't have the same level of competition on their main money-spinners, Windows and Office. Although it's getting there. Whereas Nokia were already deep in the doodoo when they called Elop in.
MS need a visionary as well as a manager though. They need someone to cut through the middle-management mess, but they also need to decide what they are. Are they a boring business services company, with server tools, Office and Windows for corporate desktops, or are they a consumer company too?
There's nothing wrong with cutting all the consumer stuff, accepting that 50% annual growth is no longer possible - and just sticking to the corporate market. They could just sit in that market, with 90% of deskops hoovering up the cash, and keeping the customers happy. Then, by all means, dump XBox, Bing and the like. On the other hand, there's been a lot of corporate cash spent on getting control of the TV, and computing into the living room. MS have done pretty damned well here, with the XBox, and if they lose the consumer PC market, but win the smart TV market, they could still be happy bunnies. Although the smart TV market is probably DOA, given how much nicer it is to control a tablet than a telly. But the XBox is a direct route to consumer computing nirvana, if you've got a credit card and you're hooked up to teh telly, then you're set to sell movies, and who knows what else. Seems a shame to throw it away...
In conclusion, they should give the job to me.
Re: Effect on WP
Well if I was feeling all troll-like, I could counter-troll your troll by pointing out that MS could just release an update to Windows Phone, which would re-use the button for something else. Or just point it at Google, or make it user-changeable.
Google may have a broken update model on Android, but MS don't on Windows Phone.
They learnt from the security fun-and-games that really kicked off with XP, and the internet getting all popular. Surprisingly Google don't seem to have. With half the Android phones in use still being on 2.x, and phone manufacturers not even bothering to push out patches, there could be some big security screw-ups to come. Given how badly Microsoft's reputation was damaged by the saga of security - I'm amazed that Google have allowed this situation to continue. If it wasn't for all the pain it'll cause users, I'd want something to go spectacularly wrong, as a warning to numbskulls.
Re: Bing is the reason for buying the entry level phone business
There's a downside to selling Office on iOS and Android. MS would have to sell through the app stores. That's 30% of the revenue going to Google and Apple. If they really went big on it, and sold Office suites for £50 a pop (aiming at the business market) - that could mean handing loadsamoney to their rivals.
Your point about dumping Bing and Google-opoply could be interesting. There are big rewards for controlling search. Not only advertising cash, but user-tracking and the fact that you have a lot of control of how people access information - and what information they see. So it's a big thing to give up, there's a good reason that they've splurged so much cash on Bing. Google could become unpopular quite quickly, and then Bing would be well placed to pick up the goodies. But there's a lot of 'if' in that plan...
Re: AC's and downvote divas
I've barely noticed any sock-puppetry on this site. In the realms of one poster says something, and then another replies immediately saying how wonderful, correct and perceptive they are. Also, despite many accusations, I don't notice many shills around here either. You see the accusation a lot, but it's rare that it looks convincing. More that it's a standard insult for people that don't agree. I've seen a few, very obvious ones, although it's obviously hard to tell if the marketing bods have been subtle (for once) and built up an account's reputation with regular non-shill posts.
I don't know if it's just me, but the numbers of votes seem to have gone down in the last month or two. Along with the number of forum posts on the non-article forums.
I remember commenting, on an article on Julian Assange I think, where I got a couple of up and down votes pretty quickly. I came back to the thread and read down about 10 comments, so we're only talking a minute, and clicked on 'My posts' again as the quicker way to get back to mine, and see if there was a reply. Suddenly, in under 2 minutes I'd gone from 2 up - 2 down to about 2 up - 12 down. I suppose it's possible, I'm not Julian's number one fan, and he does provoke some strong opinions. But I've never seen voting that fast before, up or down. It's also possible the site was just updating the votes slowly, and did a whole batch at once.
I've had most of a page of my comments, mostly in different articles, downvoted at once before. And a few other users have had that happen. Which is quite amusing. But they're obviously not using multiple accounts, or surely they'd have multi-downvoted the post that actually annoyed them, rather than resorting to the tedium of clicking through your post history.
Mr Auditor - or can I just call you Evil,
I believe that it does have to be 2,000 pure Evil Auditor upvotes, and not anon ones, or ones from a previous username (if you've ever changed it). Similarly for the 100 posts allows you html rule, they don't accept anon posts. They really have a thing about anons on 'ere.
The ignore button never went away. Or at least I've always had it - and still do. Have they taken it away from everyone then? I'd be interested to know how much it gets used, although as they only gave it to about 10 people at first, it's unlikely to be much.
Silver badges are on 2,000 upvotes, and it's not net. So even if you manage to get 20,000 downvotes in the process, you still get to have the badge.
I'd like to see them award badges for downvotes too. Maybe just a brown one, for achieving your first 1,000. Or perhaps a halo above your badge for anyone managing to achieve a ratio of 10 up to 1 down.
Re: @Evil Auditor
You've shattered my illusions now. I was just about to congratulate you for the new word predant: to correct someone before they've made the error. And now you tell me that it was just a typo. Boo!
Still, quite a nice one. As I know that in your reply to me, you will incorrectly use the word whom...
You've only got 10 minutes to edit. So you need to be watching pretty closely, and for your victim to be answering pretty quickly, and then for them not to see the change in time to edit their post. Plus they can always delete at any time.
I think your depraved commentard brain is running away with you... Although I'm sure someone will manage something amusing. For the particularly paranoid, there's always the solution of not replying to any post that's under 10 minutes old.
Re: By and Large
I thought the correct nautical term was Bring & Buy. And one flew a blue peter in order to signal ones willingness to engage in tat-based commerce.
This was often signalled by the well know phrase, "by the multi-coloured Swapshop of Noel Edmonds, that be a hideous jumper!"
[It's Friday, it's late. I may be becoming hysterical...]
Re: Another "Eye of Sauron" transport mechanism?
Funny you should mention him. As BAL is also the first 3 letters of Balrog - which is what first sprung to my mind - rather than Baal.
On the other hand, it's also the first 3 letters of Balloon. Which is a far friendlier word. It's definitely better to think balloon than balrog. Life is less stressful that way. Right up to the point when a huge bloke with burning hair whips you, then sticks his sword through you.
Re: I'm skeptical about tablets bigger than 10"
I had a Tablet PC, back before the iPad came out. It was about a 13" widescreen - so a decent sized, but still portable, laptop. And it was wonderful, but very heavy. OK if you could support your elbow on a table, and tuck it in the crook of your arm, but otherwise tough for long periods. And you needed quite strong arms and hands for prolonged use.
The screen size was nicer - although Apple's 4:3 is better than widescreen (in my opinion). The weight not so much though. Having just played with the new iPad air, that hundred and something grammes they've just shaved off is a massive difference compared to my iPad 3. It really is huge, if your reading on the sofa for a couple of hours. Also they've made the bezel smaller. Having not been remotely tempted to upgrade, I now really want one. But if Apple or Samsung did a 12" iPad of about the same weight as my current one, I'd also be tempted. Chuck in a stylus too, and I'd dance a happy jig while handing over my credit card...
Re: Yes, Invented.
I think it speaks well for Samsung management that someone came up with an odd idea, for the Galaxy Note, which probably seemed a bit odd, and they made it. And it turned out to be a success. So they went with it. I'm sure plenty of their phone models have failed, but given their profits from the phone division, they're obviously doing something right.
Apple's rigidity makes them vulnerable to someone doing to them exactly what they did to Nokia, if at any point they fail to adapt in a timely fashion, and someone else comes out with something even shinier than current top-end smartphones. In the meantime though, it probably maximises their profits - as Sammy and Apple basically hoover up all the profits in the industry between them.
As happens, it's not a moronic market segment either. Just because you don't want one doesn't mean it's not a valid product idea. I hate on-screen keyboards, but don't get on with the Blackberry style ones either. Therefore a stylus would be ideal for me. Although I don't send many texts or mobile emails, so have a smaller screened smartphone and do without. My phone is primarily for voice comms.
My friend who's a designer now has a Galaxy Note II. Because it allows him to photograph on site, sketch information on it, and email it to the office (or clients), all from one single device that's costing him about £300. A separate smartphone and 7" tablet for sketching would have been more flexible, but he preferred one thing to rule them all. For perfectly valid reasons.
Re: Trying too hard to be 'cool'
Anonymous Sir or Madam, for that comment I salute you.
Reading excellent comments on El Reg... Happy Days...
They predict that you're going to eat a yummy Jaffa Cake. What more could you need to know about your life?
Oh dear. Double greengrocers' apostrophes in my post above. Shocking. Jaffa Cakes still rule though. I've got to go to the shops at lunchtime, now I'll have to buy some.
Oreo's are horrible. Just more expensive Bourbon's with delusions of grandeur.
Bow down and all hail the mighty Jaffa Cake!!!!!!!
What do you mean goes to hell? It already went to hell with the Phantom Morass. There were a couple of big dumb fun set-piece fights in the second one, which raised it above the dire, but the third one was absolutely dreadful. I guess that's what comes of casting an actor who can't. And giving everyone rubbish dialogue.
I doubt Abrams can make it any worse. Although you never know...
Surely the world is now ready for: Star Wars! The musical!
Re: In an ideal world.....
That's the problem. There's a whole bunch of good procedures, which are often followed.
But there's no comeback if they don't. It's very rare for anyone to get punished for obvious abuses of power, and the worst case seems to be early retirement with sickness benefits and full pension. Which ain't exactly hardship.
Therefore there's always that randomness - and fuck all you can do about it in terms of restitution.
This is why the Andrew Mitchell case may be a good thing. It's forced the politicians to notice how bad things have become again. There's always going to be some abuses of power, but they've now added that senior-management New Labour public service apparachik 'you can't do anything about what I do' atttitude.
It's not fair to blame it all on Labour, it's just theirs was the era when that senior public service management class really seemed to take hold of society. The professional quangocrats who will always get re-appointed, how ever many times they fuck up. And have managed to add City levels of pay to public service job security and pensions.
Re: "Talking to the nice policemen"
Indeed you aren't under any legal obligation to help. However if you're innocent then it's in your interests to get it over with as quickly as possible. There are many possible reasons why you may not wish to hand over certain information - and therefore there can be good reasons not to cooperate. But petulance isn't one of them, so in most circumstances you're probably better of cautiously talking to them.
Re: "Talking to the nice policemen"
If you're innocent and you don't cooperate, then they're much less likely to believe you. Also you're slowing down the investigation, which is unlikely to be in your own interests. So you may wish to consult a lawyer first, but you may well be advised to cooperate fully. Or not, as the case may be.
Of course, the police may be in the process of 'fitting you up', I doubt it happens to random people often, but it's not unknown. However, they can't use anything you say off the record against you in court, as they have no record of it. So the purpose of off the record chats is to find out where to point the investigation.
Your point about the caution is well-made though. That seems to be the easy thing for the police. They get a clear-up, and in a lot of cases I'm not sure they're too fussy about whether people are guilty or not. It's a nice way to get the paperwork done that makes plod look good.
I know someone who was being bullied into accepting one over a minor fight with her ex-husband. Now there's no way in hell they can convict, because there's no evidence, it was a minor thing, in private, and he'd never have pressed charges anyway. He reported her in a fit of pique (tempers being high), but thought better of it. However some fuckwit plod thought it would look good on their figures to still get her to take a caution before the whole thing collapsed. Although to be fair, one of the other officers directly advised her not to sign - so he clearly has a sense of proportion and some human decency.
I've also heard that this is a standard tactic with people on minor porn issues. It's not worth investigating, but a conviction would be nicer on the figures. So the suspect is offered a choice. Either take a caution, admit guild and go on the sex-offenders register. Hooray for us, we've got another percentage on our clear-up rate. Or plod will go to your family, friends and employer and loudly say we're investigation so-and-so for naughty porn, seize all their computers, make lots of noise and ruin their life.
Sadly the police lost a lot of their sense of proportion when decision to prosecute was removed, and given to the CPS. Now they must investigate, or get CPS' permission to stop. Of course, that discretion was taken away due to past miss-use...
Re: Excellent stuff
Yes, the defence can hire computer experts too. In fact, lots of the consultants who work for the prosecution, also work for the defence. In different cases of course...
Re: 3 of 19
I was thinking of conducting all my criminal activity on a Cray II. Or even a LEO, if I can get one. That way, they'll never get my computer into the evidence bags... No chain-of-evidence, no conviction.
This sale could actually be a real success. Like the Facebook one was.
I actually heard a market analyst on the radio the other day, saying that Twitter's under-writers need to be careful on pricing, in order to not price it too high, and leave nothing for the market.
i.e. his advice to them was not to maximise the profit for their paying client (Twitter), but to sell the shares for less than the market was willing to pay, so the early 'investors' can sell at a nice profit. Which is lovely for the market of course, but not so much for Twitter.
By those lights, the early Facebook hoping-for-the-greater-fool buyers got screwed, and Facebook's owners got all the money that it was possible for them to get - which is a successful IPO in my book. Obviously not so good for the traders.
Obviously both valuations are totally bonkers though. Facebook might be worth a good deal, given all the captive eyeballs it's got, and the fact it makes decent profits. But over $100bn seems mad. Twitter doesn't even have profits yet, or the same kind of customer lock-in - so I don't see how it's worth all that moolah.
I'm so glad I stopped paying into a pension, and put my hopes of a non-catfood-eating-retirement elsewhere. At least it's not my money being wasted. I'm sure I can manage to bollocks-up my own investment without help from the professionals...
But a taser isn't a 357 Magnum. Aren't they classed as non-lethal weapons? I know there's some debate on the safety of the things, but they must be regarded as pretty safe, because there used to be a rule in the British police that you couldn't be issued with one, until you'd been stunned with it. It was part of the training. Don't know if that's still the case. But the lawyers in workplace health and safety would definitely have something to say if they tried that rule on the firearms officers...
Re: Someone get SciFi Channel on the phone!
And now, on SyFy it's time for 'The Platypocalypse'! Starring some alleged actors, wearing inadequate amounts of clothing...
I wonder if it would be possible to make a service less useful than Yahoo Answers?
Oh well, even if Google's offering is rubbish, if it knocks Yahoo's
lack of Answers down the page a bit, it can't be all bad.
Agreed. Facebook and Google in particular are waaaaaaay across the creepy line, as far as I'm concerned. But that's still a minority view. Most people are more interested in getting on with their lives, and don't wish to 'waste their time' by getting involved in politics or 'weird obsessions about privacy'. Right until their love for goat-porn is exposed to their families due to tracking/advertising.
Plus society and politics are usually pretty slow at catching up with technological change. The internet is still in it's Wild West phase, and I'm sure there's a few more years of that to go.
Re: Is there actually any evidence...
I can answer your question. Users want advertising. They've shown this by mostly refusing to pay for websites, when there was a free alternative with adverts.
Like any opinion poll question, you have to be careful how you ask it. I'm sure that if you asked people "do you like advertising" you'd mostly get a resounding raspberry. But, if you asked the same people 'would you prefer The Daily Mail online to be free (supported by ads), or would you rather pay for it' - you'd get a different answer.
Admittedly many might say 'yuck, I'd like the Mail to go out of business'... But the point stands. People put up with ads to get the stuff they want for free. It's a perfectly reasonable transaction.
The problem is that people in general aren't particularly bothered by what's going on (don't really think about it), until someone points it out in a way that they notice. Then they'll be annoyed. So the industry will walk a
creepy fine line between what it thinks it can get away with, and what it would like to try. There will be scandals and campaigns. But I suspect that most people are happy to be advertised at, and even happy to be tracked (at least a bit), in exchange for free stuff that they value. How much of it they'll put up with, is still anybody's guess.
Re: A quick question
Tools > Options > Privacy tab > tracking is the first bit of the page, just click in the box you want.
Admittedly it's buried away and this is an interesting argument. MS turned it on by default, and took a whole load of crap for doing so. Presumably on the grounds that no-one is going to choose to turn tracking on. And default opt in is always the most convenient option for advertisers / Ryanair trying to sell you insurance / junk mailers / Google giving you their toolbar / Adobe giving you McAfee...
So Mozilla have it turned off. Chrome has it hidden behind an advanced settings hyperlink in the settings page, also off by default.
Of course the problem with all the browser makers turning it on by default is that the advertisers can then say that this wasn't a user choice, so we'll ignore it. So there's no easy answer.
Maybe the ad-block writers could have a 'block some' option where adverts that behave don't get blocked. It could train the others to start behaving if others are getting their ads served up.
That's surely one possibility. Say some of Firefox, Opera, MS and Apple got together and have a set of obnoxious advert tools. Then if enough users click on the 'kill this crappy ad' button, it gets blocked on all their browsers. Even FF with its 20% market share could have a big impact on its own. MS might get into trouble with regulators if they go it alone. It could even be a popular feature that pull users away from Chrome, and forces Google to join in.
Of course it does. Follow the money. A substantial amount of the internet is paid for by advertising. Including most of the shiny stuff Google do. Therefore the advertisers are going to demand a seat at the table. Therefore a compromise will have to be reached that doesn't piss off one side so much that they throw the whole deal up in the air, and piss all over everyone else's chips.
Given that only a limited subset of internet users seem to care about privacy, and not many more seem interested in bothering to learn the issues, there's a lot that the advertisers can get away with.
To quote Eric Schmidt, "There is what I call the creepy line. The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."
Which is a pretty good summary of the situation. Don't wake the twin sleeping giants of government or public. They're happy when they're asleep, they don't really want to have to care about this sort of thing. Therefore they get very grumpy if you wake them up, and force them to take notice by taking the piss too much. And then they may over-react and bugger-up your whole business by mistake.
The browser makers also have a lot of power here. At the moment, the anti-tracking / anti-advertising tools are a bit of a blunt instrument. I don't want to ad-block The Register, because I want to read your stuff, so I want you to get paid. But equally, I can't be bothered to turn on an ad-blocker, and then manually configure it to see ads from the sites I want to get paid. I've therefore decided it's only fair to accept advertising - rather than be lazy and block it all.
The same with tracking and cookies. It's a lot of effort, what with having to clear the Flash cache, the browser cache, and presumably when IPv6 comes in, regularly change the MAC address of your pooter that it's reporting
One thing that would be nice (and very easy) is a way to right click on an obnoxious advert and kill it. Like the O2 ones that the Register was running a while back, and said they couldn't cancel because they had a contract - and O2 took an absolute age to fix. Adobe don't want to give you tools to turn that shit off, because they're crap, but Firefox could easily do it. Either a one-off thing, or just a one-click way to kill the Flash Plug-in, if Adobe won't play ball in some way.
There's likely going to have to be a deal at some point. There's a whole bunch of people holding the nuclear option on each other, so if they don't deal, someone's going to press it. Governments may choose to get involved, which will almost certainly fail - but could do so by buggering up the market totally. Browser makers could nuke the advertising market instantly - if they were really pissed off. Facebook, Google and social networks have loads of info gathered through log-ins, so might feel that going on an anti-advertising-tracking campaign could suit them - as they get their creepy info a different way. Or the consumers could go rogue and start boycotting the creepiest stuff (in reality whichever high-profile target missteps and gets noticed), and force change.
It's all fun and games, until someone loses an eye...
In which case, expect to see adverts for death-star thermal exhaust port covers and 'get well soon son' cards. Possibly also moisturising cream ads, both him and the emperor could really have done with some of that...
Re: Balaclava anyone?
Sad replying to myself I know, but the idea popped into my head because of yesterday's article, and I can't help it:
What adverts do zombies watch?
Re: Balaclava anyone?
No, not army style face paint. Actor style... Just make yourself up to look 40 years older, or optionally like a zombie, and enjoy all those creepy adverts for sweets and funeral plans.
What adverts do zombies watch?
Re: Talking about Rugby can cause embarrassment as well...
Then again, we all know that you get up to some pretty odd things in the scrum...
Anyway they have a position in American Football called "tight end", so they're in no position to comment.
Re: This is disturbing
confusing visiting Americans:
1. As well as not worrying when told there's faggots for tea, due to it not meaning what might you think, do not be alarmed if an English person offers you spotted dick afterwards...
2. Elgin Marbles is a fun game for all the family to play. There's a permanent game run at the British Museum every day.
3. David Cameron had a fag at Eton. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
On second thoughts...
4. We're very glad that you noticed our confusion over Orson Scott Card's 'Ender's Game' - and changed the name of the Aliens to the "Formics". Shall we say there would be a good deal of sniggering at the back in cinemas had you kept the original the "Buggers".
5. London Underground encourages its passengers to strike up lively conversations, in order to while away the monotony. In fact, it is considered rude to not make eye contact, or discuss such pleasantries as the weather, on a crowded tube train.
Re: Could've Been Worse
Worse than that, if he says he's about to roast faggots...
Or do you boil them? I've never been tempted by them. Despite that advert, "Brain's Faggots. So good, you'll wish you tried them years ago." It took me a while to work out that Brain's was the trade-name, rather than the ingredient... And while we're at it, you can keep your mushy peas as well!
I want proper, honest, food like toad-in-the-hole...
Re: Sorry to be so blunt...
I've clicked on a lot more ads since getting an iPad. Come to think of it, I've clicked a good few since getting a phone with a browser as well. Small screen + touch controls + large fingers = ooopsie.
Particularly when El Reg run those ones that fill the whole background of the page, so you go to scroll downwards, leave finger on too long, and get a press instead of a swipe. I hope I've made a small contribution to the El Reg hacks' beer-fund...
I'm not normally an online ad clicker. I can only remember clicking on one deliberately in the last few years. Which was a Microsoft Office 360 one on here, as I was planning to look up the prices that day anyway - and it popped up at just the correct time. I have deliberately looked at the Facebook ads, and been shocked by the low quality, from such a well-known site. At least half the ads on there seem to be scams (of various sorts) - and if I were a legitimate advertiser, I wouldn't want to use Facebook because of the association. The chances of your ad turning up next to one of those 'work from home for an hour a day and earn $1,000', or 'get free iPhone' types are extremely high. Not to mention all the 'diet secrets', body-building 'honest it ain't drugs but a supplement' ones, and the Thai/Russian brides.
I think my mouse tends to sit somewhere to the vague right-hand side of the screen. So it would pretty much always be hovering over Facebook adverts. Or at least it would if I logged on more than once every 6 weeks...
I use the mouse wheel to scroll, so the only time the mouse moves, is when I'm moving it to click on something. At which point I click on it, unless interrupted.
Maybe Facebook are hoping that this is the case for most people. A large majority being right-handed. In which case they can blame the advertisers. They can say, our users were hovering over your ads, ready and waiting to click, but your ads were so shit - they just didn't bother. We're doing our job, sack your ad agencies...
Re: How can...
I wonder if the reason Qualcomm only bought a US license is that it's for the CDMA stuff. There weren't many people using that standard, other than the US were there? But some recent phones have had the hardware for both built-in, to save having 2 products. Just a thought, anyway. As it could explain why no-one thought to check on the licenses, as there ain't no CDMA to talk to in Blighty.
Re: Who Wrote this article?
That's way overpriced and under-specced. Good grief man, it can't even make a cup of tea!
Presumably you can buy your own nice shades, and simply attach the Google Glass thingy to them. Hence the product replacement. Which makes sense, as it seems pretty silly to provide frames with it, for the large percentage of the population who are already wearing them.
I quite like the idea of Google Glass, it could do some useful things. Except that the screen looks really really small. So I can't imagine how much you can actually read in it. As someone who walks a lot, a sat-nav display would be useful, as would being able to change tracks on a music player while both hands are full. For things like calls and texts, I'm happy to put down what I'm doing, stop and take the phone out of my pocket. And trying to read emails looks like a recipe for walking into a lamppost.
One of the most useful things I can imagine would be for reading small text or signs. But given how poor my eyesight is, I'd imagine I'd need glasses to read the Google Glass screen, so might as well use them on the label in question. Although being able to point at train station departure board, and have some sort of OCR cleverness tell me which platform to go to and where it is would be lovely.
Now you've deleted your original post, so my reply doesn't make sense any more... Should I delete that, and move it down here?
Or perhaps I'll just mention that film: Samovar Spies Is Missing
What's a Russian urn?
About £4 an hour...
Re: Where's my tinfoil hat...
I shouldn't worry about them, they're the least of your troubles. Your hoover and your digital camera are conspiring against you.
When you're being blackmailed with that incriminating photograph, don't say I didn't warn you!
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook