Re: So it scrolls from right-to-left ...
Candy Crush clones? The clone is now the original because they sue anyone who uses "Candy" or "Saga" in their title, but they are just another bejewelled clone.
2641 posts • joined 21 Jul 2009
Candy Crush clones? The clone is now the original because they sue anyone who uses "Candy" or "Saga" in their title, but they are just another bejewelled clone.
Something strikes me as illogical. In your own words, the cost of provisioning the line is the same, so what does it matter if the user does voice or voice + data, or data only? It should cost the same.
A voice line has the potential for extra revenue (voice calls). A data line has no potential for extra revenue, because the data portion is rented by BT to your ISP, they can make no money from it.
I think what you want to say is that voice subsidizes data by sharing a part of the line cost. In that case, a fair pricing structure would show copper maintenance as a line item, and voice and data as add-ons, as they are.
That is exactly what is happening. Made up numbers - a line costs £15/month. If you take data, BT make no revenue from you and do not subsidize the line. If you take voice, BT do make revenue from you, and subsidize the line by £3 a month.
Data line: £15 + £0 = £15
Voice line: £15 + -£3 = £12
This is hardly rocket science.
like having to still pay for a 'voice line' and calls for ADSL when I don't use the voice/calls part.
I just need a data only line!
You can get a data only line if you ask your ISP to ask BT very nicely. It costs a few quid more than having a voice line.
The cost of providing and maintaining a copper phone line does not change because you are not using it for voice does not lower the cost of provisioning and maintaining the line. Therefore, a data only line must cost at least as much as a voice+data line.
A phone line used only as a data line will never provide any revenue from calls. Revenue from calls offsets the provisioning and maintenance costs - if you receive £2-3 extra per month per line, part of that pays for maintenance. Therefore, a data only line must cost more than a voice+data line, because there is no on-going call revenue.
So, how much do you really really want that data only copper wire? Wouldn't you rather have a free phone service to go with it?
Apparently they added a new institution over the weekend, which is what caused this kerfuffle.
1/5 - it bust the bounds of a fixed sized array
2/1 - unicode decode error
7/1 - File Not Found
Most old school hackers believe the internet should be a meritocracy, like it was in the 90s. In a meritocracy, you don't need to have respect for others, only respect for better ideas. In a meritocracy if your ideas and knowledge are rubbish, then I do not need to have respect for you.
These days we have to be "forward thinking" and "inclusive", and make sure that no-one feels that they cannot contribute because their feelings may get hurt. For instance, the Django project changed their documentation on database replication to remove the terms "master server" and "slave server".
£15 might be the world on a stick to some people, I don't get what that has to do with mobile phone tariffs. This is about how can we have decent radio on modern mobiles, not how do we enable poor people to listen to the radio.
If you are spending less than 50p a day on your mobile, you have a really basic deal, probably PAYG, or an extremely limited contract. If you are on such a deal, why would you expect to be able to consume as much of a limited resource as you like? How would that be fair to other users of the resource?
Cost? I pay £15 a month for unlimited data, unlimited texts and 900 minutes of calls. Switch contract.
Desserts are anything that you eat after you've eaten your main meal, at the same table. If you eat liquorice after a meal, it's a dessert. "Dessert" is derived from the french meaning "clear the table" (or the opposite of "serve the table").
I'm hoping for Android Lardy Cake
Welcome to 2013 Android owners.
Think it will be a damn sight more than 2,013 tbh.
Freezing eggs for career (not medical, such as chemo) reasons means mother age 40+ and more likely 45+.
Conjecture? Many women in their 30s have difficulty conceiving, both my sisters waited until they were early 30s to try and have kids, then found out it wasn't that straight-forward and it took multiple miscarriages before I met my first nephew. If they had had eggs saved in their 20s, it would have been easier to conceive, and they would probably have had children earlier rather than later.
Ace Rimmer is cool though... It would have worked better as a gag if you'd said it was his Gordon Brittas get-up.
The problem with stations - well, pretty much the whole of Central London tbh - is that there are just too many people with too many smartphones trying to do things all at the same time.
If you leave work at 5:30, you might get 5 bars of 3G/4G signal, but try and use it to stream music or video and it will be slow as hell.
which means it's OK as a 'rough and ready' calculation for large populations, but not OK if, for example, health insurance is using BMI as a parameter in calculating premiums.
Sorry, what? This is exactly what it is useful for. Take a large population, segment it by BMI. The health of people within each segment is pretty consistent, statistically, and so the cost of providing insurance to people in that segment is pretty consistent, and you can use it to set premiums. At no point has someone said "Oh that James, his BMI is high so lets jack his premiums".
I doubt any provider goes solely off BMI..
I had understood that no food provides a net calorie burn.
Well, to be a pedant, if it provided no net calorie burn, a) we're unlikely to eat it and b) we're very unlikely to describe it as food. Eating grass has little to none nutritional benefit for us, since we lack the advanced stomachs to use it, and we wouldn't normally refer to "grass" as a food.
There is one vegetable that is known for being so chewy and fibrous that it takes a lot of calories to masticate it fully, and since it is so rough we are hardly able to break it down when raw - the humble celery. This is often cited as a negative calorie food, but whilst chewing a whole stick of celery will only give you maybe 10 calories, the energy expended chewing is only about a pitiful 2 calories.
I guess if you chewed for an hour or more..
"This doesn't mean that BMI is not a useful macro measurement, but that it is not particularly useful for you."
So in fact, BMI is useless for any individual.
I think you must be being extraordinarily dense. The OP was commenting that, as a statistical outlier in terms of height, BMI did not make much sense for her. I agreed, and said that as an outlier, it did not.
You've extrapolated this to "it is useless for any individual". Well, no. Actually, a great great many people are not statistical outliers, and for those people, BMI is a tremendously useful indicator of health.
I'm shocked that I have to explain this to you, this is the basis of the South Park joke, "I'm not fat I'm big boned". Yes, for some people this measurement is not appropriate, but for the vast majority it is. The sheer number of people proclaiming that BMI is not applicable to them would lead me to think that either we have a strangely large population of extremely tall people, or that at least some of them are like Eric Cartman, and not "big boned" or extremely tall.
My tips are:
Eat less, move more.
Your diet is not the food you eat when you are trying to lose weight, it is the food you eat all the time. You will not lose weight by trying to briefly change your existing food, you need to permanently alter the food you consume.
Arrange your diet so you are hungry when you are at work and asleep - work keeps you distracted, use tea and fruit as a further distraction, eat early in the evening so that you are feeling a bit peckish when you go to bed. It's not that eating late at night is bad for you, it's that if you are going to be hungry for 8 hours, its best to do it when you are unconscious as you will probably eat less.
Your weight is on a cycle. Don't get down on yourself until you understand your weight cycle. Always weigh yourself at the same time of day. You can lose/gain 3-6lb solely by dehydrating/over-hydrating yourself - don't.
Don't be too anal about measuring things. It's good to know roughly how many calories you are shoving down the pie hole, you don't need to weigh your fruit + veg. I've lost over 100lb, I've never calculated my BMR, TDEE nor weighed my food nor tracked my exercise nor recorded my daily weights. I measure my weight once a day, and record it about once every 2-3 months, to check on overall rates - that's it.
Low fat, low sugar, reduced and balanced carbs, slightly reduced protein. Anything you eat, think "is there something I can eat that is tastier than this and better for me?" and have that instead. Use NLP to change your thinking so that it is tastier for you.
Make eating a ritual. Eating an apple? Cut it up into 32 equal sized slices first. It will last longer, you spend more time thinking "Mmm. apple.", and it is a more satisfactory experience.
Most importantly, there is a human endocrine signal that most people call hunger. This signal developed when we were hunter-gathererers, and it lets us know that "hey buddy! we're going to need some food down here sometime soon. You'd better go hunting and gathering PDQ". Thing is, we don't need that signal anymore, food is everywhere, and so we treat that signal as "hey buddy! go eat something!". Learn to tolerate this signal. When you get it, look over to the fridge full of food and say "job done, done my gathering". Don't eat something until you do get the "go eat something" signal, which is unmissable when it gets there, or it is time to eat something.
I think the last one is the most crucial part of any will power driven exercise - identify the feeling, learn to tolerate/love the feeling, and live with it.
Nah, eating lots of calories makes you fat. You are saying that consuming artificial sweeteners makes you prone to consume more calories overall, which may be true.
If you want to lose weight, then if you have to choose between a Coke and a Diet Coke, the Diet Coke is the better choice. If you are going to choose between a Coke, a Diet Coke and an Evian, the Evian is the better choice.
I always thought that the BMI stuff was bollocks too, but I think it is largely right if you are of average size.
I wasn't just a little tubby, I was morbidly obese and unfit. I'm a smidgen under 6ft, and weighed over 20 st/285lb/130kg, a BMI of 37, and was massively fed up of it.
I quit smoking (ish), and cut my diet to around 1000 calories per day - 3 satsumas for breakfast, an Eat noodle salad and another satsuma for lunch, more satsumas in the afternoon, and an M&S "Fuller for Longer" ready meal with some extra veg, and lots of cups of tea during the day.
1000 calories a day is damn hard. At the start, I'd keep failing to keep to it, but eventually, your stomach shrinks, and you feel less hungry all the time as a result, and the number of days a week where you fail gets smaller and smaller.*
At the same time, I started doing more exercise. Not actual "put on special exercising clothes" exercise; I walked to the station after work as fast as possible without sweating too much for 20 minutes. If it starts taking less than 20 minutes to get to that station, go a different route.
This diet and moderate exercise has let me lose weight regularly at the rate of 2lb a week; I've been doing it just over a year now, and I've lost about 105 lb, or 7 stone. My waist has gone from 46" to 34" - I have had to buy new trousers and belts almost every other month...
This was about BMI, right? So, the interesting thing about losing so much weight is that I have passed through every BMI stage apart from "Underweight" in the last year. For me, they all seemed pretty on the ball. I was definitely still overweight when I was "Overweight (25-30)", and I still have some more to lose now. When I was 14 stone I was sure that another 7lb would do it, now I am 12st 10lb, and I still think another 7lb needs to come off. I'm not a beanstalk either, I have very broad chest and shoulders.
My BMI now is around 24.5, which puts me in the "Healthy" category, but I'm still dieting to remove the last of my visceral fat and doing some more intensive exercise (couch 2 5k) to try and tighten up my loose skin.
* I changed the diet after about 8 months, as I found a) I was getting slightly bored of satsumas, and b) there was not enough roughage in that diet (Pro tip: do not get dehydrated when eating a diet with poor roughage..). Changed breakfast to two weetabix, a banana and the smallest amount of milk possible to make it edible, and I now mix and match my fruits, satsumas, pears, apples, peaches, nectarines; whatever looks good at the corner store.
Obese is defined (in these wailing articles) strictly by BMI.
BMI is not meant to be a personal indicator of health, it is meant to be a way of grouping huge numbers of people for statistically similar outcomes.
For you personally, BMI 30 is not really obese, but for all people with BMI 30, you are a statistical outlier. This doesn't mean that BMI is not a useful macro measurement, but that it is not particularly useful for you.
Why doesn't usage #1 seem appropriate.
"I hit my phone without much force on to the Pay terminal" vs "I bonked my phone on to the Pay terminal"?
Seems less to do with being British and more to be spoiling for a pedant slap-off?
We're debating the merits of the system and who should be responsible for the data in question. You appear to be suggesting that irrelevant data should be available on the web but not searchable. If it is irrelevant, ask to have it removed from the web and it will, you know, fall off the search database too.
Actually, I'm not suggesting anything, just explaining what the law says and why google have to take these things down.
I agree, if you want something gone, remove it from the web, don't remove it from the search index.
The law however says something different. Google operate a database of personal information - names - along with keywords which link to webpages, which we would normally call their search index.
The contents of that database of personal information that google maintain has to be relevant, and data subjects can make applications for irrelevant information to be removed from the database.
That is all. Well, that and that Putting. Things. In. Single. Word. Sentences. Doesn't. Make. It. True. Just. Because. You. Would. Like. It. To. Be.
>> If a search engine provides results pertaining to an individual, then they have some
>> responsibility to keep those results accurate and relevant
No. They. Don't
Is sticking your head in the ground and going "LALALALALALALA" working at all for you?
ECJ ruled that search engines, by associating peoples names and search terms with pages, were forming a database keyed by that users name. This is the basis of the "right to be forgotten", the entries in that database are said to not be relevant, and since Google operate that database, they are responsible for keeping the contents of that database relevant.
But cash CAN be stolen...or counterfeited...
I'll never forget the time I got done over by counterfeiters, they took my wallet, made me sit there for 3 days while they traced the £20 note and made copies before giving it back to me and letting me go. Bloody counterfeiters.
Yes, unsurprisingly, people who both own and run their own business have more to lose than someone who simply runs someone else's business.
If Jane and John decide not to actually run their sandwich shop, and ask Bob to do it instead, paying him a wage and live off the profits he produces, then Bob is risking nothing and only Jane and John are risking their business. That's fine though because it is Jane and John's business how they run their business.
C level "talent" is hired by the board in order to run the company. The board are given power to do this by the shareholders, who do in fact own the company - it's their farm.
So when Elop comes in and "bets the farm", you are complaining that it is not his farm to bet, how dare he. He is the chosen instrument of the owners, who have chosen to bet their farm via a proxy. If he screws it up, the people who chose him lose their money.
Many reasons. Colour requires 3 discrete channels/measurements per pixel, which reduces the resolution of your sensor compared to simply measuring amplitude as you need to pack 3 sensors per pixel instead of one. It also increases the bandwidth required to transmit the image, since you have to send three times as much data back to earth.
Secondly, it's quite dark in space, Rosetta does not carry a massive flash bulb array with which to illuminate 67P, and to get good colour reproduction in your sensors requires incident light of the right colours.
Finally, this instrument, OSIRIS, stands for Optical, Spectroscopic and Infrared Remote Imaging System, so I suspect that the "image" we see is not purely an optical capture from the camera but a computer assisted rendering from several sensor sources, of which only the optical could possibly be in colour. The last one is wild speculation on my part, I don't know enough about OSIRIS.
Funny that, works fine on the N-1, how about N-3?
Capitalism acts to raise prices for *everything* as high as the market will bear.
You say this like it is a bad thing. The definition of "price" is whatever you can persuade someone else to pay for an item - if you can't persuade someone else to buy it, its not worth what you are selling it at. If you can, well done.
You say that this raises prices, but then with the caveat "as the market will bear". If you raise the price too high, your competitors can undercut you and people will not buy from you.
a good ol' 200 hundred quid bike
Crikey, £20,000 for a bike?
Work is ±5 miles door to door from home. Too old and buggered to walk it - 1 hour & 45 minutes at 3 mph (without the rest breaks).
Walk it 300 times and a) you'll be walking significantly faster than 3mph and b) you'll no longer be too buggered to walk 5 miles. I used to be too buggered to walk 5 miles, I now regularly walk 6 miles home from work at ~4.5 mph (takes me 1:15-1:30, depending on how busy Bethnal Green Road is). Build up in small steps, it's easy.
Car is 10 minutes each way and take two litres of petrol - £2.70 say.
Since you are painting this as a straight economic decision, does purchasing the car, taxing the car, insuring the car and maintaining the car amortize down to less than £1 per trip?
Lennart, your programs may be useful, they tend to not follow UN*X philsophy. Buy The UNIX Programming Environment and Software Tools. Read them to the point you have almost memorized them. Then if you still want to do programming, do things that follow in that philosophy.
Lennart has read them.. and then heavily criticised them. His vision is the only way forward.
Fortunately, his vision precludes seeing BSD even exists, so you can still get a UNIX environment without any of Lennart or Kay's bullshit baked in.
Who isn't listening here? The helpdesk person asked Lord Lien 3 times whether they had rebooted their phone, and he just keeps blathering about going in to a different town? Fascinating, BUT HAVE YOU REBOOTED YOUR PHONE?
The first answer to all IT problems is always "Have you tried turning it off then on again?", anyone who comes to me with an IT problem who hasn't done that yet or won't answer whether they have done that...
OK, companies should provide the service you pay for, but "pathetic" for one single outage? If Three continually had spaffy connections maybe, but generally they are very good.
Raging on the internet because you briefly (evidently) have no internet? #notevensurprised
Simply dividing apples by oranges like that is only going to
…give you the apple:orange ratio?
This is hugely valid point, because in the 80s and 90s we paid for internet access and now we don't... oh wait, that's not right....
With UPnP+, devices communicate using XMPP – originally the foundation of Jabber – and can be managed by effectively joining them to a chat room, which would typically represent a room in your home.
Seriously? The best protocol they could come up with is that IoT are IRC bots, and their chosen implementation of IRC involves using XML?
This Steve Bong article seems to be missing any reference to Garland of Flowers?
Firstly, I understand it was a freelancer that sold the story to the Mirruh. Whilst the freelancer could be accused of using a shotgun approach, by the time it was presented to the Mirruh he had hit a definitive target.
I don't think so. From what I've heard, he proposed the idea "target Tory MPs with flirty fishing until we get a knob pic", Mirror approved the plan, and then he went after a list of MPs. Pritchard was the 4th or 5th MP that he had tried to get a response from.
It is this lack of target that makes it entrapment for me. There was no story that Pritchard was diddling party activists, no smoke that made them look for fire. They simply came up with a peccadillo that might tempt many middle aged men in to doing something stupid.
Sorry, you've changed your phone 15 times in 16 years and you think everyone else doesn't take good care of their phones?
It's fairly common these days for manufacturers to do their own RMA and defect handling post sale. If you order from several UK distributors, they even include a list of manufacturers to whom you should direct support queries at (and not them; if you contact the retailer, they will tell you to contact the manufacturer directly).
Here's a list for overpriced tat merchant overclockers UK:
This is a case of the rights you have against the retailer being provided by the manufacturer by agreement with the retailer.
Our blind spots alone (due to poor wiring) are a mistake no intelligent designer would make. If God did that, he's unworthy of the title and should step down and call for a new election.
I now bring up "Religion Uber Counter #415": "God's will is ineffable, the blind spots are there for His plan only (presumably something amusing in the 3rd Act.)"
I love the word "ineffable", it falls into a bracket of words that are onomatopoeically pleasing
Most people doing things like PHP CGI aren't using most of the features of even the simplest standard shell. I have to wonder if the solution would be a minimalist shell substitute that Apache or Nginx (or whatever) called instead of the default shell and which provided just the features needed.
CGI does not use shells.
Apache/Nginx/whatever do not invoke a shell to invoke a CGI app
The only CGI applications which utilize shells are CGI scripts written in a shell language
Not sure why anyone would downvote it?
There were several things that are factually incorrect, system(3) has always been uncool for many many reasons, '/bin/sh' was a long time ago "the" bourne shell, not a symlink to bash (which is a Linux-ism, no other UNIX does that), several others. If you are a factual pedant, you might downvote for those reasons.
(I'm not the downvoter!)
Actually more than one religion notes this, Genesis has the spirit of God moving over the waters of the earth, pre-creation; the Enuma Elish (Babylonians) has everything coming from a primordial salt water entity
More than one religion or variations of the same religion?
bash is like a gun - powerful and dangerous, but fairly safe if kept in a locked cabinet ("Authentication"). If you leave it lying around or your kids get the keys to the cabinet, bypassing the safety mechanisms - Then you have a problem!
The problem with shellshock is that this is true, but bash was not being kept in the cabinet - most Linux distros use bash as their shell interpreter "/bin/sh" which means that every single time you invoke a command using the shell, it invokes bash. Most other UNIX like operating systems do not use bash as their "/bin/sh", they use "sh".
The attack vectors for shell shock involve passing spurious environment variables to bash - Linux servers that invoke CGI shell scripts are particularly vulnerable, because the CGI spec specifies that arguments are passed as environment variables, making it trivial to provide a URL argument - without authentication - that triggers the parsing bug (and it is a bug, bash executes commands that it should not. There is expected behaviour for this scenario - ie it is not the result of undefined behaviour - and bash fails to meet the expectation. Classic bug).
So presumably, you now "design" interfaces that look just like the ones from the 1980's?
The Apple style is a blatant rip-off of CDE - everyone loves CDE.
<i<Freya is fast, so fast you might walk away wondering why GNOME 3 and Unity, which both have much bigger development teams, aren't this fast. </i>
Asked and answered? Freya is simpler and does less, GNOME 3 and Unity are complex and do more. Doing more takes longer.
There was a point when Firefox was a fast and efficient web browser - when it was called Phoenix 0.1 and just rendered web pages. Now it has UI magic menus though!
There's presumably also a bash vulnerability on the host....
Any why would that require a VM to be restarted? Where do you think bash fits in to KVM?
Is it not about the BASH vuln? Xen might be a side fix:
Why would a bash vulnerability on the guest cause all the VMs to be rebooted?