unable to CALL for help
"he was unable to CALL for help"
Oh, the irony.
62 posts • joined 18 Aug 2009
"he was unable to CALL for help"
Oh, the irony.
Genuine point - I'm really unsure why we're coming out with all these low powered devices in some kind of hope that it will teach kids fundamentals of computing or programming? I'm including the Pi here but know this will instantly get down voted because of peoples affections for it.
The affordability argument is out of the window for the majority of people.
And as for what they will use when (or if) they go into a related field of work? Well it's definitely not one of these devices, is it?!
This has almost certainly been developed for web application developers/users.
The most common web server is Apache, and it's most commonly installed on Linux. But then there are a choice of databases and storage systems. Under that Apache/Linux set up nobody is really using an MS products to store their data. MS have probably come to realise just how big an arena that is. Get some of those people using MS platforms for data storage, and then have the ability to sell support services, or the ability to easily export the data into other (Microsoft) products. Another money maker.
"You're a young fellow aren't you?"
Not at all. Look at the financial data for the company (or should I just say "massive losses"?) and have a good LOL then.
I don't think the C5 - or indeed this console - are "visionary" at all. It's just an example of an item very few people actually want.
Clive Sinclair seems good at coming up with ideas for "stuff" but unfortuantely it's not stuff that people (the market) actually wants to buy!
The C5 was a vehicle which nobody wanted. This is a console, which very few people are likely to want enough to buy.
So it might well appeal to geeks and Reg readers. But it begs the question, what's the business-case for producing them? It just seems like something that will be a massive loss! Which is a strange concept indeed for a man who's supposed to be quite clever. Lose money? Oh ok then sounds great(?!).
Google isn't going away any time soon but here's an interesting concept: if you do a Google search for - as one example - a country or place, one of the first results is almost always a Wikipedia entry. This applies to many things not just places. Many people are getting in the mindset that if they want to get this info they can just go straight to Wikipedia since that's where they'll end up. And they like that because it presents the information in the same consistent format.
This is opposed to Googling something and going to any number of random, differently presented websites, and then having to look for the info you want - because of the UX/design.
Wikipedia lets you do a search and the actual information (not the search result itself) is presented consistently. Google can't offer that because they are of course presenting the search results consistently, but not the pages where users end up.
This seems to be a different way of thinking about it, which is interesting.
Is this in any way related to the article?! Almost thought this comment had been transferred from somewhere else!
"The Register's attempts to contact the company have so far been unsuccessful."
Presumably because they host their own emails.
Did a mortgage application online with one of the UK's major banks - I won't name and shame.
The valuation figure needed changing so I attempted to do this and the application became "locked". I phoned their customer service department who said not only were they unable to unlock it, they didn't know how it had got into that state in the first place. Their advice was that I restarted a new application, thus having to re-enter all the information.
At first I thought, maybe this is just someone I'm speaking to who doesn't know what they're doing. But it turned out nobody did.
I eventually went in branch where they explained that nobody really knew how that system worked and if that they couldn't even access what I'd put from there to check any of it out. Brilliant.
This part just doesn't ring true:
"if someone has visited a social media website, an Internet Connection Record will only show that they accessed that site, not the particular pages they looked at, who they communicated with, or what they said."
So what exactly are they logging? The primary domain (e.g. facebook.com) or specific HTTP requests for pages that follow it? Let's say someone looked up 10 articles on wikipedia - would they log wikipedia.org 10 times, or would they log the specific addresses, e.g. wikipedia.org/controversial-subject, wikipedia.org/nice-topic
If it's the top domain it would provide almost no meaningful information - in which case there would be no use logging it - which is why I suspect that's not what it is at all.
As a case in point - you've mentioned worrying about a "neighbour". I'm talking about the people who actually control the infrastructure - in your example Amazon themselves.
Pretty sure that if you put a file on a disk owned by Amazon they can read it. If you're uploading it through some password protected interface or application - so what? As long as they can find the location of the files they can read them. If the files are encrypted that's slightly different. But again, it would depend how they are accessed as to exactly how secure they are.
In the example of a VPS web server - 10 different companies might have their own contained and "private" environments. If I work for the hosting company and have root level access, pretty sure the idea of it being private goes out of the window.
"A form of cloud computing that is used by only one organisation, or that ensures that an organisation is completely isolated from others."
Not as isolated as you think. How isolated is it, for example, from the organisation who have it in their server racks, connected to their network infrastructure, running on their power, possibly backed up by their systems too?
It's like the whole VPS web hosting thing. Yeah it's your own "private" server, on which many other peoples web applications also run. Private? No. Contained? Perhaps.
It's effectively a battery which charges a battery.
Here's an idea: get a spare battery. It's smaller and easier to carry around.
The main use case for these chargers seems to be for people who can't survive without updating their Instagram every 5 mins or tweeting about which coffee shop they're in. Not saying they deserve to get burnt though.
I don't understand why so many people feel they have no choice about whether to use this?
If you have a PC running Windows 8.1 now, you don't *have* to download Windows 10. In the same way that you can still run a PC using XP, 7, etc.
Equally, if you buy a Windows PC in the future, why would you expect it *not* to have Windows 10 installed? If that's the latest, in-use, release what else do you think will be installed? Nobody is going round selling new hardware with XP on it. The same applies here.
Basically, you don't have to use it. So if you don't like it, don't use it. Am I missing something? What's the issue? It'll be crap when it comes out and they'll patch it. That's what they've done historically, nothing new.
I'll express myself....by not using it.
Reminds me of 10 years ago when I started uni. I remember 2 people I lived with - one had brought a couple of hundred CD's with him. Another had ripped an equivalent amount of CD's to his laptop hard drive. The one who had ripped the music always claimed it was easier for him in terms of storage and moving things about, since everything was on his laptop. The other said he preferred to be able to take the CD's to parties without needing to risk having his laptop damaged.
The end result though, was that at some stage, they both "lost" some of their music. The guy who'd ripped everything ended up needing to delete some, because back then a 20 Gb laptop hard drive was fairly big. The other one had CD's go missing that he lent people or left them lying around.
In the end they both wished they'd ended up doing the opposite thing. Pros and cons, as with everything else.
There are basically 2 reasons why Comet, Currys and Dixons got a bad name. The first - and much more unimportant - was that they didn't compete on price compared to online stores. But the second and far more significant is that their customer service and sales staff were literally some of the worst people to deal with ever.
The whole point of having a brick and mortar store is that people go in to try out products AND GET ADVICE FROM A REAL PERSON. That's where the value of a physical store is. Before online shopping, many people would go to a more expensive store, IF the customer service / advice provided there was better than a cheaper store. This is a point that was missed so massively by these stores and as a result they are now tarnished brand names.
What frightens me most about this, is that this level of government ignorance about "how stuff (doesn't) work" is probably being applied by David & Co to most other aspects of what they're supposed to be making decisions on.
Most people here are clever enough to realise that:
1. There is no Magic Button(TM) which will just make all the bad stuff go away.
2. It will have no effect on the people it's supposed to target, whilst having an adverse effect on people it doesn't really need to apply to.
3. It's considered a good idea only by people who don't understand the reality of how stuff works and/or can't be arsed to talk to their children.
Are decisions based on this poor level of understanding/lack of information being applied to other areas in our society? No wonder our country is fucked.
Here we go, someone trying to come up with a "serious" point about something that's clearly happened in error.
Along the same lines - if he'd received a bill (rather than credit) in error for this amount, then technically should he have to pay some of it or the interest for the time over which the error wasn't spotted?
The answer - in both cases - is obviously no.
"The code is so useful, a third party uses it in a product that mints cash. The cunning coder could then, thanks to Copyright, have a legal lash at the product's owners."
I agree that if someone does that deliberately then it doesn't seem right. But equally if I put time/work/effort into building something and someone else just takes that for their own financial gain (without giving me anything), then is that right either? Some people expect to make money from their work and just because they use a particular solution to host and store the code doesn't mean that shouldn't matter anymore.
I think this point also goes hand-in-hand with "developers [...] can't confront the chore of picking a license". What would be the correct licence if you wanted to host your code on Github and expect to be paid if others made financial gain from it? I don't know, and I bet some others wouldn't either. So what happens then? I don't bother to pick a licence at all - and now back to square 1.
Anyone got any idea on the cost of these as I've heard conflicting reports?
I presume some new displays will be brought out at the same time as these. So the cost for this and a single display - going to be a lot isn't it?!
>I hope that you still find it equally whimsical when, god forbid, it happens to you.
That's exactly my point - it won't happen to me because I'm someone who's prepared to focus on learning and keep my skills up to date as I go along. You sound like the sort of person the original comment applies to. Someone who is bitter at the idea that your years of experience are not as relevant as what you actually can (or cannot) achieve in real life.
The bit about "keeping your skills nearer the edge" is something that so many people fail to understand or bother with.
It always amuses me when you get people in their 40's/50's who get made redundant and are then shocked to find they can't get another job on the same salary, because after all their "years of experience" is all that should matter. Yes you have years of experience - of knowing very little.
...his CSS skills didn't change much over the next 4 years.
You're not kidding. In web development circles the 123-reg control panel is regarded as the best example of how NOT to develop a web application. Usability isn't a word they've heard of and it seems that also applies to security.
People seem to mis-understand what level of security SSL encryption offers. You can make a web form that collects user data and have this sitting behind SSL. Let's say one of the fields on the form is your password. The SSL cert will help protect that as it's posted from the form to the server. However what happens to it once it reaches the server (e.g. in terms of storing it to a database) is a completely different matter. Just because the site uses SSL does not mean anything in relation to the encryption used when storing/processing that data beyond the initial post.
The problem with this - and many other sites like it - is that they just aggregate and then present boring content uploaded by boring people.
These sites don't particularly "do" anything. What would be novel is if someone could come up with some smart algorithms for filtering out rubbish automatically - without manual moderation - and then give the best search results to users based on their search. I'm yet to see a site which does this properly.
I've dealt with Rackspace many times and without wishing to sound like an advert for them they are one of the best companies I've ever done business with, particularly in terms of technical support. They seem to be one of the few companies that have grasped the idea that if you plan things well, get the right staff, treat staff properly and be open-minded you might just be on to a winner!
I work in the web development industry and the irony of this is that a growing number of web developers (myself not included) are writing HTML5 applications, specifically targeted at mobile devices where, a the article points out, support is worse than on desktop browsers.
There is a lot of bandwagon jumping going on at the moment in this area (see also CSS3) with people deciding to use it even before the standards are truly finished, nevermind peoples devices and software being able to support what they're making.
Whilst I think it's a good thing that people are trying to move things forward and push boundaries, in a few years time we could end up with a load of systems/code which need updating because some developers couldn't wait.
Just an observation of mine. Any other devs that agree/disagree?
"at least [Ritchie] actually built stuff with his own hands and therefore deserves that much more acknowledgement for his achievements."
Well if you're using that analogy then Mark Zuckerberg also deserves a lot of credit.
The difference between Ritchie and people like Jobs (or Zuckerberg) is how much they care about making the sound of their own voices heard. Some people like to just create great stuff and don't do it for glory or credit.
It's quite sad that many people don't even know who this guy was but also it's a compliment to how little he gave a shit about "marketing" himself!
I've said this many times before but when it was originally launched, Facebook had the combined benefits of doing what no other site did, in a very simple way that it was almost impossible for the end-users to not understand.
Nothing truly innovative or groundbreaking has come from them since it was launched. It's been a case of them adding medicore, semi-useless add-on's to it.
There is also a growing realisation - not just by the IT savvy - that Facebook are extremely concerned with tracking users and trying to maintain some kind of hold over them.
The trouble for competitor sites is not just that there are 800 million people using Facebook, but that there are now so many online services that are - to some extent - integrated with the platform meaning if you do close your account you may lose out elsewhere. However unless they keep it simple and stop trying to retain so much control over their users, I hope people do abandon it in the near future.
Facebook was built after Zuckerberg created a site (Facemash) where he stole a load of student photos from servers at Harvard... and then when he was in trouble for this, accused the IT department of not protecting people's personal data.
Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot he's quite eager to mis-use other people's data for his own purposes.
Surely the compromise with all of this is to give the end user the ability to either switch it on/off, or install additional keys? This is no different to the way some operating systems come with a firewall installed, which the end user can either disable or customise - e.g. set up their own port rules - based on their needs. It's just a layer of security that can be customised.
We have to remember that for the vast majority of people (not Reg readers, but everyone else!) whether this can be switched on or off will probably never be an issue.
Or would people still have a problem for this if it was switched on by default with the ability to turn it off or amend it somehow?
When Facebook started out it was a great example of a service that nobody rivalled. There were no other sites that did what it did, as well as it did. And that was the whole point of why people flocked to it, because it had effectively solved a problem.
But looking forward that's beginning to shift. Facebook are not coming up with anything new or truly innovative. They're just starting to add more crap into it that is of diminishing interest to the user's. And it's all about people commenting on other people's stuff (how exciting, not).
It still amazes me that 2 of the most popular sites in 2011 - Twitter and Facebook - are essentially just tools for people to make the sound of their "angelic" voices heard. Neither of them have any groundbreakingly complex functionality groundbreaking or services which are of any other value other than seeing what other people are saying!
Speak to them offline. You know, face to face*.
Also the algorithm probably wouldn't be needed if Facebook users didn't insist on creating "friends" lists with hundreds of people they met one time 10 years ago. Do I want to look at photos of someones wedding I wasn't invited to because I didn't really know them? Probably not, but that's just me!
* Yes, I understand that for people separated by large distances it's not practical but there are communication methods other than social networking sites.
The people who will do well out of this "bubble" will be ones who continue to develop services that aren't offered elsewhere, or implemented in a much better way than any competitor.
The case in point here is Facebook, which although people bitch about, has been a huge success. The reason for this is simple - it serves a need that people have in a better way than any other site. Now there will always be people (particularly some Reg readers) who don't like it, but there are of course a large number of people who do, and so that creates a high demand. And so it continues to thrive.
There are startup companies putting new stuff online almost every day. Many of these fail simply because they're not actually offering anything that (a) people want or (b) implementing it in a way that's no better than anyone else.
Value lies in services that people want and use and no matter how much people don't like that, it's always going to remain the case.
I disagree with you. I don't think Zuckerberg stole anything - the twins hired him to produce a site that had a resembelence to what became the first version of Facebook but he had loads of his own ideas that he incorporated into his own version.
The only reason the twins were annoyed was because Zuckerberg's site was hugely successful and they understood he could go on to make a lot of money. If he had come up with something that was rubbish and nobody used, they would have just laughed at him for investing money in a failed venture.
It all comes down to jealousy that he was succesful and they weren't, in my opinion. Also they should have done a damn lot more with protecting their "idea" if they were worried someone may copy it. But of course, nobody did.
These 2 really annoy me, and I'm not just basing this judgement off the Social Network film.
Nobody stole any ideas from them - they didn't have anything even close to the idea behind Facebook. The fact they got anywhere close to 65 million by trying to argue this is an absolute joke.
At the end of the day the person who goes and implements something and makes a success of it deserves to be rewarded. Whenever I hear people whining (and suing others) for "stealing" their ideas I just think, well maybe you should have got off your arse and implemented it before someone else did.
Apple will be removing optical drives from their entire range of computers if "you don't need one"?
All the more amusing when they're quite happy to sell an external optical drive, indicating that, perhaps some people do actually need them. And since when has lowering the cost of anything been something they actively cared about?
It may as well read "WE couldn't be arsed to put an optical drive in here, but thats ok, because YOU don't need one!".
things may have moved on but nobody makes keyboards as good as the ones that came with the original '81 IBM PC!
I'm not sure that's entirley true.
Facebook may not be interested in creating another Google clone or traditional search engine, but clearly search is something they've worked on. If you look at how responsive their site is when searching for anything it's clear they've spent a while refining things. It seems to me almost natural that they'd want to create their own search system directly within Facebook and then use information from logged in users to share that data.
I might be wrong on this and it's just my opinion, but I think it's quite narrow minded of Google to assume Facebook (or another social network) has no interest in search.
The point is that to stop it happening at all is so simple that whether or not it will/has happened is irrelevant.
Just been to their website - never visited it before - hello 1999! If that's any sign of how competent their web developer(s) are then this really doesn't come as a surprise.
I had a strange problem with Hotmail when they rolled out the new version. In Firefox 3.6, immediately after logging in the browser tried to redirect me to atdmt.com (or a subdomain of it).
I Googled this and found it's to do with a tracking cookie and there are some settings you can make in your hosts file to block it. What's strange though is that when you use IE 7 or IE 8 you don't get that problem. It has since started to all work properly in Firefox again, so I've no idea what happened with it - was it a deliberate attempt to switch people to IE? Confusing if they're recommeding Chrome.
My first experience of Linux was in 2002. I was studying for a degree in computer science and it was on the lab PC's. I remember downloading Redhat (version 7.3 I think) and couldn't even get it installed on my laptop, so never bothered with it on my own machine!
Things have moved on a long way since then and the installation process is much easier. Being able to try a "live CD" is convenient too - all of that wasn't available 8 years ago. I think people like Mark Shuttleworth have done good in getting rid of stupid messages and asking people stuff they don't understand just to get it installed.
But there are still several key problems which existed with it in 2002 which haven't changed at all. Firstly, and to repeat some of the comments above, it's fine to use it if you're a developer or are dealing with other people using Linux. But if this isn't the case it's not practical for real life, every day use in an office/workplace environment. I know people have done loads of work to get file converters working so you can open files from a Windows machine on a Linux machine, but there's still a long way to go. Also this thing about there being equivalent apps for Linux and Windows or MacOS - is just not the case, otherwise of course more people would bother with it. The second point is that the attitude and mentality of hardcore Linux users is that their way is always right and they will often justify their arguments without thinking about the real-life, every day practicalities of using such an operating system.
Compared to using Linux 8 years ago, it's in a much better place. But there is still such a long way for it to go, in both technical terms and the attitude of its community (as will probably be noted by people modding down this comment!).
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu .....
Yeah that's really helpful for people who are new to it to understand what they're supposed to be downloading!
One problem Ubuntu sorted out was by making the installation process easy and not asking people questions about things they would have never understood. Same thing goes on the names though - make it simple and definitive and more people might get on board!
The problem where various people have faced huge bills has happened because until they actually received the bill, they were unaware of how much they had spent. On PAYG plans it's not such an issue because once you run out of credit, you can't rack up any more debt. But with contracts you can effectively get a bill for anything. Most operators offer online billing, but again, why would you want to access that online - especially using a mobile - if you're not sure how much it's costing?! It should be a rule that every operator has to provide free reporting on how much you owe them at any time.
Basically it wasn't his property, no matter how much some people on here wish it was.
That's all there is to it really. Nothing surprising here... to anyone with common sense.