44 posts • joined Monday 30th November 2009 17:12 GMT
Stating the obvious
> "It ain't gonna work," Otellini told his audience at Intel's Investor
> Meeting 2011 in Santa Clara, California, on Tuesday.
As if there were anything else he could have said to his shareholders!
> "This is so reminiscent of the RISC-CISC arguments of, gosh,
> twenty-five years ago," he said. "But then the argument was the
> other way around, it was that Intel can never possibly take on RISC
> architecture in the server space."
> He then allowed himself a bit of gloating. "Well, we kind of proved
> that wrong," he said.
Some upstart dislodged the mighty incumbent? That must be the kind of story your shareholders love to hear! I wonder if we're going to see Hot Patent Action against ARM licensees, a la Android licensees?
"carefully planned, very professional"
"Sony has been the victim of a very carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated criminal cyber attack" - in other words, the stealing of PII from Sony was nothing to do with Anonymous.
The weasel wording in Sony's PR gives one the impression that they're saying Anonymous were responsible for stealing PII, but if you read it carefully they don't actually say that. I don't know if the headline writer has fallen into the same trap, or if it's just clickbait.
Good luck trying to get anybody to believe this, Sony! Even if it was true, all you're doing is helping to build the Anonymous brand.
"...the rising tide of lawsuits in smartphones shows the level of competition..."
I think this is more an indication of the parlous state of the patents system in general. They seem to be more of a tax on innovation and favour the status quo, rather than a way of protecting inventions, and they're well past their sell-by date when it comes to software.
IDC = waste of oxygen
Why do IDC continue to get thoroughly undeserved publicity from borderline respectable sites like The Register? Making predictions to 1 decimal place 4 years into the future about the smartphone market is disingenuous at best, retarded at worst.
Postini automatically trusting Gmail
> Remarkably, even the Google-owned Postini filter has trouble determining that email sent over Google Apps is legitimate.
If they did that, then presumably it would incite whining about 'anti-trust' issues.
"To our knowledge the direct causal link between the failure to adopt AES systems and the rise in car theft cannot be drawn,"
"Even if we were to use a contemporary encryption algorithm, our implementation would have been vulnerable anyway"
"Whereas in the operating system context, if you installed Netscape and you double-clicked on a .html file, it would open in Netscape...It would be fully integrated in the relevant sense. But it's hard to see how Yahoo! Maps could get to be fully integrated with Google in the relevant sense. I don't think there's been any discussion of that.""
Presumably the reason that there hasn't been any 'discussion' is because it's nonsense. Are you asking for Google to create a mechanism whereby you can ask it to offer links to 'foo.com' when searching for 'baz', even if it thinks 'bar.net' is better? An interesting idea, but of limited use methinks: you'd just go straight to foo.com if you thought it was the appropriate site. You can use Greasemonkey to edit Google results on the fly if you're *that* bothered. Of course you could always just use another search engine, run by some big, friendly, not-interested-in-making-money organisation, like, say, Bing.
And would you hold yourself to such high standards? What if your daughter asked for a pony for Christmas, but you couldn't afford it; would you suggest your child seek out some alternate, richer parents because she would get her pony, and probably better life chaces to boot?
Preventing bots playing games for money is like trying prevent someone from cracking a DRM scheme. Gambling sites should acknowledge this and allow bots to play, so long as the other players are informed.
Portrait sounds good
I like the idea of portrait orientation - it seems like such a basic thing to want to do, but no sat nav I've ever used has it.
Having said that, why would anybody drop 300 notes on a standalone sat nav nowadays? You could buy nearly *two* Android 10.2" tablets for that with GPS built in, and thus you wouldn't be spending 300 on something that only ever gets use while you're in the car.
And how is 'û' pronounced?
RE: I disagree
You forgot to include the words "hell" and "handcart". Better luck next time.
Technically illiterate + money to burn
Apple users would appear to be the ideal target market for an internet scam.
Cheaper UTM appliance
As you say in point 4 these devices already exist; in fact so many of them exist that they're already got their own name, the Unified Threat Management appliance. The thing that costs money with these is the subscription to the update services, and Intel's manufacturing and distribution might isn't going to help with this.
OK, what am *I* missing?
"serious player"? What part of shipping on tens [if not hundreds] of models of handsets, to millions of customers, doesn't qualify as making a mobile OS a "serious player"?
AAISP do use LLU
AAISP wholesale Be's service as well. However, Be aren't at every exchange, so they also have to wholesale BT's product as well, in which case the state of BT's 21CN is a matter for AAISP because AAISP are BT's customer.
Re : VNC
> Have we missed something in this announcement ?
Yes, it's not an announcement. It's a story about a leaked email that hasn't been confirmed by Google.
Google did some work with NX recently, so that would seem to be a more likely candidate than VNC.
> Google is feeding our search parameters to other websites to process and
> feedback as they wish.
I think you will find that your browser is passing the Referrer: header on to the web server that hosts the site whose link you click on.
Bye bye QA
"...allow developers to quickly create and distribute applications to Ubuntu users without having to go through the same tedious beta and release candidate cycle of the operating system itself."
I hope these untested applications will be clearly marked out to potential users before they install them.
He hasn't really been sued for leaving negative feedback, has he? He's been sued because he compared the seller to a used car salesman and said he was "bad", and he happened to do it in the feedback form on eBay.
But seriously, funny you should mention MySpace. The only reason this tit is getting media coverage is because the Murdoch press are so keen to associate Facebook with paedophilia. If you've had the misfortune to read any of his rags, you'll find frequent articles linking the two, even going so far as to use a large Facebook logo in place of the word Facebook in headlines, to really ram the point home.
Presumably if Brightwotsit were actually a 'Video giant', you wouldn't need to explain who/what they were.
This survey may or may not be bollocks, but to those who whine about the sample size  being too small, it's impossible to say whether or not it's appropriate without accompanying confidence limits. Taking massive samples when trying to analyse a problem is also known as 'counting'.
> What it really just boils down to is pure fucking greed!
Well not quite, I think it's more likely to be incompetence than greed - having 20 different departments of one country's government each paying money to another department of the same government, for the same set of data just doesn't make sense.
How about a Department for Publicly Owned Data, charged with releasing as much taxpayer-funded data sets into the public domain as possible? As others have pointed out, we've already paid for it once with our taxes, and there's no need for us to pay for it again. The OSM [osm.org] project is doing a fantastic job with very little money, just imagine what it could do with a bit of assistance from the public sector; in fact, they could probably teach the public sector a thing or ten about using budgets as efficiently as possible.
Seeing a bogeyman around every corner must be a pretty depressing way to live your life. Do you perhaps suggest that Google instead not bother writing any plugins, and wait for browser makers to catch up?