"If successful, it will beat the previous world record for the highest jump"
If not... well, let's hope it doesn't come to that.
1228 posts • joined 22 May 2007
"If successful, it will beat the previous world record for the highest jump"
If not... well, let's hope it doesn't come to that.
"I reckon most people will get somewhere above 70"
The vast majority of "BT Infinity" customers do get very high speeds.
However, a big part of this (if I have been given the correct info) is that BT refuse to allow anyone on "Infinity" who they are not certain will get a decent speed, instead pushing you onto a different product. It is used as a way to fiddle the figures for their Infinity product.
That said, many more will get the higher end of the speed range purely because people tend to be closer to their cab than their exchange.
Were you talking to me there?
I did not say once that I thought these guys were not guilty.
Admittedly I went off at a tangent, but I was discussing the legal system in general. I was replying to another post which mentioned this point. You know what? In the real world discussions of one topic often lead onto other topics.
I won't lower myself to name calling, though.
"Personally I'd rather have a few bad guys on the street (and visible policing to help prevent crime) than innocent people in Jail/dead as you would get with those guys."
Indeed, this is supposed to be the very reason for "innocent unless proven guilty". It is better to have thousands of people get away with their crimes than for one innocent person to be punished.
At the end of the day, if we send someone to prison who was not guilty, they can never be given back what was taken from them. If we fail to convict someone who is guilty, they can be prosecuted later when more evidence comes to light.
"Something that forces me to shop in a single place is BAD"
I have a Kindle (e-reader, not tablet), which my other half bought me. I have bought books from Amazon. I have also bought books from several other stores, downloaded freebies from Amazon and elsewhere, as well as "illegally" downloading electronic copies of some books I already own as hardcopies (I'm not buying them again just to have the ebook).
Although it is not as easy to buy books elsewhere, you are certainly not locked in. Callibre makes it very easy to organise and convert books, and will even push them over the air (using the device's email address). It's no more difficult than many other ebook readers*.
I tend to be more tempted by a slightly higher price on Amazon as it is much easier to use, but if there is a large disparity, or I can't get what I want on Amazon, I can go wherever I want.
*In comparison, I have seen the interface for a friends ereader. With no wireless, it must be connected to a PC by USB and books loaded onto it using proprietry software. If I buy/download a book elsewhere, I just drop it in my Calibre library, press a button, and the next time I enable wifi on my kindle it is almost immediately there.
"the alternative is that small companies and lone inventors have no protection or ability to sell inventions they can't afford to implement. It would also halt purchase of smaller companies by larger ones."
I would beg to differ.
IMHO, a patent should only ever be granted to an individual: the inventor. That patent should be owned by the inventor for the rest of his life*, but may be licensed to companies.
While not a perfect answer, I believe this would help the patent system.
*Possibly extended beyond the life of the inventor, as long as it is inheritted by another individual.
"Samsung tried abusing the patent system in the trial vs Apple"
Possibly true. I am not saying 2 wrongs make a right, but I have seen a lot of abuse of the patent system by Apple, too. Not abuse of patents, IMHO, but abuse of the patent system (by patenting things which should not be patented, mostly because of prior art).
"they wanted to get paid twice for the same FRAND SEP patents."
I don't know the full details, but IIRC Samsung put a clause in their license agreement saying the license couldn't be passed on. This does seem sneaky, but surely the HW mfrs should have checked this.
After this, when Apple tried to negotiate a license (which shows that they knew they needed a license) they rejected the terms (fees). This means they do not have a license. They are selling infringing equipment. If they think the terms offered are not FRAND, they should be taking Samsung to court over it, not just ignoring it and selling infringing devices.
"Apple have never been accused of abusing any FRAND SEP patents"
As far as I know, this is because they haven't, until recently, had many.
I do think Samsung are being twunts, but no more so than Apple.
"Android is designed to allow this very thing to happen."
As has been stated, yes it is. But this is not an OS error, but a scam and a user error.
Every time an app is installed, you are told what "permissions" it is requesting. The fact that users don't bother to read these is their problem, not a problem with the OS. It is like someone running Windows blindly clicking yes in answer to a dialogue box asking for Admin rights, similarly in Linux/Unix GUIs.
In a well designed OS, it is the resonibility of the user and the administrator* to make descisions relating to the security of the system. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". I'd rather have my freedom than the restrictions of Apple.
*In terms of mobe's, the user and admin are normally one and the same, although most users don't realise. In Apple's case, they have decided users can't be trusted, so they become the administrator.
' "He should at least learn English if he want's to try this"
I really hope that was deliberate...'
All I can say is "Ooops!"
Mahoosive FAIL on my part there...
The one point he raised that I agree with is that it is often policy for companies to hand out sample components. I have had several when I have been in the prototyping stages of projects. The difference here is that the 'Pi foundation is a not-for-profit organisation with a "No samples" policy, and rightly so. Very few of my projects have got off the ground, and a NFP can't afford to be handing out freebies.
All that said, the guy here was obviously a blagger. He should at least learn English if he want's to try this (especially claiming he is a journo, although his writing skills aren't that far off most journalists... No offense meant :-P ), and resorting to threats and accusations of racism are not the answer.
One thing which was pointed out on the Pi site, however, is that Eben's frustration was clearly showing by the end of the exchange. I don't blame him for becomming frustrated, and I would have been much worse, but his responses left something to be desired.
Personally I would have told him to **** off much sooner and ignored him, or presented him with a torrent of abuse, but that's why I'm not in a public-facing role...
I have to say, I have only ever used iTunes once. This was when my fiance had put some music from my server onto her iPhone before I had organised it, so it needed re-adding once I placed the files in the correct place. Although it took took me longer than I would expect for such a simple task, this was only because I had never used it before, and even so I had it done in 10mins.
So I must ask: how can people who "work in IT" take so long to sort this out?
I will refrain from posting the answer I expect, as I am likely to offend...
You had faith in humanity? Really!?
Can't type, see icon...
"You do not have to be rich or powerful to get a patent approved. Patent filing does take a little paperwork but mostly that consists of describing your invention in detail. It is cheap to file, less cheap if you use a lawyer's assistance but still no barier to getting a patent. Actually getting the patent takes a while because of the backlog but everyone (corps and natural persons) are in the same queues."
You are, of course, correct. Filing a patent is realtively cheap.
However, the patent means nothing unless you defend it. THAT is the expensive part. If you do not defend it, your patent is a pretty piece of paper you can hang on the wall. If you do defend it against a big multinational, you'd better have some serious cash at your disposal or you could very well go bust before you even get to court.
"the logic is that being drunk makes the crime even more irresponsible and the sentence will be even more severe"
Actually this is interesting.
Take, for instance, killing someone by driving drunk. There are 2 ways of looking at it. The first (which is the one taken by our legal system, I think) is that they didn't mean to kill them, it was an accident, but one caused by their actions. This merits a lesser sentence than murder.
OTOH: The person chose to get drunk, and what happened from there on is a consequence of that choice.
They may be totally against drink driving when sober, but once under the influence their compromised judgement told them it was OK. However, they made the choice to get drunk, hence it is a consequence of their own choice and should be punished as a concious descision.
Then they hit someone and killed them. Once again, they may be a great driver sober, but killing that person is a consequence of their descision to drive drunk. It should be prosecuted as if they had made a conscious descision to kill that person, so should be treated as murder.
I am not saying that this is how it should work, nor that it should not be this way. It is just a very interesting thought experiment.
Couldn't agree more!
I would actually go a stage further and issue people, at 18, with a drinking license, which must be presented every time you purchase alcohol. If you are caught drunk and disorderly, you are suspended from drinking for x weeks/months. Assault etc. while under the influence, or drink driving, get's you a longer ban. Anyone selling to or buying for someone without a license, just as with underage now, gets fined. It would also help with underage drinking.
"This 'safety measure' only 'protects' poor people. Rich alcohlics remain utterly unaffected."
That's the problem with targetting any such issue by price: If you are rich enough you bypass it.
Take an example I have been arguing for: Cars.
If you take a (standard) motorbike test, you are restricted to the power output of the bike you can ride for 2 years. Yet someone could take their test in a 1l Corsa, having only ever driven that car, then go out and legally drive a Bugatti Veyron the same day. As a more realistic example, their parents could put them on their insurance and let them drive their 3l family estate.
I believe there should be a restriction on the car a person can drive for the first couple of years or so after passing their test.
This is the most common argument I hear: "But there is already a restriction. They can't afford insurance on bigger cars." But this does not apply to the 'rich'. So why is it OK to do it if you are 'rich' and not if you are 'poor'?
If you are trying to stop something for real reasons, raising prices is not the way to do it as those who can afford it will continue to do so. It will also encourage (not cause) more crime from the less well off to get round it, and will hurt people who it was not targetted at (e.g. in this case responsible drinkers will have to pay more, even though the regs are not targetted at them).
I really don't have much to add to that. Thanks, I can go back to sleep now... :D
"But it's not bevelled at precisely"
Doesn't matter. It looks similar to an iThing: It has a large touchscreen, minimal buttons, and rounded corners. It must be a copy of the iPhone: Look! It even has a camera!
"I have a feature to do that already, it is called a wife."
Whereas I have the opposite in my fiancee: She notices there is something on which I like (e.g. House, South Park, CSI) and switches over to something I don't (e.g. Eastenders).
"Your phone may or may not have a signal until you look at it."
Or you may know where your phone is OR whether it has signal, but not both at the same time
I would say that the problem here is that I do not have the full story.
If it was these 2 blokes who were rating minors on their sexual abilities, then why were they not prosecuted for statutory rape?
If it was not them, then the fact minors were being rated is irrelevant to the case. The cops should go after the people who rated them, not the guys who set up the page. They are obviously dicks, but that in itself is not a crime.
I really do not see why they should have been prosecuted, let alone jailed, for setting up such a page. I wouldn't even say this falls under freedom of speech: They weren't prosecuted for what they, personally, "said", but for setting up somewhere for others to "speak".
"This sort of lawyering sounds hideously dull and unpleasant to me."
And so it is in most jobs. I count myself lucky that, in my employment, I get a feeling of satisfaction from what I do. But at least the lawyers in this case can go home and console themselves with the huge piles of dosh they have earned.
"if the software is sold, obtaining it without paying is quite simply theft."
Please stop with this line. It is not theft. You loose nothing by them obtaining/using (unless you count a lost sale, which is not always the case). It is a violation of copyright, but it is NOT theft.
However, I do see your point. When I produce software and choose to sell it I expect to be paid. In the end, however, I have to accept that some people will pirate it. Most of those, IMHO, would not have bought it anyway, and those who really value it buy it. They are the customers I want, and I have even found piracy has helped them find me (e.g. a friend has been using a pirated version, they've seen it and bought it)
Piracy is an evil we must put up with, because there are no good solutions to the problem. And if you find you are expriencing low sales, it may be that the sales strategy you are using is not apropriate. Maybe you should try making a free, ad-supported version. Or time limitted demos. Maybe you are charging too much, or the software is not good enough. Maybe your marketting is not up to scratch. Blaming the pirates is not the way to go: They are here to stay, so they need to be factorred in to your business plan.
I hope the AC above was just trolling, but...
"There are three prerequisites to owning an Android phone"
I own an Android phone. Let's see how I add up:
"1. Lack of cash"
I'm not rich, but I could afford an iPhone/iPad outright if I wanted to, or a contract to get one for "free". I have to say, though, that there are other things I consider more important. I bought a second hand Atrix, costing me about half the cost of a new iPhone at the time, or probably about the same as the previous iPhone model second hand. I also recently bought a cheapo Android tab: I wasn't going to spend the money on either an iPad or a top-end Android tab because it is just a toy (and something to test some of my development projects on).
In most ways I would say this fits me (I'm always the first to giggle when someone farts), but it has no bearing on my choice of an Android phone. In fact, I would say I am more mature in many ways than the person who goes out and blows all their spare cash on an iPhone: I know that a top-end smart phone is not the most important thing to spend my money on.
"3. Lack of social education"
I don't even understand this. "Social education" sounds like brainwashing to me, but if you mean what I think I would not say I lack it.
There is no envy from me: iPhones/iPads are good peices of kit, but I prefer Android overall. I find it more pleasant to use, and I much prefer the control I have over the device. SWMBO has an iPhone, she loves it, but then she never liked the Android UI. It all comes down to personal preference.
And making generalised personal comments about a large swathe of people you have never met speaks more for your level of maturity and "social education" than it does for anyone else's, and it doesn't help your argument.
I don't think merging all network intrafructure into one company is the best idea. I do, however, think that all the networks should be forced into a sharing agreement, whereby if you can't get a signal from your network but you can from another, you use the other at no extra charge. The differences in coverage can be astonishing, and it would prevent needless extra spending on infrastructure. e.g. The net's could then get together (lol) and divide up all the blackspots between them to deploy to, gaining us universal coverage.
This would also be what I would do with EE and LTE@1800: Let them do it, but force them to allow other operators to use it until they have a chance to build their own.
I don't quite get it. Maybe I'm missing something, so anyone who wishes to help me to undestand would be appreciated.
First off, the court has excluded evidence (by the look of it, quite important evidence) based purely on bureaucracy. This has important consequences for the outcome of the trial. What if a man was on trial for murder and evidence turned up that proved his innocense after a "deadline" for submitting evidence? I know we are talking about two very different situations, but even evidence brought to light in the middle of a trial should be considered.
In addition, AFAIK the situation is this: The judge has excluded the documents from evidence, and the jury has been selected and instructed not to read the press. Therefore how can the release of this material have any impact on the case (unless the jury break the rules, but that's a separate matter)? I could just about see Samsung being held in contept of court and fined (although it would only be fair if they had been instructed not to release the info, or if it was a rule, written or unwritten, that they mustn't), but as it doesn't affect the case there should be no sanctions which affect the case.
"this is a step backwards in my opinion."
It's not a step backwards to offer another option. I believe it would be to offer ONLY Android on the Pi, but not as well as. It's called choice.
"If someone can get "proper" linux running on my Moto Atrix instead of Android, I'd be far more interested..."
I have an Atrix, and have been looking for something similar myself. For a long time, the best you could get was running Linux in a chroot with a vncserver display (or terminal access through something like connectbot) or using the webtop (which requires external display etc).
Things have changed. I am currently using a modified version of a set of scripts provided by the "Debian Kit" app. This tries to integrate Debian (or Ubuntu) into the environment (as is successful in many cases, to a point, due to non-overlapping mount points).
The other development which has interested me is an X server for android. Using this, I am able to run Linux GUI apps, or even a full desktop, inside android. This is much better than using VNC, although not yet fully-featured.
Have a go yourself. I can't give you instructions (if you need them) yet, as it has taken a bit of hacking around to get it working, but all the pieces are there.
Beyond that, there is always the possibility of hacking the "webtop" about to get what you want. It may even be possible to dispense with Android entirely, although I reckon that would take a lot of work.
"this will allow them to change the law and impose a TV tax on us all."
I'm sure I'll recieve many downvotes for this, but...
IMHO the current rules on on-demand TV are a loophole which the law has not yet caught up with.
Back when watching pre-recorded material meant videos/DVDs bought/rented, there was good reason to exclude them from the TV license. Now, I believe that if you are watching catchup TV (i.e. on demand programming released according to the broadcast schedule) it is not really any different from recording that programme from broadcast and watching it later. If you were recording from broadcast, you would require a TV license, so why not when using catchup services?
I, for one, would be happy to see the law changed in this area. If you are watching catchup of broadcast, you should require a license.
This does not apply to such services as Lovefilm/Netflix, as they are the equivalent of renting DVDs.
"Flame comes out of the bottom"
I now have spaghetti all over my keyboard and monitor... Thanks!
"Because the issue is about the change in temperature over time, if they are high at the start of the period because of X environmental factor, they will be high at the end of the period also."
And what if environmental factor X wasn't present at the start of the period? For example, the weather station was situated in a field, but then development has occurred and it now sits in the middle of a housing estate?
"Yes; the facts of the universe will change to whatever Apple and their lawyers tell them to change to."
The Apple Ministry of Truth in action!
Just to qualify, I am not saying Apple is in the wrong, or Samsung, or anyone, just that this comment makes it sound like 1984 has come true.
"It's not a scam, it's basic economics."
I thought that basic economics would say that if demand falls by more than supply (as a cursory glance at the figures suggests), prices would go down.
Ah, but that forgets that we have pretty much no competition, and the big suppliers effecively* fix prices.
*They may not get around a table and decide "We will all charge £x", but they certainly follow each other (If company X puts prices up, the rest follow pretty sharpish)
Net exporter of PETROLEUM.
We import the oil, refine it, export petroleum. The article does say: "but imports more coal, crude oil, electricity and gas on balance."
"But unlike, I don't know, say the S3?"
OK, I didn't know that. However my point still stands: it's easier to press one button to search for anything than to have to choose what to press depending on what you are searching for
This may be the case. However, consider a phone with a dedicated search button (like, I don't know, and Android phone). Which is quicker: Clicking the icon for the particular search you want, which may be hidden in menus/app drawers, may be on a different homescreen etc, or just pressing the search button. A unified search allows you to press the search button, no matter what you are searching for, type a few letters and you probably have the result. It doesn't matter that you already know which DB you want to search, it's quicker* to let the device search everything than to choose what to search youself.
On the subject of this patent, I have seen (and created) such unified/federated search features many times in the past, well before the iPhone, so I really can't see why the patent should be valid (or even exist in the first place). Even google have probably been doing this on their search engine since before this patent, throwing up image/shopping/discussion results (and ads) based on a single search term. Just because it is now related specifically to a smartphone should not make it valid (IMHO)
*I will qualify that with "most of the time". Devices are mostly fast enough to that trawling several DBs for info is quicker than the user selecting which DB.
Oh, and look at that! The table I can get from Ikea looks remarkably like the ones manufactured here in the UK! It has 4 legs and a flat surface on top of them!!
"I'm more of the opinion they shouldn't stop 'blow job' in autocomplete because there's nothing wrong with 'blow job'...."
I'm more of the oppinion that there is something very right about 'blow job' :D
That's what I thought, too. In any other case, worldwide, Samsung would just be able to point to the official Apple UK page and newspapers for an admission that they didn't copy Apple.
"(did you know that texts cost so little to the operators that they can't actually calculate how little)"
I know that, originally, SMS were designed to fit in unused space in the GSM protocol (I don't remember exactly where, was years ago I read it). This would make text messages on the same network, effectively, free. Obviously this may have changed, but if you consider it is 140 bytes of data, proabably plus some headers/other protocol overhead, which means that even at a very inefficient 256 bytes and 4p/msg it's being charged at over £160/MB.
In the end, they charge what the market will allow. If enough people are prepared to pay £100 for something that costs you a penny, you will charge it and make £99.99 profit on each.
"people have signed up to a contract which has in its terms the ability for the phone company to increase prices in line with inflation... Perhaps they should have taken more care when they signed up in the first place."
Maybe they should, but most people do not read the full T&Cs when signing up to these. I know "I didn't read it" is no excuse, but this is how it is.
Also, when a customer is tied in to a contract for a long time (e.g. 2 years), the fact that the price can be increased during this term without the option to cancel is unfair (IMHO). A fixed term contract should not allow mid-term price changes, as most people would have the expectation that the prices involved form part of the contract. Any terms which alter a contract from what would reasonably be expected should be made clear to the customer, not burried in the T&Cs.
I completely agree that they should be allowed to increase prices in line with inflation, but NOT in the middle of a fixed-term contract.
If I signed up for a contract with a "free"(tm) high-end handset, I would probably be tied to a 24 month contract. If I am tied to the contract, at the price designated at the outset, so should the operator. They should not be allowed to increase the price during that contract term without a reasonable get-out option for the customer.
Glad I'm not on a contract. If my operator increases the cost, I can leave immediately. I'd rather save up for the phone I want and buy it outright than be tied in (and I pay less in the long run, too).
"Expect a flurry of these papers in the next weeks and months trying to explain"
Yep. Expect large numbers of physicists to pour over the data to test whether it can be explained using other theories. In some way or another, there may be many theories which can fit the data. Some will be more plausible than others, but it is necessary to compare with as many current theories as possible, as well as to examine it from a clean slate to attempt to construct additional theories, to determine if any alternatives are likely to be correct.
Just because they have discovered a Higgs-like particle does not necessarily mean it is the Higgs Boson. It may be that there is evidence to disprove the entire SM in there, or to allow some genius to find an alternative which turns out to be correct. We don't yet know. The CERN announcement is quite dull, really. The examination of the data may yet reveal something exciting.
Sorry, it was a (mis)quote from South Park. I assumed some people would get it. I was wrong, judging by the downvotes.
Was it like a taco inside a taco within a Taco Bell that's inside a KFC that's within a mall that's inside your nanotube?
"Consoles are, OSes aren't."
OK, I'll give you that. I'll rephrase: GUIs are increasingly reliant on graphics capabilities. I have spent too much time around windows users and slipped. Sorry.
First off, OS's are increasingly reliant on graphics capabilities. Even business workers want all the pretty (and sometimes usefull) effects on their desktops. A more powerfull embeded GPU helps them run more smoothly.
Also, a GPU embedded in the CPU can be more efficient, saving on power. This is a plus for businesses and consumers. For those who need more grunt, an APU can be paired with a more capable discrete card, and the discrete card can be powered down when only light graphical work is done, saving power, keeping things cooler, and prolonging battery life in mobile environments.
Possibly the more important reason is that GPUs areincreasingly used for non-graphic purposes. Even users who don't play games or use graphically intensive apps can benefit from a more capable GPU, and this is likely to become more prevalent as time goes on. So a nice APU would be of great benefit to low end systems where the workload is capable of uitilising it, and these workloads are expanding rapidly. Even something as simple as playing a YouTube video can gain in both performance and efficiency with a more capable GPU than has been available to integrated graphics users before the advent of the APU.
Finally, there is the trend towards integration. This has happenned throughout the developement of electronics, and usually leads to cheaper, better products. Moving the components from an add-in card, to the chipset, then into the processor is a logical progression which happens all the time, and usually benefits everyone.
This is one of the worst reviews/roundups I have seen on el reg. Very limited sample, quoting more old info than new... Not even worth reading.
I have to say I agree with other comments here.
A tablet is not as serious a device, IMHO, as a phone or laptop. A laptop needs to be able to cope with at least semi-serious work, and a phone is going to be used all the time because you have it with you anyway. I see a tablet as a bit of a toy, mostly. It can't replace a laptop as it's not capable enough, it can't replace a smart phone as it's not portable enough. It's great for ebook, watching movies or surfing on the go.
For these tasks, an £80 tab as you can get from the likes of eBuyer/eBay etc. is more than adequate. Sure, the Nexus 7 has better CPU/GPU, and will likely be more responsive & perform better, but £80 better?
Had they included a 3G modem and an SD slot it may have been worth it at that price. Without, I'd go for a cheaper model.
BTW, this is the tab I'm thinking of by comparison: http://www.ebuyer.com/386278-sumvision-astro-7-tablet-pc-astro-7
OK, the processing and graphic capabilities are much less, but it's half the price. I've seen one in action and it performs more than adequately for the sort of use I'd expect people to put it to.
"It looked like we had become the 51st state and at the call of the Americans for a while."
52nd... The UK is 51st, and our politicians are damn proud of it!