That's not as bad as...
when they print on an inkjet and it just spits the page straight out. Highly irritating!
1298 posts • joined 22 May 2007
when they print on an inkjet and it just spits the page straight out. Highly irritating!
You can NEVER have too many.
So THAT's where they got the idea for that.
Gotta love Cartman's line in it:
"It's a phone, it's and iPad, AND it craps in Kyle's mouth?!"
"That near silence can be a bit of an issue in car parks and built-up areas - the number of idiot pedestrians who stepped out in front of me over the course of a week beggared belief. Forget fitting electric cars with an audible means of approach, we need to start running these buffoons over in the interests of Darwinian selection."
One theory is that an anti-proton is actually a proton travelling backwards through time. When the two collide, it is actually the proton being "reflected" in the time dimension by collision with a photon, so it looks like the 2 are converted to photons.
I didn't read too much about it, so the details are fuzzy... and this was only one theory about them.
I agree that the majority of human kind is selfish, and will ultimately do things in their own interests. This is why capitalism "works", at least better than the implementations of the alternatives we have had so far.
However, the point of FOSS is not always altruism. In many case it is because it works, at least for the developers involved.
Let us say you need/want a specific feature in your office suite. Using a proprietry suite, you would have to request that feature from the supplier and hope they see enough commercial interest in developing it. Go to FOSS, and you can add it yourself, then make that feature available to the community. It is, in this case, a selfish motivation: you want it, so you make it. You get the benefit, but you also get the benefit of everyone elses contributions, and probably help from the community to ensure your contribution is up to the job (stable and works as expected). They will help improve it: not for altruistic reasons, but for their own benefit (even if it is just for their own ego).
And WRT votes: I'm not going to down vote you on the grounds that you WANT to be downvoted. See above resonse about sadist and masochist.
that it must be done and transmitted/received in near real time, which affects the possibilities quite drastically.
Maybe YOUR human ear... put background music in and I find hearing VERY difficult. (I am still unsure if this is to do with my hearing or my attention span...)
My cousin has just turned 13, and she's been on FB for at least a couple of years
We were recently take over by a large, US-based multinational. They use Notes, we use Exhange. We have been fighting since the takeover NOT to use the damn thing, and even harder since our Exchange licenses came up for renewal. Much as I hate MS, anything is better than Notes!
"How 'bout not being nasty to anyone for anything unless they really deserve it?"
What about "know your audience" combined with "don't be so easily offended"?
I am a polite person, and I rarely upset anyone. I do, however, take the piss out of friends and aquaintances when I think they can take it.
I have, on occasion, got it wrong and offended someone. Often this is because I didn't realise something was a touchy subject for the person involved. Mostly, they laugh it off, realising there was no malice in what I said, and then let me know later (at which point I feel very guilty and appologise profusely). I have also been on the other end, and try to do the same.
When someone is doing it out of malice, it is a completely different story. Fortunately I have found that this rarely happens (except at school, of course). My response is still the same however: treat it as a joke if you can, no matter how hurtful, or ignore it if you can't laugh it off.
I am not a strong person, and know how hurtfull things can be. But friends will avoid touchy subjects when taking the piss, and why do you care about the others?
"Ginger kids are born with a disease which causes very light skin, red hair, and freckles... This disease is called Gingervitus, and it occurs because ginger kids have no souls."
(South Park, great episode :D )
I also remember when one of my girlfriends mates dyed her hair ginger... my girlfriends response: "Why would you dye your hair ginger? It's like purposely making yourself ugly!"
Seriously, though, everyone takes the mick out of everyone else (at least here in the UK). It is banter. If you are offended, it shows more about your own insecurities than the oppinions of others.
... which is probably computerised.
AFAIK OSX is loosely based on FreeBSD (correct me if I am wrong). The FreeBSD license is open to the point where you can just wholescale copy it into a comercial system and sell it, without telling anyone or openning the code.
I'm guilty of it myself, cobbling together a mishmash of bash & perl to get a job done rather than writing an efficient C program.
I did enjoy my microcontroller programming course at Uni though, done ALL in assembler. It really taught you how things were structured at an underlying level, and gave me a sense of efficiency in code.
Unfortunately, I kinda missed out on the ZX81/C64 etc. age. My first computer was an Amiga (incidentally, a cousing got me interested in both Maths and Programming on that, writing a BASIC programme which drew spirograph-type pictures), and I played with my fathers x86 AutoCAD station*, but I think that uC course did a lot to help me understand efficient programming.
* Untill I stopped it working and cost him a days work.
"The problem is that office skills aren't education, they're training. And one problem with training over education is that it narrows the mind. If all you give kids about computers is Powerpoint, a lot of them aren't going to grasp the full potential, or be able to adapt to when we drop Powerpoint for something else.
"It's like teaching kids French by giving them a phrase book, or giving a ready-filled iPod and calling it a music lesson."
Taking this back to cars: I learned basic maintenance and repairs on my car from the beginning (BTW I'm not even 30 yet). I then learned more when I bought a Mini and became friends with a mechanic. Eventually I learned about the theory behind them in my degree course.
When learning to drive, you get taught what you need to pass the test (I have a big problem with this, at least motorcycle lessons are better, with most instructors teaching beyond that). However, understanding what is happening, and why you do this in this situation, is better than learning by rote.
Understanding why you change gear, why you need (in an older car) to release the brakes when the wheels lock, why a hole in the exhaust (or a horribly mismatched "loud" exhaust) hurts performance and economy, and why tyre pressures need to be correct (just as a few examples) has helped me immensely in driving. Understanding the Otto & Deisel cycles and other in-depth topics has not helped as much, but still adds more information with which to make descisions.
Back to computing, if someone learns about "what's under the hood" (in abstaract terms, at least) they are more likely to be better able to opperate the machine. If they just learn how to use MS Office, their skills are non-transferable and they will have a much harder time adapting to other tools they must use later.
@Destroy All Monsters
It's not easy to understand (just like most quantum physics), but it's still a good post :)
"I believe the GG limitation is due to thier resale of the O2 service. I very much doubt they would have added thsi limit themselves as they do NOT offer any option to enable tethering or use a GG sim in a dongle."
I'm on GG myself, and I also have no problem with the tethering restriction.
However, AFAIK the reason for "no tethering" has been because they do not charge for data. Granted, this is changing, but on bundles they allow unlimitted data for phone use. This is not unlimitted but limitted, as with most providers. It means that, from my phone, I can use as much data as I wish and not be charged.
It is much easier to consume a large amount of data from a real computer than from a phone. Granted, you could use, say, a bittorrent app on your phone and download a lot, but restrictive storage and other limitations makes things difficult.
I don't think this is an unreasonable condition.
PS I beleive they are currently looking into tethering goodybags.
Yep, that's it exactly.
My personal belief is that the eBook ex. VAT price should be no more than the cheapest paper copy currently available. So, for a new release, set it at (at most) the cost of the Hardback+VAT, when the paperback comes out drop it to a max of the cost of the paperback +VAT.
I also agree that VAT on eBooks is rediculous, but that's how it is. I can accept that (for now...) although it should change.
The major publishing houses are to blame for these slaes not being better.
I have a Kindle. It was bought for me by my girlfriend, even though I told her I prefered real books. Her reasoning was she didn't want all my book cluttering up the house (along with all the computer bits, bike & car parts, tools and assorted junk).
It has changed my mind. It is convenient, easy to use and easy to read. There are only 2 small problems.
The first is that I already own a lot of books. There is no way I am going to buy these books again on the Kindle. Unlike CDs (and tapes, videos, DVDs etc) there is no easy way to format shift. I feel I would be morally justified in trying to locate and download these books from the "less legitimate" sources, although others would probably disagree (including lawyers).
The other problem is price. For new releases, the eBook on Amazon is normally priced higher than the Hardback (with a note saying the price was set by the publisher). Even older realeases are often more expensive as eBooks than paperbacks. Once again, I feel I would be morally justified buying the "real" book and downloading the eBook.
The problem with that is it becomes very tempting to skip the "buying" part. They are effectively encouraging piracy with the current model. As the music industry knows all too well, once this has started, it is very difficult to stop. Basically, they are not learning from previous mistakes, and I will have no sympathy when book sales plummet and they start loosing money. I foresee it happenning rather soon if they don't get their arses in gear.
"the difference between subsidising nuclear power and subsidising solar power is that nuclear is a mature technology and solar is not. In that case, I asked, would she support research into thorium reactors, which could provide a much safer and cheaper means of producing nuclear power? No, she told me, because thorium reactors are not a proven technology."
Love this quote. It is the typical logic-defying argument of someone with an agenda to push.
"The new series will air on freeview channel Dave, which had a big hit with its 2009 four-episode Red Dwarf: Back to Earth special."
That "special" sucked balls. I hope the series is good. Although I doubt it, they were already going down hill fast by the end of the last series.
I was wondering the same...
"It's the kind of suit we're becoming too familiar with: a previously unknown company with no product, lassoing a bunch of fat tech companies and a couple of big-name end users, claiming damages plus injunction against sale of the companies products or services in the US."
The only way I can see to stop things like this happening with patents is a "Use it or Loose it" clause: If the holder of a patent makes no effort to use said patent, they loose it and the patented material is released public domain.
Noone should be allowed to hold back human advances by patenting something they never have any intention of using. Give them a reasonable amount of time, but if they sue down the line and cannot prove that they have been actively seeking to utilise the patent (whether by developing it, developing a product around it, or something similar), throw it out of court, invalidating the patent.
I am not defending them. I am sure that they have been dodgy. I am only passing on what he told me, the opinion of one former employee (who I suspect was too honest, which is why he wasn't with them very long)
As for my assertion that it's for lazy people, I stand by that. I consider selling to a dealer even more so in most instances, but sites such as webuy are a very quick method of getting shut of a motor, where they (or more precisely the dealers they sell the car on to) take on the hassle of trying to get a good price for your car. Yes, you must fill in details about your car and drive it to them. But if you were to sell privately, you will likely have to spend more time putting several adverts out there, showing potential buyers your car, haggling, and generally putting in effort. Selling your car privately will most often bring you the best price (eventually), but it is a much more laborious process. Webuy (or part-exing at a dealer) is a quick and easy method of getting shut, but they will never give you what the car is really worth (they need to make a profit, even the honest ones!)
I know someone who used to work for webuyanycar.
Although I am not saying their practices are right, fair or even legal, he told me the main problem was that people failed to mention defects on the online valuation. They would not mantion the scratched bumper, dented wing, chipped windscreen etc. then complain that they weren't offered the same price. Let's be honest, if you sold your car on ebay, for instance, and you didn't mention the faults correctly, you can't expect the buyer to want to pay as much (most often they will cancel as the car is not as described).
The other point is that they are making money from people's laziness. You know they will never offer full market value, because they need to make a profit. It saves you time, so you can accept a lower price, but you will get more if you put in the effort to sell privately.
Once again, I'm not saying they are right... Just that people slag them off more than they deserve sometimes.
"The unauthorised access was detected and traced back to an internet connection at the home Dinh shares with his mother in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania."
This is what has become of present day "hackers"?
There are now so many easy ways of disguising where an attack came from, but it looks like he wasn't even intelligent enough to use Tor. The guy deserves jail for his stupidity more than for his "hacking".
If it was done to bash the company, they are twats.
If it was done to highlight the stupidity of the UK copyright law (which it has), it's rather clever really.
I had no choice but to downvote your post...
YOU'VE GOT THAT ******* SONG STUCK IN MY HEAD!
Pretty much shows what I though of myself: Quite middle-of-the-road economically but reasonably libertarian.
It's an interesting experiment, and I support the way it seems to be being used to broaden the people's political horizons (voting for those who most closely match your position, rather than "we're a Labour/Conservative family"). I doubt it will work, though, and it is an oversimplification, but interesting non-the-less.
They should "use more Apple products" during an "efficiency drive"?!
We recently had a similar experience. One of our higher-ups decided that, for the upgraded systems we were putting in place, he wanted Macs.
Not only did they cost more than twice the price of the faster hardware we specced for him, the software *wouldn't even run natively* on Mac OSX. We would have had to either boot them into RHEL or run RHEL in a VM to make it work.
He just wanted Macs.
In the end we managed to slap him with a wet kipper (well, go over his head explaining the massive waste of resources he wanted to engage in) and he got a bunch of generic very fast workstations (the sort that starts tingly feelings in unmentionable areas) for half the cost, but he wasn't happy (I WANT A MAC WAH WAH WAH!!)
E ~= 1KW/m^2
e(leaf) ~= 2%
e(art leaf) ~= 10e(leaf) ~= 20% = 0.2
so for the artificial leaf, you get 0.2*1000 = 200W/m^2
for 0.005544m^2, you get 1W, not 0.01W
unless I have missed something (I am as prone to error as anyone else)
"In short, in a fight, humans would easily win an air war against the robots - at the moment."
Would it not be a good idea to keep it that way?
Engineering at it's best. Very simple, elegant and original solution.
I once worked this out to try to save money. I have moved further from a train station now, so these figures are not accurate any more.
If I took the train to work, I would need to be on the first applicable train from my local station, at about 6am. I would need to change 3 times, and would arrive at the station nearest where I work at 9:30am, giving a total of 3 and a half hours travelling. The situation is the same on the way back. Therefore, I have spent a total of 7 hours out of my day, nearly a full working day, just travelling.
If I could work on the train, then things become a little better. Time I could work on the train, taking into account the changes and some time to get set up on the train, would be approx 2.5 hours each way. Assuming I can get a suitable seat, of course. This then leaves me with only 2.5 hours to do at work, but it leaves you thinking "Why didn't I just work from home in the first place?"
In the car, the journey takes me 30-45mins. It makes for a simple choice.
Specifically with respect to these trains, one of the often-quoted advantages to using public transport is the ability to get work and/or other things done while travelling, which you cannot do while driving (at least, you shouldn't, although I know a few people who check their emails, update client notes etc. while driving). If there is barely enough space for you to sit, there is no chance of you being able to get your laptop out.
"hardly worth a fawning two page article on El Reg"
I count 3 pages.
"Why oh why are we still developing technology that requires combustable fuel"
Maybe because it's the only technology we have which is currently usable in this situation?
I would LOVE to see someone try to power a hypersonic aircraft with batteries. At this point in time, it is just not possible.
Cars, I can see the point. We are nearly at the stage where an electric car could replace one with an ICE for more than short distance use. It's already there with hybrid tech (although I don't see why they are all petrol, diesel seems a better fit for most).
But aircraft still have a LONG way to go, and spacecraft will be in the "distant" future. For now, we still need combustion-based technology for these applications.
How could they think they could get away with it?
"I'll take a copyrighted work, remove the copyright notice and a couple of bits I don't need, and it is not longer copyrighted so I can do what I want"
If you tried that with anything else, you would be laughed at.
I don't think that's quite true.
I do not know if the judge can make Crossley pay the actual court costs, although I hope he can.
I think the people who will be most out-of-pocket are those who chose to defend themselves. They will have huge fees for their lawyers. They are the main costs which need to be recouped.
I think, in this case, Crossley (or at least someone involved in this despicable extortion racket) should pick up all the costs involved. It would send a message to anyone thinking of doing the same in future.
"These displays are one of the few ways that tobacco manufacturers can work to recruit new younger smokers."
I think the main way they recruit is by a school kid, one of the tough, cool kids, getting their hands on a pack. Their friends then see it as cool, so start.
I remember reading somewhere that this will just generate more revenue for Tobacco companies.
Tobacco co's saved a hell of a lot when they were no longer allowed to advertise, and this was not passed on to the consumer.
The same will happen with packets: They will cost the co's a substantial amount less.
It will not discourage smokers. It is unlikely to stop people from starting smoking, as most start in their teens before they are legally allowed, so can't buy them from a shop anyway.
I haven't seen the figures (so don't take this as fact), but someone told me that the tax the govt collects from tobacco exceeds the NHS budget.
This was a few years back. It may be that NHS costs have gone up and smokers, therefore tax revenues, have gone down. It also may just be incorrect.
I what Vodafone is saying is correct, and they have not used "tax avoidance" (perfectly legal) to lower their tax bills, they are actually in trouble anyway.
A company's main responsibility is, AFAIK, to bring value to shareholders. This is done by generating the maximum possible profit.
If they have not exploited tax loopholes to lower their tax bill, they have not done their duty towards shareholders and could face action from them.
Rock, meet Hard Place.
Had the same problem with my insurance. Not such an easy solution though (I am still fighting it, without much success as yet...)
"Athiests KNOW there is nothing. It's not about a belief in something which cannot be proven."
Do you wish to prove that there is no god?
But I don't get it.
There seems to be a lot of argument (here and elsewhere in this thread) about that phrase.
"An Atheist believes there is no god."
As far as I have always been aware, that is the definition of an Atheist. Not someone who doesn't believe in any of the religions, not one who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god. The whole premise is the belief that there is no god.
Of course we can go into definitions of god, but apart from that I fail to see the flaw. Is my definition of Atheism that wrong?
As to faith... I was brought up in a religious household. Faith, in a religious context, is accepting an idea as fact without proof. There may be much evidence to support the idea, but not enough to stand up to a full logical argument. This is where faith comes in.
So, by all the information I have at hand, my argument was logical. I am not "exploiting the multiple meanings that English words and phrases can have in the service of a bullshit argument".
An Atheist believes there is no god.
There is no solid evidence that there is no god (just as there is no solid evidence that there is a god).
Faith is a belief in something for which there is no solid evidence.
Therefore, an Atheist has Faith that there is no god.
Atheists believe that a god does not exist.
Those who are Agnostic do not believe that a god exists.
There is a difference. Atheism is a postitive belief. Agnosticism(?) is a lack of belief.
"If we all believed in pure Darwinism/Evolution then it would be perfectly acceptable to run small children over on the way to work. Going for a new job? Gun down your rivals as they arrived for their interviews. Selfish Gene and all that, survival of the fittest. Perfectly justifiable."
This is pure bull!
We are social animals. We have "known", since long before religion, that in order for the species to continue we must work together. We must support and defend our offspring, our family, our social group.
Morals did not grow from religion, they were incorporate into religion. Religion grew from a desire to understand the universe (from science, you could say). Instead of saying "we don't know", we formulated theories, for example an all-powerful being. Religion grew because, firstly, it gave easy explanations to what seemed unexplainable, and secondly, people realised it was a great tool by which to control people.