437 posts • joined 18 Mar 2010
Re: Acronym wanted: must be inscrutable
Unashamedly Stating America is Reimagining Agency Processes Expected to Fix Allied Concerns Eventually
Expect the USA RAPEFACE Act to partner FREEDOM in the coming months :)
Re: kmpl? WTF?
quote: "Since it's volume/distance - the sensible way to measure fuel consumption would be in mm^2 or sq. in."
But mpg is distance over volume, making it a square root of distance. Neither is a directly useful measure even if they are both mathematically correct; is 0.01cm2 better or worse than 228.39in-2?
quote: "To be fair, if I'd spent close on 7 years training, I'd expect a decent salary."
The ongoing training required to stay abreast of hardware and software changes over time, means I've been "training" for this job for over 2 decades and I'm still learning now. How much should I be asking for? ;)
quote: "But on a 4k set it glistens more realistically, and you can see every hair on the flies' legs."
HDTV channels like Sky are broadcast at 720p, so unless you actually have a 4k source you really won't see a difference between a 1080p set and a 4k set. That's why nobody is buying 4k sets, there is literally no need because none of the source tech (Sky boxes, BluRays etc.) is set up for more than 1080p.
I'd consider buying a 4k display for my computer (games would look good in 2160p, although I'd probably need to go SLI to keep a decent framerate), but as a TV set it just isn't necessary yet.
Re: Not just people
Or directors who just had to have a company phone, plus 3G tablet, plus 3G card for the laptop, not counting any personal devices. I guess though that at those heady heights there is no need seen to spend your own money on devices, when you can just bully the IT department into purchasing them for you at company expense. So maybe 3 SIMs per person is probably a fair maximum ^^;
Bitter, me? Perish the thought.
quote: "If they weren't so f*****g stupid the goons that (pay to) send it wouldn't make any money."
Ah, blaming the victim, the past-time of champions.
Re: Good to know
quote: "Read much? It would still apply if the US company had operations in your country.
Is this concept really that hard to understand?"
Actually, this ruling is restricted purely to claims filed in the US, it being based upon US patent legislation. It categorically would not apply if someone filed a claim against a US company in France or the UK; the French (or British) legislation would apply instead, and that may or may not require a business presence of company A to assert the validity of patent claims by company A, as the country sees fit.
There is a lot of overlap (and specific treaties) which cover IP law between nations, including the recognition of patents and copyright in one which was registered in another, but it is still the case that the only valid legislation in country X is that enacted by country X.
(It does make a mockery of claiming you are entitled to invade another country because their laws allow them to do something you don't like, of course, but cognitive dissonance and doublethink are quite prevalent in political circles)
HMRC charge a buttload of duty if you import things through all the proper channels, yes (20% VAT plus at least 5% extras, IIRC). If however you just set off on a 1 week "vacation" and buy some stuff while you're there (like, say, a Macbook or iPhone), then bring it back unboxed and obviously used, you pay approximately nothing extra. At least that has been the experience of several friends of mine, anyway.
The fun part comes if you try to take defective US kit to a UK retailer for repair... :/
quote: "It looks like a good time for more encryption and anonymisation - if you haven't done that already.
If we all did it, they'd never be able to handle their surveillance case-load."
GCHQ will just lean on the local police to force you to disclose under RIPA Section 49; refusal is a criminal offense in the UK.
US citizens at least have the 5th Amendment, although I'm not sure for how much longer.
quote: "Just encrypt it. If your whole dropbox is a giant TrueCrypt vob, then any security deficiency on their part will have limited impact."
As a UK citizen, encrypting data on Dropbox simply means that I just get forced to unencrypt it so the police can check it isn't terror-paedo-tax-evasion files. Failure to do so is a crime.
Note that we also apply this law indiscriminately to anyone "of interest" who ends up on UK soil, so don't plan a trip here if you have anything to hide ^^;
Destiny beta only went live for the PS4 yesterday; the XBox (both One and 360) beta does not start until the 23rd (i.e. next week). There was no need to remind me though :'(
Re: Paper shortages
quote: "I would hope that El Reg readers have discovered better systems than D&D by now. The Traveller you mentioned is one such. I personally prefer Alternity; the rules system is far better."
"Better" is such a subjective term when talking about gaming systems. Some players prefer simplicity, some players prefer complexity (or a related preference for an exhaustive ruleset, which are complex by nature), some players only like sci-fi settings, some low fantasy, some prefer roleplay heavy campaigns, some prefer action oriented campaigns.
I've played 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and 4th ed DnD and enjoyed them. I've also played 4th ed Shadowrun, Runequest, Call of Cthulu, GURPS, Pathfinder (although that's just a reskinned DnD 3.5 with some tweaks) and Feng Shui, and enjoyed them too. If the object of playing them is to have fun, and I have had fun using all of those systems, then I can only surmise that they are all good ^^;
quote: "well, that's just plain stealing. doesn't matter if you're on the ground or in space, whether you're american or more sophisticated. you'd have to intercept, board, probably overcome-if-not-kill the crew, make off with the booty."
None of which is technically illegal, as it has happened in a location where there are (literally) no laws that apply, thanks to there being no jurisdiction or sovereignty over anywhere outside Earth's gravity well. "International waters" is not the same thing as "interplanetary space".
All the US are saying is that they will honour any claims of ownership over extraterrestrial material brought onto US soil.
Re: Sound advice for a scary mission
Courtesy of online translators ^^;
Si non faciat, cum malleo percute.
Re: Cruelest Ending!
quote: "Of all the awful things that the BOFH and his PFY sidekick have ever done, this has to be the worst! Introducing someone to Access!?!?!?"
In fairness, they are introducing Access to someone who has been using Excel as a pseudo-database. Impossible as it sounds, Access may actually be slightly less of a headache once they get the concepts...
(I have a friend who once told me, completely straight faced, that he loved using Access "because I can use Excel spreadsheets directly as a table". Some things are their own reward)
The main difference is that holding a camera (or phone) up makes it obvious to bystanders that you are actively trying to do something to record the input. Wearing a Google Glass style device gives no such visible feedback that you are actively attempting to capture or record anything, meaning that people have to assume whether you are or are not. In other words, you get plausible deniability and a defense of "it's not even turned on" when questioned by the person behind you in the ATM queue, even if you are engaged in nefarious tasks.
Since it is trivial to bypass any indicator LEDs on a device, the only secure assumption you can make for someone wearing a Glass like device is that it is recording. Much like someone waving a toy gun at a SWAT team, you shouldn't be surprised if people automatically make the worst assumption and act accordingly, even if that assumption turns out to be factually inaccurate.
Re: "we are notifying those whose personal information could have been on the server"
"To err is human. To completely screw things up requires a computer."
Re: not password protected?
quote: "Do you seriously log into your home computer with a username and password each time you use it?
Must be something on it you don't want your mother to see...;-)"
I'd make the analogy to your front door in the house, or possibly your car door(s). I'm guessing that you lock those regularly, rather than just leave them unlocked for convenience? Why would you also not lock your computer?
I type a password in to my PC every time, and it takes approximately the same amount of time as fishing my house (or car) keys out of my pocket. It is secured with a password for exactly the same reasons my house and car are secured with keys; namely to keep out unauthorised users (aka burglars or joyriders).
Please tell me you also have "remember my password" ticked for your personal email / online banking logins on this PC that does not have a password set? That would be pretty classic if it were the case :D
In this case, given that phishing is blamed, a more accurate analogy might be
You can make the most complicated locking mechanism in the world useless by simply asking someone inside if they could possibly let you in.
quote: "What's more plausible? That NASA spent all this money for this crap or they did it on the cheap in a studio like Capricorn One?"
What is more plausible, that fire turning wood to ash is due to some invisible gas combining with the wood after somehow flowing through the flame, or simply that wood contains the element of fire and that burning is the release of this element, leaving the earth element (ash) behind?
Occam's razor is a fine tool, but there are some truths that it has difficulty cutting :)
I think we're all expecting them to have stolen a copy rather than the only extant originals, to be honest ;)
quote: "So what exactly does this "existing data protection law" do?"
Possibly the UK Data Protection Act 1998 is the one being referred to. In that respect, you already have the right (as a data subject) to request that the data controller cease processing any personal data of yours held by them that (upon being processed) could cause "damage or distress" (Section 10 of the DPA)
Re: Can't Wait
quote: "I have to say though I do enjoy a nice topple apple."
I'm partial to the odd apple tipple myself :)
quote: "But it's the only show in town, really need a Cannes of gaming. Where games are voted for by actual critics as opposed to industry insiders."
The issue there is finding one whilst simultaneously ousting the other. I don't think any current "gaming review" publication (paper or digital) gives less than 50% (5/10 or whatever) for even the most turgid, bug ridden tripe to be vomited forth from the bowels of AAA publishers. As such, I'd want to find some properly critical* critics first, then worry about setting up an independent review show later.
*as in someone whose review ratings actually fit the Bell curve, with the mean and mode score at 50%, as opposed to skewed off somewhere near 85% or more
Re: Mostly Harmless
quote: "Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen are both frauds. Too bad people nowadays are so dumb to waste money paying for beta testing, early access... with some paying even hundreds dollars for that."
If they are both frauds, then you can easily take them to court for fraud and win by getting them arrested and locked up for breaking the law. I can confirm that the UK has fairly standard fraud laws, and that Frontier Developments (the guys doing Elite: Dangerous) are based wholly in the UK and thus would definitely be liable under UK legislation.
I look forward to seeing the news reports of David Braben serving time, after Joerg brought his fraudulent activity to light to the UK authorities and he was subsequently tried and found guilty in a court of law. I can even give you the contact details if you don't know who in the UK to contact to report them to :)
Re: Going to be the best film ever,
He must have been hopping mad after that one ^^;
Re: Why is The Reg hostile to psychologists?
quote: "Whereas the history of the medical profession is unblemished, eh?"
Since many would consider psychiatry a part of the medical profession, I'd argue that blemish was merely one of many (trepanning and leeches also spring to mind).
quote: "Fascinating how people project their phobias."
I was put off Psychology after studying it at university, and switched to a pure engineering degree. Far more intuitive :)
Re: We're all Scientists these days!
If you've already done the PhD then you already get to call yourself Doctor. I would suggest that the minimum bar to calling oneself a scientist is to have a BSc (even though it includes trick-cyclists, at least it's the ones that did the degree with the difficult sums in), and that the minimum bar to being a boffin is either the BSc or BEng plus working on research that involves hard sums (you could potentially raise the bar to MSc or MEng, I'd concede that that would indicate an intention to continue in a research career)
The lab coat, straight-stem pipe and electrified hairstyle are optional, but are highly recommended accoutrements for proper boffinry.
quote: "Obligatory XKCD since you seem to have missed it:
I like that XKCD, but note that for your 44 bits of entropy, you need to extend the length of password by a factor of 2 or more, and you are only using lowercase letters. You could add another 4 bits per word using the same common substitutions, and an extra 7 by adding numeral-punctuation at the end, for 67 bits of entropy using the same base password string. An extra 23 bits of entropy that also changes it from a 4-word dictionary attack to effectively a brute force on a 30 character password.
I still stand by the "most secure" password being one that is the maximum size that the application allows, and that is composed of a random character stream which includes all allowable characters, as that is the only way to maximise the effort required to crack it; you have to brute force because a dictionary attack will never get it. It is not easy to remember, but that's why there are a myriad of password suites around now to help people use secure passwords without needing to memorise random sequences of gibberish.
For most practical applications, the XKCD method of random word association combined with basic substitutions should yield ok results though. It does at least get people used to using longer passwords, which can only be a good thing :)
The maximum length supported by whatever application requires the password, as long is it is not guessable using phrase based attacks. For instance using a password of:
Now, witness the power of this fully operational battle station
is going to be far less secure than
np0b8yp(BG)Til;ghp789tK:HG)*(&B PIUp97p( &TP ~(U~L@K
which I derived by mashing this keyboard and deleting extra stuff until it looked about the same length ;)
quote: "For the needs of humanity, IPv6 addresses fall firmly into "who cares whether it's infinite or not, we'll never run out" territory. They are numbers which are intended to be assigned to a physical, addressable, entity, the countable number of which could never conceivably reach the limits of that address space."
IPv6 convention splits the 128-bit address space into a 64-bit network address (class X subnet metaphor) and 64-bit device address (which can completely encapsulate any existing IPv4 address in the first 32-bits, should translation be required). What this actually means is that we'll actually be assigning a 64-bit range publically (minus the conventional loopback / broadcast / multicast ranges of course) and let routing kit deal with the internal 64-bits.
So the whole thing has 2127 unique values, but potentially only 263 "assignable" (as in by IANA) values, and a whole slew of dead space, since my home router is not going to need to address 263 devices on my internal network but will get assigned a network ID, and all the unused ones are just as "wasted" as the unused IPv4 addresses in one of the existing assigned class As.
I completely agree that 128-bits (even split 64/64) is more than enough for a planet, but I'd also suggest tacking more bits on once you have to deal with multiple celestial bodies containing addressable objects, maybe an extra 64-bits defined as the "planetary" identifier, and then 64-bits for the "galactic" granularity level, giving 263 objects per subnet grouping, or 9.2e18 devices per 9.2e18 networks per 9.2e18 planets per 9.2e18 galaxies. 256-bit network addressing should in theory let us deploy to a significant portion of the known universe using a homogeneous routing backbone, and still have unique identifiers per device even with the whole thing running DHCP.
quote: "There's actually no such thing as "nearly infinite".
For a number to be "nearly infinite" it must be a finite distance ("delta" away, and so has a value of "inf-delta"... which is, itself, "inf". So any "nearly infinite" number is, itself, infinite... contradiction."
Have a read of the thoroughly confusing wiki page on ordinal numbers to see why set theory defines ω (equal to the cardinal value 0א) is called the "least infinite ordinal" and thus why ω+1 (infinity plus 1) is considered a perfectly valid term. There is other stuff regarding the infinite different sizes an infinite set can be and all sorts of other horrible maths in there.
The good news is I found out where omega and aleph were hiding in Character Map ^^;
Edit: the bad news is you can't put a zero as a subscript on the correct side of an aleph. Oh well :(
quote: "Fuck sake people, infinite does not mean "a really really big number", and isn't something a number can "almost" be, or "nearly" be. A number is either finite or isn't."
Since IP addresses are integers, the set of all IP addresses would have cardinality Aleph-naught, and an upper bound of Aleph-naught (aka omega, the least infinite ordinal). Feel free to read the wiki pages, because I'm doing a Fry and presenting information as fact whilst simultaneously not understanding it properly myself. Maths is hard.
quote: "Q: Is 0.999 recurring equal to 1.0"
Re: Well he is sort of right
To pull a Fry and talk authoritatively about something I don't actually understand properly, an infinite IP address range would have cardinality Aleph naught, because it would be directly translatable to the set of positive integers. Effectively what Pierre was arguing is that as we reach whatever finite limit we currently have defined, we'll just extend the limit closer towards Aleph-naught.
We've gone from 32-bit to 128-bit addressing this time, suggesting the next shift could be to 512-bit addressing, then 2048 and so on. Until we have extraterrestrial colonies though, I'd suggest one address available per atom in the planet is more than enough; apparently there are 1.33e50 of them, give or take, which is a bit less than 2179 or a 180-bit address space.
IPv6 should be ok for a little while yet.
Re: I'm against it at this time. here's why...
quote: "In addition (and Suricou Raven, we were typing at the same time, looks like, you beat me to this just now!), there's the legislation and litigation angle to consider: There has to be a human to take responsibility for the movement of a vehicle in a court of law should something go irreversibly wrong; vehicle-related deaths, injuries, and such like, can generally be taken to have been caused by a Human, not a machine - indeed, the percentage of Road Traffic Collisions caused by purely mechanical failure are remarkably small these days; taking the human out of the loop means that should a computer or technological error creep in, human responsibility may not properly be apportionable; thus without a Human in the control loop, any prosecution resulting from a smart-system-related RTC may be immediately doomed to failure."
In the UK and the US, a Corporate entity is recognised as a legal person. Thus you can just as easily take the Corporate entity which created the autonomous driving software to court regarding the traffic incident, as you could the driver of a manual vehicle, should the cause of the incident be attributed to the decisions made by the autonomous driving software rather than, say a human driver's bad decisions.
Of course the last thing Google (or BMW) want is to be held responsible for the behaviour of their own product. Thus all this noise about requiring changes to existing legislation, which will IMO either be dropping liability onto the lap of the vehicle owner, or asking for public funds to be set aside to cover payouts for incidents. Meaning that either we pay for it out of personal insurance policies, or we pay for it out of tax.
Out of interest, if a gearbox failure (or other mechanical issue unrelated to driver decisions) happened on a vehicle causing loss of control and subsequent road traffic incident, who is currently considered liable? Both for a vehicle in-warranty with a full service history, and for a vehicle out of warranty being self-serviced?
Or potentially they just decided not to add extra functions to Windows 7, that they did add to Win8:
quote from the article: "Why is it that Microsoft inserted a safe function into Windows 8 [but not] Windows 7? The answer is money - Microsoft does not want to waste development time on older operating systems ... and they want people to move to higher operating systems," Joseph said in a presentation at the Troopers14 conference.
The fact that these extra functions are aimed at developers, and as far as I can tell are intended to provide bounds checked variables (e.g. protected against buffer overflow shenanigans) could be cause for some concern. It does not count as a fix of existing broken functionality though, so I don't see how it would qualify as MS "ending support" for Win7 if they chose not to add these extras to all existing OSs of theirs.
Re: Lets not forget who is to blame
quote: "It is easy to characterize the NSA and GCHQ as some sort or Orwellian super power out of control targeting at removing our freedoms. But actually they are more an expression of our fears and anxieties. The reason these programs were setup in the 1st place was because we the people demanded it after events like 9/11 and 7/7 when it became clear that organisations like al-qaeda were using things like the internet to co-ordinate their followers."
See the part in the original article regarding Watergate, and how this over-reaching surveillance activity was prevalent in the 1970s, 30 years prior to 9/11. This is not a recent thing by any stretch of the imagination.
quote: "In a naive world populated by Edward Snowdens, the transgressions look inexcusable, but in the real world these organisations daily stop us getting killed or injured by the forces out there."
As a citizen of a country that was a frequent target of terror attacks by various flavours of IRA over several decades leading up to 9/11, I'm going to have to disagree with you. We even had a train bombing happen after 9/11, when these agencies were supposedly already stopping us from getting killed by "the forces out there".
So, given the preposition that no surveillance will be 100% effective (much like antivirus, something is always going to manage to slip through), I think I would rather have less effective surveillance with minimal intrusion in my daily life or private affairs, instead of more effective surveillance that watches me with unblinking eyes for every second of my life. I am perfectly capable of taking responsibility for my own safety.
A 24/7 surveillance state is not a free country, and a complete inability to change this through election is not democracy. You may want to reflect on this as you look at the current behaviour of 5-eyes, and decide what sort of country it is that you actually live in ;)
Re: Empathy Test
quote: "Picture this, you're flying a passenger jet. At least once every day you get dazzled, you don't know when or if its going to happen on any given approach or after take off.
Suddenly you can only see green light. What are you feeling having just been dazzled?
Its just me but I'd probably snap and find a machete.
Dazzle the perps at random intervals for 14 years I say."
Really? To play devils advocate, I would suggest that drivers who fail (or refuse) to switch their headlights to dipped from full beam (aka high-beams) when faced with oncoming vehicles endanger far more people each year than anyone shining lasers at aircraft.
People are always happy to suggest draconian punishments for something they don't think they'll ever be guilty of. The real test is whether they are still comfortable with such punishment if it is something they could easily become guilty of. So in that vein: are you are willing to extend your cruel-and-unusual punishment suggestion to all people who are endangering those travelling in a vehicle by dazzling them needlessly? Do you think a 2+ year custodial sentence, or random blinding over a 14 year period, is appropriate for anyone who dazzles people in charge of a passenger vehicle, regardless of whether it is an aeroplane or Ford Fiesta, and regardless of whether the cause was simply them "forgetting" to switch to dipped beam in their own vehicle?
Might be worth remembering that aeroplanes have autopilots that can now handle takeoff and landing hands free, so pilots rarely have to use manual controls. Cars have no such mitigation mechanism for an incapacitated driver (currently) ;)
(Yes, I regularly get blinded by oncoming traffic, and yes, it does piss me off, and furthermore yes, I do believe that blinding oncoming vehicles is just as dangerous and life-endangering as blinding pilots in planes, if not more so. One thoughtless driver can easily dazzle 10 or more vehicles in a single journey, which would be 10-40 potential victims)
Re: Einstein is fine - nothing to see here.
quote: "No, but it can reproduce all the ones this article is banging on about."
I had a quick browse of the Arxiv paper, and they claim that the qubit state for their setup is deterministic. As in you aren't dealing with complementary random values of shoe, but complementary deterministic ones instead.
Then I saw loads of difficult looking maths and got scared off ^^;
quote: "I would assume this is the first step towards real teleportation. Teleportation of data happens almost instantaneously through measuring entangled particles."
It might help to think of it not as teleportation of data, but as "action at a distance"; as you measure (and thus set) the spin of one electron, the other immediately takes on the complementary spin. Nothing has teleported, all that happens is the probability function of the electron spin breaks down into a single value determined by the value measured at the other entagled electron.
These guys have apparently managed to get a qubit that has a deterministic, rather than random, sequence of values, and if that is actually the case then we could theoretically get "subspace" communications of a sort going between these discrete entangled qubits. It is not going to enable matter teleportation though, no matter how much I'd like that to be the case. :(
Re: This is just another shot in the war against non-elite white men
quote: "With an average IQ of 85, blacks aren't smart enough to have done it."
quote: "The only aim of these groups of women, blacks and Hispanics is to assert their own power. In their eyes, it's all about them and everyone must agree. Anyone who doesn't is racist and sexist."
Nice try :)
Your post is a quintessential case for Poe's Law, given the lack of obvious humour (or inline smiley faces). I'm going to choose to assume it is actually a parody (as per the Corollary to Poe's Law), because that is the kindest interpretation to give it :)
Re: Diversity is bollocks
quote: "Yes, it can. As you've just so eloquently put, when it's based on the ability of a candidate to do the job."
Aptitudist! Discrimination based upon a person's aptitude for a certain role is abhorrent, and must be stopped. There should be an equal distribution of aptitude across all roles, and the only truly fair method of candidate selection is to roll dice against a list of all people in the country. Whoever's number comes up gets the job (regardless of what they were doing previously).
Doing so would also fairly distribute wealth, as you could be moved from a low paying role to a high paying one, or vice-versa, at random, as soon as the role becomes available. It is an infallible system, I tell you!
Wolves are as dangerous as tigers and lions. Which is to say that all of the surviving ones have learnt that, on the whole, humans are fucking dangerous and best left alone.
You get attacked by the desperate ones (infirm / elderly / ill), the ones that are making a basic living off the land usually give humans a wide berth. Sounds like you got a fairly intelligent one who noticed a potential free dinner in the offing and decided to chance it ;)
It is no coincidence that we domesticated them into Canis lupus familiaris, after all...
Err, these computers would be inside service providers buildings, aka the switch floor. Dunno if you've ever worked in a telco but I can't recall any cops with guard dogs around when I did.
Also, should you manage to compromise the internal network of Virgin Media, for instance, you could potentially route through to one of these devices. Going in through internet facing webservers or mail gateways could be tricky, so probably some form of targeted phishing on middle-managers with laptops might be in order. Not easy, sure, but not impossible either.
And that would be completely ignoring the curiosity of existing network engineers actually employed by these companies, when they see an accessible interface on that dark-room kit...
Re: Misogynist bilge from the Reg
quote: ""...People need to not get so worked up over tiny little insignificant things...." said the white, middle-class man who has never been on the receiving end."
If you cannot see the racism and sexism inherent in your answer, then you may want to consider the painful probability that you yourself do not believe that all people are equal regardless of race or gender.
Or you're just trolling for reaction, of course. In which case, carry on :)
Re: @The Vociferous Time Waster Made in chelsea
quote: "You are a SLUT. Same as any other bimbo. And you seem to be proud of it. Why? Do you really disrespect yourself that much that you'll admit to it in an open forum? Seek help."
Anyone with a ranch would understand that animals rut, and would also be aware that humans are animals. Pretending otherwise is simply adding unnecessary tension and stress to social situations ;)
Re: yes. but.
quote: "Looking wider, there is the state research funding allocated EU-wide to "intellegent cities". That could pan out in all sorts of ways."
I've been playing Watch Dogs the last couple of days, and "intelligent cities" will either be the best or the worst place to live, depending on how awesome your phone is (and also whether you've ever been attacked while driving your neice around Chicago, turning you into a bitter vigilante bent on revenge) ;)
quote: "Who could possibly have antipathy to a technology that kills over a million people every year around the world?"
Over 7 billion people worldwide, so while 1 million may sound like a large number, you can compare it with all sorts of odd things like child mortality; 6.6 million child (<5yo) deaths in 2012. Driving a car is far safer than being a child, apparently. Won't somebody think of the children?
2560 x 1440 on a 5.5" phone
but 1080p is considered perfectly adequate for a 17" high-end laptop or 20+" desktop monitor. There would appear to be a cognitive disconnect here somewhere... :'(
Yeah, Samsung now have 2 wrist-mounted tech gadgets (one is already a retail product, the other now being confirmed) before Apple have even announced their first.
Of course, once Apple actually do release theirs, naturally the iWatch will single-handedly define the market for smartwatches, and Samsung's first-to-market devices will be considered cheap copies etc. etc.
As long as any watch device has bluetooth and a headset jack you'll be able to make calls without holding your wrist to your face; I know people who use their iPhone earbuds as a hands-free kit, and it's not like existing watches are too small to fit a 2.5mm jack on. If fashionistas are happy to wear chunky Breitling or Patek Phillipe timepieces on their wrist, you can bet smartwatch manufacturers can get away with something a similar size and put a decent battery in it, as long as it is considered fashionable.
Re: If renewables can compete on price ...
Exactly, if they already represent a commercially viable energy production method, then market forces would suggest that providers would be jumping on them without subsidies. Or that there is some giant conspiracy preventing their adoption for some (fiscal) reason, which would mean we still wouldn't be subsidising them.
quote from the article: "The reasoning is simple: the RET as it stands today has attracted investments that would add more than 14 gigawatts of power capacity from non-fossil fuel sources to the grid by 2020. Once in place, that eco-friendly generation would drive down wholesale prices, which should slash what consumers pay."
So, how has that panned out in other countries who are subsidising renewables? I don't recall any reductions in energy prices in the UK, more the opposite, as the consumers foot the bill for the current feed-in tariffs. I also can't recall any official promise that prices will get cheaper the more renewables we have, although that might just be my terrible memory ^^;
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- Driverless car SQUADRONS to hit Britain in 2015