118 posts • joined Wednesday 4th August 2010 13:14 GMT
@deshepherd Re: Gender sensitive framework
Actually, in that case I can see why the effect on women particularly might be considered separately - for example, women are probably more likely to be walking on the streets with children to and from school, and thus will be disproportionately benefited by such a change.
The rest of them are totally crackers though.
Facebook / Instagram etc.
"For the first time anywhere in the world, the Act will permit the widespread commercial exploitation of unidentified work - the user only needs to perform a "diligent search". But since this is likely to come up with a blank, they can proceed with impunity."
Surely if you have an account with the like of Facebook or Instagram and you upload photos to it, then such a 'diligent search' should turn up the fact that the photograph is associated with you, and thus you own the rights to it? Alright, the meta-data might be deliberately stripped by the uploading process (I hope they get caught out doing that as it'll be fun!), but if it's in your account as uploaded by you on such-and-such a date...?
At the very least it should give companies a starting point to find the creator of whatever it is, and you'd like to think that if they are ever taken to court that the beak in question would look unfavourably on a company who hadn't gone past even the first level of checking?
Or am I being hopelessly naive? Or perhaps missing something startlingly obvious?
The real question I suppose is "How diligent is diligent?"
It's still not as funny as this tidbit
The "Competition Appeals Tribunal, responding to Sky's appeal against being forced to let competitors offer Sky Sports, ruled that Sky did not have enough power to upset the market. Meanwhile the Competition Commission, in an unrelated ruling, decided that Sky's dominance means the Pay TV industry is not competitive."
The idea that Sky don't have enough power in the PayTV market to upset it is just laughable - especially in the Home Box Office arena, and even more so again in the Sports market!
It's not 'supported by'
Structural reinforced concrete isn't simply "supported on an underlying metal structure" - the steel is required to provide tensile capacity and form a composite material. The lever arm between the allowable compressive force in the concrete and the tensile force in the steel then provides bending capacity.
Similarly, reinforced concrete columns require both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement to both increase the direct axial compression carrying capacity, and to provide tensile reinforcement against the bursting forces generated by the Poisson effect (i.e. "cream-caking").
It's not like you can take away the steel once the concrete has cured. Bad things tend to happen if you try.
Forgetting some of the other things he's done since, but...
Although the super-duper "we've got some money now it's already a classic" Director's Cut Special Edition should be given a miss.
I agree wholeheartedly with the others suggested though... especially 'eXistenZ' and '12 Monkeys'. Both great great great films. And to whoever suggested 'Event Horizon' - good shout!
Re: Laptop screens are crap
You're not wrong.
Both you and Linus T. are not wrong.
My work laptop is a pretty high-end HP EliteBook w8760 mobile workstation. I love it as a bit of hardware, even though it does weight slightly more than the Moon.
My real point is that it is not a cheap bit of kit - and the screen it comes with is a HP DreamColor 1920x1080 panel, which in and of itself isn't bad at all, and is usable at that native res on a 17" panel.
The previous model (the w8740) however came with a 1920x1200 17" panel. The newer model is merely a refresh of the older model, less than a year after the original. But they changed the screen.
On such a high-end piece of kit, why on earth would they do it? Other than the obvious reason to bump their profit margins even higher...
Re: re : It was "rightly" ruled out for the "wrong" reason.
The one thing about GLT that bothers me is that the proposed systems only consider if the ball crossed the line, which is great and all, but these incidents happen so rarely and so infrequently, as to almost not be worth bothering about.
I hear the argument that 'because football is a low-scoring game, even a single goal is extremely important thus...' blah blah blah and that's right and true and correct.
This argument goes both ways, of course.
So what about the dodgy goals scored that shouldn't have been given because of offside? Or a foul in the build-up? Or, to cite an example from the Bayern Munich thrashing of Arsenal last night, when the goal comes directly from a corner that is clearly incorrectly awarded in the first place? Or a free-kick that should/shouldn't have been awarded? Or a penalty?
These are all much more common occurrences, and none of these systems do a damned thing about any of them. We all (those of us that watch football on telly and live) know from experience that most of the time the telly-bods have stuck a replay up showing fairly clearly what has happened inside of about 15 seconds of it occurring - often the only reason these things aren't shown immediately is so that any follow-on action isn't missed. Where is the help in sorting these out?
This redundant, ridiculous requirement from FIFA that decisions shouldn't interrupt the flow of the game, and should be made in an arbitrary timescale of X hundredths of a second or whatever are plainly nonsense, as anyone who has watched football knows that for the majority of calls that are seen as controversial, or requiring a booking / penalty / sending off generally take much longer than that to administer anyway due to the number of players arguing and complaining with the ref that the decision should / shouldn't stand... plenty of time to review on the magic telly-box.
Even at the most basic level - where's the official timer that stops the clock when the ball goes out of play and starts when it reenters? At the minute stoppage time is broadly a fictional number anyway. The simplest of measures (as has been used extensively and repeatedly in rugby) removes any 'Fergie-time' arguments. And the 'Hackney Marshes' rule doesn't apply, as clocks capable and suitable for this approach cost about £30 - well within the reaches of everyone playing at a level above that of having a kickabout in the park with your mates.
FIFA and UEFA are both jokes.
Much more likely to see the light of day as, at least initially and for the near-to-medium term, as a semi-interactive viewer. Visual and audio only - none of the olfactory or tactile nonsense.
If they could project in holographic 3D - rather than projecting 2x 2D images and using a parallax barrier to trick your brain - it'd be awesome for sporting events and the like. Imagine watching the FA Cup Final from your front room, but it feeling as if you're actually there. Being able to pan, zoom and tilt the camera to get the best view. Possibly to the extent that you could just have a continually moving view that follows the ball from a distance of ten feet?
It'd almost not be live, but a Hawkeye-type-system generated render in real-time, sort of a cross between a live video stream and an extremely highly-detailed game of FIFA - or whatever you happen to be watching.
Same for films as well really.
Anything more than that is a HUGE pipe dream though.
Re: Persuasive Arguments
Not necessarily that I don't believe you, but any chance you could provide some links for some of these claims?
Re: Eh? (TheBigYin @ 11:15)
Claiming the ships to be 'modular and adaptable with the facility to fit cats'n'traps afterwards', and then providing a ship which is neither modular, nor sufficiently adaptable that the cost of fitting said gear to an already extant seaframe exceeds by a considerable margin the cost of building said seaframe in the first feckin' place does very much seem to be the very definition of "bait and switch", and surely must constitute fraud.
As for why it wasn't nuclear, screwed if I know. It's not even like we have to look at what Peirre across the Channel is doing - we've been developing naval nuclear reactors for our SSN and SSBN programmes for at least the last 40-50 years. Rolls Royce have all the gear ready for the Astute subs - why not just design the engineering spaces of the carrier (which you're designing anyway) around the available power plants rather than doing it the other way round which would no doubt have been substantially more expensive?
The MoD couldn't be more full of fail if it tried. In fact, I'm surprised that they don't fail at failing.
Please - take some more of my tax money to piss away against the wall.
It's this bit that worries me the most:
General Atomics tacked on still more, Mr Gray tells us:
"Additional aircraft launch and recovery equipment was required, on top of the cats and traps, which had not been included in the original estimate. The cost of going through the FMS [Foreign Military Sales] purchasing route and some inflation adjustments were further components."
You're telling me that some absolute f**king CRETIN in the MoD put together a quote for adding cats'n'traps to our "adaptable" carriers, and didn't include all the aircraft launch and recovery kit? Do these things not get reviewed before going out? Or is there just some YTS, work-experience kid pulling these reports together?
Re: What has this got to do with a Supernova?
No / kind of - supernovae generally occur either:
a) when the star becomes sufficiently massive / hot to reignite and undergo either helium or carbon fusion through material accumulation; or
b) the outward pressure of the fusion in the core is no longer sufficient to balance the pressure due to the size of the star, causing gravitational collapse. The gravitational collapse increases the density of the core, leading to a) occurring.
Betelgeuse will nova through route b) - it is almost certainly undergoing helium-fusion at the moment, and when the helium concentration in its core becomes too dilute to effectively fuse (ie, the reaction is poisoned by too much carbon and other 'heavy' elements), it'll shed it's outer layers and undergo core collapse before becoming a type II supernova.
Explosion - well... if I need to explain why...
Re: Master of your own domain
While in theory that's the 'right' thing to do, the ICO are the biggest waste of time and money going. They are a bunch of useless, toothless cretins generally, with about as much punitive power as the cup of tea slowly cooling on my desk.
I went through them with a complaint about spam phone calls and text messages, despite being registered with TPS. I'd gone to the trouble of filling in their idiotic form, and providing them with all the information the wanted and more, including the name, registered office address, phone number, contact details and website of the company in question. They contacted me back saying there was nothing they could do as they 'couldn't identify the company making the calls'.
Re: What assault rifle???
Now both of your previous are ones I can (semi-) agree with. Shame you didn't make your point that clearly originally.
I would argue that they don't even need that ready an access to weaponry at all, but that's a different argument entirely.
Re: What assault rifle???
You know what - you've hit the nail right on the head.
He didn't use an ASSAULT rifle to massacre twenty six-year old children, six of their teachers and his own mother. It was just a boggo rifle that he only had to walk into his front room, pick up and kill people with
Our mistake - that's perfectly fine then.
When the Americans get around to banning 'violent' video games - and have dealt with the ensuing social trouble, free speech riots and probably killings that result - and the next one of these tragedies occurs because some nutter went off the rails and only had to walk into his front room to pick up a loaded assault rifle, I wonder what'll get blamed then?
Surely they won't blame video games, as the only thing Americans will be allowed to play will be 'My Little Pony - Friendship is Magic' (which will probably be enough to drive anyone into a killing rage).
Lack of prayer?
By the time the video game industry, the film industry and the music industry have left America and moved to Canada or somewhere because they won't have ridiculous legislation banning things that have no bearing whatsoever on the problem they are designed to 'fix', a fairly big chunk of money will be gone from the economy too. It all just snowballs from there.
OK America - we've all had a laugh at your idiotic approach to things, blaming everyone and everything but the root cause of the problem that the rest of the 6 billion people can see. It's time to get a grip.
What really gets me:
"But unsecured creditors will gain nothing from the proceeds of administration. These include punters that paid for goods not yet delivered, landlords and HMRC."
So I've paid for something, and injected 'real' cash into a business in exchange for provision of 'real' goods or services, and that's considered unsecured credit?
But the frequently 'fictional' money injected, in this case £2 to buy the business gets £50million back?
How can this be the case? How can this be fair?
$Deity help anyone that had the temerity to pay for something in actual cash-money as opposed to getting it on a credit card on the never-never.
They still haven't made it abundantly clear who will pay for storing all this data and the extra cpu time/bandwidth either.
I think it's ALREADY abundantly clear who'll end up paying for this...
Re: @Tom 38 @BenR
I'm very much reading what you're posting - it's just that you'd not actually said that before now had you?
Also, does this mean we'll therefore be expanding this law to make the Royal Mail keep records of every letter they deliver? It'll become law to put a return address on the back of every envelope just so that we can check who posted what to whom and when? 'Cos that's only the same thing that you're talking about for electronic communications as applied to more traditional means.
Just remember - the road between legitimate suspicion and rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think it could ever be.
And this is all quite aside from the technical reasons others have posted - not the least of which being that anyone 'serious' will be using VPNs and 2048-bit encryption, very much like Kim Dot-Com is doing for his new service. It'll only be the really stupid criminals that get caught this way, and anyone that stupid is very likely to have been caught anyway.
@Tom 38 Re: @BenR
Well, in that case, and even looking at your latterly posted "Noddy example", how about we let the police go to the courts and ask for permission, based on suspicion and/or evidence, to monitor the communications of these people to see if there is any link between them?
Given the number of existing ridiculous anti-terror laws, and the no doubt imminent changes to paeodphilia laws following the Saville case, it's not like the courts don't basically wave these things through anyway.
We could even have a special name for it... what might one call an 'order' from the 'court' I wonder...
Hows about we do things that way, on an evidentiary basis, rather than presuming the vast majority of people are doing nefarious things left right and centre and having a record of exactly who talked to who, when, and where they both were while they were doing it?
@Tom 38 "I recently did jury service..."
I recently did jury service, and the key thing that connected (and convicted) the defendants was their copious phone communications and locations as reported by their phones (combined with their insistence that they didn't know each other). It is clear to me that this information is genuinely useful to convict criminals of their acts
So what you're saying is that the existing laws enabled the authorities to connect these people to each other and the crime through their communications?
In that case, you've just undermined the need for the new law straight away haven't you?
Re: Too much to hope for
I often think the same thing... but sadly when I sit down and think about it, the net effect is that deliveries become that much more expensive once you have to start paying delivery drivers unsociable hours, and overtime payments for weekends at 1.5x etc.
I'd be fine with delivery during the day, if only they'd implement a service where the delivery driver merely contacts you when he sets off from his previous delivery / 15-20 mins before he arrives at my house, as that's more than enough time for me to make the short journey home to meet him.
I realise that isn't a solution for EVERYONE of course... but the compared to the spectre of the dreaded 'morning delivery, any time between 0600 and 1300' that generally tends to arrive either just enough past 1000 to make it not worth going into work for the morning, or just late enough past 1300 to make the morning a waste and the afternoon a washout...
Paris, because it's not hard now is it?
Re: OT - skyscrapers
Icon - well, because.
Re: Bloody Merkins
"As it happens, any company that requires the use of such essential patents must be granted a license to use them. It is not possible legally for Apple (or any company who can pay the 'reasonable fee') to 'fail to license' an essential patent covered by FRAND such as 3G, so you are talking crap."
Surely it is possible, if they don't pay the reasonable fee? However in the case to which you are referring, memory suggests that the argument was over the definition of what does and does not constitute 'reasonable'. If Motorola are seeking to get the same terms from Apple as they give to everyone else and Apple refuse to pay because they want to pay less, even for a FRAND patent, then they have not legally licensed that patent.
If Motorola, on the other hand, are seeking to charge Apple more than they charge everyone else, then Motorola are in the wrong and Apple should quite rightly refuse to pay it, and would have a substantial leg upon which to stand when they go to court.
Also, for anything more than a 1920x1080 resolution, you're talking silly money for the monitor to support it. Most of the 24"+ monitors run at this resolution - you're getting into £600-worth of Dell 27" for 2560x1440, and £950 for 30" of Dell 2560x1600...
I both agree and don't.
Yes, the design idea is silly from the point of view of trying to build something...
... but as an iconic shape / silhouette, the Enterprise can't be beat!
I'd very much suspect this has been chosen just to get people interested in the idea, not as a practical design choice. Primarily because it'd be practically impossible to actually build in almost any kind of gravity field!
That was the only thing that bummed me out about the latest Star Trek film - the 'Enterprise' was NOT built on the surface of the planet!
Re: That was difficult...
I've (unfortunately) seen about a third of them, and about a third of the 13 that didn't make the final list too...
So difficult to choose - on what criteria? Based on damage to the original? Overwhelming awfulness? "So bad it's good"? "So bad, but fun to take the piss out of when you're drunk with your mates"? How do you pick just one from such a pile of sub-mediocrity?!
And you left out 'Reign of Fire', which should have been on the list for having the best premise in the entire world, but criminally failing to deliver on it.
'Fail' icon... because... well... read the list again!
Re: If you really have too much money ...
Blackadder: If you'd like to help yourself to a legacy- I mean a chair!
Lady Whiteadder: Chair!? You have chairs in your house!?
Blackadder: Oh yes.
Lady Whiteadder: [slaps him twice] Wicked child! Chairs are an invention of Satan! In our house, Nathaniel sits on a spike!
Blackadder: And yourself?
Lady Whiteadder: [with a malicious smile] I sit on Nathaniel. Two spikes would be an extravagance! I will suffer comfort this once; we shall just have to stick forks in our legs between courses!
Re: Credit where credit is due
'Avatar' (or if you prefer 'Ferngully the Last of the Rainforest Mohicans... IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!', starring the Smurfs) was FROM A TECHNICAL POINT OF VIEW one of the greatest films made. The use of CGI was a step above anything we've seen before, and will be thought of in the same way as the tech in 'Abyss' or 'T2'.
Sadly, as we can probably guess from the derogatory name given above, the plot was awful! If it'd just been a tech-demo, that'd be fine. As a commercial film - no thanks.
Self-Destruct Voice: Thank you for pressing the self-destruct button. This ship will self-destruct in exactly two minutes and forty-five seconds.
President Skroob: You've got to stop it. Is there any way to stop it?
Colonel Sandurz: I can't - it's irreversible.
President Skroob: Like my raincoat!
Self-Destruct Voice: Ten... nine... eight... six...
President Skroob: Six? What happened to seven?
Self-Destruct Voice: Just kidding!
President Skroob, Colonel Sandurz, Dark Helmet: [They growl in annoyance]
Self-Destruct Voice: [Skroob, Sandurz, and Helmet are mouthing the numbers alone with the recording] Six... five... four... three... two... one...
[they close their eyes and grimace]
Self-Destruct Voice: Have a nice day.
President Skroob, Colonel Sandurz, Dark Helmet: [open their eyes] Thank you.
[They close them again]
Thanks for the info- I wasn't discounting the phone entirely, I'd've had a play and a feel to see what it was like beforehand.
Your comment makes me feel a bit more secure about it though - I was just concerned after having played with the SGS and other 'premium' phones that feel flimsy due to all-plastic construction.
Re: Re: Damn...
El Reg hjas singularly failed to mention it, but there is a stylus that comes (presumably) with the tablet accessory that doubles as a bluetooth-type headset for making calls while in tablet mode.
Seems like a clever idea.
Endgadget has info:
Hmm. Been looking for a new phone to replace my Desire for a while now, and the Edge / Supreme / One X seemed to be that phone, but now I'm left wondering....
A polycarbonate body for the flagship phone, but a fancy-dan aluminium body for the mid-range? I've stuck with HTC over the likes of Motorola, Samsung and LG due to the build-quality and premium materials used. My Desire is, basically, bullet-proof, and has a pleasing heft to it. As opposed to both the original and current Samsung Galaxy, which both feel like they'd fly away with a swift breeze, and creak alarmingly when squeezed even lightly.
Maybe I'm wrong, and the One X will still feel solid as a rock when it's released, but it's left me a bit underwhelmed.
Re: Triple Orb Configuration...
I saw that in 'Total Recall' years aqo!
Start the reactor!
While what you say is generally true, I think that you probably reach the limits of diminishing returns utilising that and solely that.
The planet is already at a point where significant swathes of it do not have sufficient fresh water for the population as it currently stands - look at Australia. While you are right that innovation is often bred from this, there is only so much we can do, and the negative effects of these innovations are often not well understood and do not come to the forefront until significantly later.
"Why hasn't the last century of geometric growth in population resulted in a 'Malthusian catastrophe'?"
Possibly because at that time, the planet was underpopulated and, thanks largely to the Dark Ages, not as technically advanced as we potentially could have been. The last century brought massively increased population growth and invention to support that. We may well have now 'caught up' as it were.
Could it be we are now at the point of saturation?
Well, you've got to tool up for the job haven't you?
Then there's the time spent reading the instructions that'll have been badly translated from Swedish, and won't have any words, just those stupid little pictures.
And you can never find screw type 'H' when you need them. And those little fiddly packs of PVA you get in ketchup sachets...
Once you've done one though and got it sorted, you can knock the rest out in no time....
This idea of whanging a spaceship at it...
... has someone been re-reading the Clarke classic 'Hammer of God' again?
If so, that's great. Develop big dirty great engines for spaceships. Easy.
The biggest problem, according to the book, will be stopping nutters from sabotaging the entire thing in the first place...
Played for, and got!
King of the cues, Prince of the planet potters!
Well said Sir.
Nothing wrong with owning whatever phone you want and are comfortable with - if you prefer iPhones and are happy with the restrictions placed upon you by that choice, so be it. The same applies to if you wish to own a 'Droid, or a Nokia, or a WinPhone.
Other than amusing arguments on the internet, the court battles don't give us anything of worth, and will eventually end up harming both the industry and our wallets, as there's only one group of people that ends up paying for it all...
... some other unneeded service that'll sip into your bundled data allowance.
I did do one...
... which is how I found out about the exact date that the Amendment was approved by Congress. And the various versions of the language that the Amendment went through before it was approved, especially the ones that, in my eyes, are much clearer about a well-armed militia composed of the people, rather than a well-armed people deciding to form a militia. I believe that, in America, the *INTENT* of the writers of the Constitution is something you hold quite dear. Given that they're all dead, the only way to get to that intent is by interpretation, and that is *MY* interpretation.
You'll also notice that throughout, I said I'm not an expert nor a constitutional scholar, and that, as above, I said everything was my own opinion. Just like I have done in THIS post.
And, again, to my eyes, looking at the First Amendment, yes it guarantees your right to free speech and thus you are free to talk about religion, politics, gives you freedom of the press etc. etc. It doesn't provide freedom to make libelous or slanderous claims however, as an example. It is not a catch-all bit of legislation enabling you to say anything you want, about anyone, to anyone, at any time, without fear of recrimination.
The use of 'free speech zones' is a backup to my thoughts on this - you're free to say what you want, but sometimes you might be asked to only do it in certain locations, or to not do it in others. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to have a problem with this, and to my eye, saying "don't use a phone while you're driving as it is very likely to cause a distraction, but feel free to use it elsewhere." is analogous to saying "you can say what you want about the President and his policies, and have as many signs as you want, but you've got to do it over there 300 yards away and not right in front of where he's walking."
Some will say "Yeah, but that's a safety issue to keep whack-jobs away so they can't stab him." They'd be right. But that's only the same as me saying I don't want people driving around on the roads while being distracted by talking on the phone. It's still a safety issue.
Anyway, I'm English, we do have this law, and while it's only intermittently enforced I'm still happier to have it rather than not. We also don't have a 'right to bear arms', which is probably why we have less gun murders annually in most of Europe combined that you do in the States.
Horses for courses I suppose.
More to the point:
My understanding, as a non-American, is that the Constitution (Second Amendment) guarantees a 'right to bear arms'. Hence any attempt to legislate against guns is seen as either a limitation on or an outright ban of something that is a Constitutional right. Hence, much shouty-shouty.
The fact that the ENTIRE sentence isn't quoted, which actually reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This speaks volumes. The first bit is the qualifier in my eyes, but then I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, nor, even, an American. The fact they refer to 'the People' rather than the 'rights of the individual' would also seem to be a clue, but again, IANACS.
Anyway, the point is that nowhere in the Constitution does it refer to the "right of the People to keep and bear mobile telephony devices while driving 3 tons of internal combustion vehicle at high speeds shall not be infringed."
What's even more amusing...
... is that this is a recommendation coming from a country that hasn't even managed to make wearing a seat belt mandatory in every state / locale ...
Yes, New Hampshire, I'm looking at you.
It used to be known simply as 'driving' in the UK, but sadly no longer.
"Better anything than that toupee!"
... in the immortal words of Arnold Judas Rimmer.
It is entirely possible that I may have been confusing the reasoning behind no exports of the F-22 here.
Although I suppose if the original post was right and I'm not just mixing them up, that the Aussies simply bought the less-capable 'for export' versions that wouldn't be suitable for our needs in some way?
I don't know really - I'm not a military man. I just vaguely recall reading it somewhere.
F/A-18 avionics packages
I could be wrong - and will thus stand to be politely corrected - but isn't one of the big stopping points about simply buying F/A-18 E/Fs from the Septics that while they will quite happily sell us the airframe and what-not, that the avionics are:
a) still classified, and thus wouldn't be sold to us; and
b) not 100% compatible with all the rest of our gear anyway.
This would therefore necessitate the development of our own avionics, presumably by BAe at eye-watering expense?
Mate - give it up.
It won't work. You're talking nonsense that is outside the laws of physics.
What on EARTH are you talking about?
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know
- If you've bought DRM'd film files from Acetrax, here's the bad news
- Microsoft reveals Xbox One, the console that can read your heartbeat