I thought this was a family publication. How dare you use that sort of language!
836 posts • joined 4 Jun 2007
I thought this was a family publication. How dare you use that sort of language!
"This is precisely why giving US corporations a tax holiday does not create jobs. In fact, you could make a fair argument that it will destroy a bunch."
This should earn you some opprobrium from the Nutsack--er, Teabagger brigade on El Reg. Hope you're wearing your asbestos underwear!
. . . I'm not sure I see your point. Are you talking about the new pricing model or about the subject of this article? If the latter, what VMware is doing is actually a good thing because it allows the VMware administrator to virtualize storage more effectively. When combined with SDRM and SIOC, it gives the VMware administrator much more control over what disk performance is available to VMs, and it gives the hypervisor more ability to auto-tune storage distribution.
If your issue is with the storage "cartel" calling the shots, I have some news for you: this sort of thing is already happening. If you think VMware has not already been working with the major storage vendors to bake in advanced functionality, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Not, again, that doing so is a bad thing. From a VMware administration perspective, it would actually be great to hand vSphere a bunch of disks and allocate them directly without having to dick about with LUNs, NFS mounts, etc.
. . . introduce reason into a perfectly good Microsoft Hate Thread(TM)?!
I wonder if these guys will be at Burning Man?
Come on, "WinCrap 7?" "MicroSuck?" You're not even trying! Here are some better alternatives for you to consider for next time around:
And "Microsoft" of course has many of the permutations perfected by Slashdotters and other assorted basement-dwellers over the years:
Micros~1 (for the old school)
Tsk. Kids today, no commitment to excellence or creativity when it comes to fanboy trolling.
. . . is that it doesn't *have* to be that way. Back in the Internet's salad days, there were sufficiently few people using it that, if you talked to enough people, you could probably track down the real identity of an individual, but no one (except possibly the FBI) was explicitly gathering personal information. If you were an asshole in a moderated forum, you got banned, but you could easily come back with an alt. Facebook and Google are now working hard to tie your Internet identity to your real identity AND scarf up a mess of data about you. Exactly how bad that is depends on your perspective and what you personally get up to, but I don't think anyone would disagree that giant databases of information which can be used to tie up vast amounts of personal data which can then be used to identify the proclivities of specific individuals and/or commit crimes of data, identity, and financial theft and fraud constitute a tremendous risk to the people whose information in those databases.
The typical El Reg reader seems to be of the perspective that people who use Facebook or other social media (or indeed the Interwebs at all without 7 proxies and a pseudonym) get whatever they deserve. This perspective fails to acknowledge that most people are not aware of these issues to the same extend that most Reg commentards are and further does not address the fact that at least a subset of this information can be scarfed in by illicit/clueless Web programmers.
I personally try not to put anything on the Internet that I wouldn't want my mother to see, but not everyone is so careful. In any case, when one shares information with one's friends, one probably doesn't expect to see that information spewed out for the world to see, regardless of the content.
SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE REALLY MAKES ME SICK, YOU TOFFEE-NOSED, MALODOROUS PERVERT!
When you're sexting the Queen!
I think you want, "Gérard n'aime pas de douches d'or?"
Hot, nude models posing next to garbage cans filled with the corpses of animals that PETA has "rescued"?
These "protestors" are little more than a flash mob. If they want to protest, why not do so at BART HQ or at the BART police barracks? Why are they inconveniencing (or worse) people trying to get home, pick their kids up from school, get to work, go to the doctor, etc.? In case you're not aware, public transit is the transit system used by the working classes and other regular folks. If your goal is to change policy, protesting by shutting is going to turn public opinion AGAINST you.
Furthermore, it's actually a public safety issue. Much has been made of the hypothetical concerns about someone having medical emergency while cell phone services are shut down, despite there being clearly-marked emergency phones on the trains and platforms. Suppose someone has an emergency while the train is stopped in the tunnel because the protestors have managed to keep another train from leaving the platform? Where is your moral righteousness when you've killed someone who really IS innocent?
I won't deny that police brutality should be taken seriously or that people have the right to protest. On the flip side, the police have historically been very tolerant of protests in San Francisco. I marched in the anti-war protests before Gulf War II: Electric Boogaloo, and the only time the police interfered with us was when we tried to march onto the Bay Bridge, which would have created similar safety issues. I actually talked to a riot officer during one of the more recent protests, and he was remarkably calm about the whole issue. In my experience, the SFPD, at least, are not a bunch of truncheon-wielding thugs. BART police may be a separate matter, since they have less experience and training. As I mentioned originally, though, let us not forget that the person who got shot did so because he attacked another human being with a knife. Setting aside the knee-jerk issue of it being a cop, I think every human being has the right to self-defense and the use of lethal force where warranted. If someone is trying to end my life, I would feel completely justified in ending theirs.
Finally, I live in a neighborhood with a large number of homeless people and a large number of police officers. I've had to call the police on three separate occasions in response to assault, mugging, and a drunken hit-and-run driver who ran down a small child, so I very much appreciate the contribution the police make to my neighborhood. While I oppose excessive use of force, I do respect that they have to deal with the least-pleasant members of society, and I don't think they should have to lay down their lives so that some yahoo can go flailing around with a deadly weapon.
How do you justify cutting off someone's transportation? Suppose that person has a heart attack, and the train is stuck in the tunnel and can't get out because protestors are blocking the tracks ahead and behind? It hardly matters at that point if you have cell phone access because the person is physically trapped. Of course, there are physical emergency access corridors, but those take extra time to reach compared to the platform.
The cretins supporting the drunken homeless knife-wielding lunatic don't have the attention span to plan an actual protest, so they complain when BART shuts down Wifi and cell access. The Anonytards then punish a few random BART riders, not BART itself. Great job, guys, really. You are truly the hope of freedom.
As a daily BART commuter myself, I'm on Team BART for this one and opposed to Team Drunken Asshat, in case that wasn't clear.
As a San Francisco resident, I'm not 100% on BART's side (the phrase "chilling effect" comes to mind), but mostly I support this course of action for two reasons:
1) The protestors are supporting a guy who assaulted a police officer with a knife. Suppose it had not been a cop but some random person who happened to catch the drunk's eye and gotten knifed for his trouble . . . would that person have been wrong to defend himself, even to the point of using lethal force? If you use a lethal weapon to attack someone, you are, in my opinion, implicitly placing your own life on the line--the victim always has the right to self-defense.
2) Most people who use cell phones on public transit are douchebags (no, I know that YOU'RE not, you're a world-renowned heart surgeon who can't possibly be interrupted for a few minutes; I'm talking about those OTHER people), so blocking their cell phone service for 5-10 minutes (about the length of time it takes to get through the affected area) is a mercy to the other passengers. If BART could figure out how to shut down the ability for people to play music on their cell phones' speakers, that would be even better.
For the most part, I call it a win-win.
Have the phone deploy some sort of harpoon into the flesh of its owner and then reel itself back in. That'll be the last time the phone gets dropped, I'll bet!
But only the first four are canonical.
But you have to do it with every single goddamn game out there. And then there's the Twitter crap, "Joe Blow likes scatology," etc. The real answer, from my experience is to install the FB Purity plugin.
A Web browser can be used for viewing text content offline? Who knew?
Amusingly, the Yahoo! version of this article is in the Top Headlines section on LinkedIn.
"The reality is . . . it doesn’t matter what we do."
. . . it's an ultravisor. They should get UltraMan to do their commercials; I hear he needs the work.
More seriously, I got a promotional email from these guys, and I thought it was spam. Apparently, the formal product name is "HotLink SuperVISOR." I assume you yell the last part of the name and maybe pump your fist for good measure.
My browser title bar says "News for the WORLD." Don't worry, you'll get over it.
EMF? That's so 10 years ago! Chemtrails are where it's now, baby, chemtrails.
I think it would be a fabulous use of Mozilla's resources maintaining compatibility with a dead platform. Maybe they can also crank out an Amiga version or a BeOS (PPC, of course) version.
I do have "phantom pager" syndrome, but I attribute that to the fact that my cell is usually carried at the same position on my waist and set primarily to vibrate.
As to the Web sites, without opening them I predict that they are mostly anecdata and scaremongering tabloid journalism.
. . . and the deafening clicks of their down-votes.
Since Matt Asay is wrong about virtually everything, I think we can predict a roaring success for G+. I actually know quite a lot of mainstream individuals who are at least giving G+ a try. If Google can figure out a way to migrate pics and whatnot from Facebook, it's a slam dunk.
They didn't make a complete neural network from scratch, they just built a system to simulate a small part of one, so this effort is obviously a complete failure. After all, if you can't succeed completely in a gargantuan task in one go, you might as well not even start it.
</sarcasm> for the <sarcasm>-impaired.
Are you sure there's not an "i" instead of an "o" in your last name?
I find the FF 5 beta to be faster and more stable than 4.0, although it still has some problems rendering pages that used to show up fine in 3.6 and which still show up fine in IE 9. AdBlock+ works better than in Chrome, though, and NoScript does what it should.
"Get your filthy packets off me, you damn dirty apes!"
Looks cool, but why do software vendors have to be so secretive about their pricing? I realize that they're probably charging so much that the sticker shock is literally terrifying, but really, can't we at least have a ballpark figure?
I don't really think of the low-slung trousers look as a hipster thing, more of a gangsta(-wannabe) thing. Either way, I support this ban. Unfortunately, it would be unenforceable in my current city of residence, not because I think that the gangsta community is any great threat but because the bus drivers couldn't be arsed (pun intended).
No actual body required.
No way to get it without Office 2K10, with a Windows edition other than Home Premium, or without Dell's crapware (McAfee, I'm looking at you). Nice design; shame about the software.
You couldn't just look it up, could you? Noooooo, you had to go and correct some poor sot . . . incorrectly. Chris Miller is correct in his spelling; you are not. The irony police will be around with bats and a chainsaw; if you must leave, please do so by way of the lumbermill.
. . . waiting to find out what thing belonging to a shop you have!
See, over *here*, an apostrophe followed by an "s" indicates possession (or a contraction, but I'm going to assume, perhaps foolishly, you weren't trying to say "we have shop is").
. . . except for the many ways in which you're wrong.
"a drugstore is no more a store for generic drugs than the App Store is a store for generic apps"
The point is that a drugstore is a generic *term* for a store where you buy drugs (or at least that's how it started). At this point, if someone tried to trademark the word "drugstore," they would hopefully be laughed out of court.
"the App Store with capitals is Apple's copyrighted Application store"
If you RTFA, you'll see that Apple is explicitly fighting the words "app store" used in conjunction, i.e., they are denying that those two common nouns placed together form a common phrase but rather a proper one which they can trademark.
"Give your lack of English understanding a rest, please, trolls ..."
Back at ya there, skippy.
Unlike, for example, Unix?
Because none of us is as dumb as all of us!
If they had won the suit, it would have been akin to me suing for bodily injury someone who was driving recklessly yet did me no actual harm. Irresponsible? Yes. Harmful? No.
Bring the downvotes! BRING THEM, I SAY!
Their new, two-year-old service that no one uses? That new service?
Since Andrew's story is a little short on facts, here's an alternate perspective:
. . . not everyone has the same usage patterns as you. I have not owned a car in close to five years, and big part of what facilitates that is car sharing and, to a lesser extent, car rental. Don't know what car sharing is? Check out www.zipcar.com or www.citycarshare.com. Renting is not cheaper than owning if you drive every single day, but I take public transport 90% of the time, so the $75/month or so that I spend on driving is less than the price of gas alone probably would be. Let's break it down:
Cost of car: $20,000 + taxes and fees (yes, yes, you can plenty of cars for cheaper; you can also pay more; this is a nice, round figure, so STFU if you don't like it)
Cost of insurance: $1200/year
Cost of gas: $100/month
License fees: $120/year
Maintenance (oil changes, etc.): $40/quarter (probably more, but I'm being generous)
Cost of accident: deductible ($500) plus inconvenience and cost of car rental
Parking: $200/month + tickets
The cost of a new car will pay for a *lot* of car sharing/rental fees, and with car sharing, I know exactly how much I have to pay in advance. Admittedly, that model doesn't work for everyone, but it's great for urbanites who don't want to deal with the hassle and expense of owning a car. There are a lot of us, and our numbers are growing, thanks to car sharing firms. An automated car sharing arrangement would be fantastic, because it would reduce or eliminate one of the biggest issues with car sharing right now, which is that you're compelled to pick the car up, drive it somewhere, most likely leave it parked for several hours, and then drive it back, paying for the idle time in the middle. Automated car sharing could reduce the need for and thus the expense of that idle time, in turn reducing the need for individual car ownership.
Americans also made Star Trek.
They could cut out the tedious unedited twaddle, and it would fit into the length of music video.
How about the part where it's 95% cheaper, substantially smaller, and has a vastly reduced power draw?
. . . paging Matt Bryant to the red Sun thread.