Re: the numpty with the SIM tattoo?
"Could the Reg not find someone with a clue to right about these things???"
I'm in your post, destroying your credibility.
855 posts • joined 4 Jun 2007
"Could the Reg not find someone with a clue to right about these things???"
I'm in your post, destroying your credibility.
For hunting armored zombies. Or Terminators.
What did HP do to deserve that? Meg Whitman hasn't eaten any babies that I know of.
All together now, one more time: Glasses do not make an "AR view". They do not fully superimpose over your entire vision. You get a screen in the upper-right portion of your visual field, where the display device sits. It is not physically capable of changing the things you see around you; it could only display a modified version in one small portion of your vision.
This is true now, but it may not always be so.
I believe that Seagate do have a patent on this technology, in fact, based on my discussions with a former subsidiary of theirs which makes a product that uses a version of it. I could be wrong, though.
I have not worn a watch in years because it's one more damn thing I have to keep track of. Having my timepiece on my phone makes a lot more sense to me than having a separate device, especially when I have to check the time so seldom. It strikes me, in fact, that the people who do have watches are just as likely to have been "perverted by consumerism" because the watch often fulfills one or both categories of being a status symbol or a gadget.
Way to miss the fucking point, you fucking imbecilic gobshite. Why don't you take your fucking cluelessness to some other forum where people want to read your oblivious bullshit?
(Let's see how hard I can press the Reg moderators here.)
"Cue," not "queue."
Doom doom doom doom doomity doom doom doom . . .
6 MONTHS LATER
. . . doom doom doom doom doomity doom doom doom.
"Canada does not have secret laws"
And you know this how?
"Ignore the app ecosystem and all you've got is a big Start Menu, that's the whole difference."
Wrong. The lack a Start button is actually the least of the problems with the new Start screen. It's simple enough to mouse down to the lower-left corner and click, true enough, and that's what most experienced users will probably do by default. The mainproblems with the Start screen are:
1) It is non-hierarchical; i.e., everything in creation gets splattered all over the screen. When an application installs multiple shortcuts, it's nice to have them associated with that application, not put on the top level by default.
2) It is unsorted and unsortable. I find it logical to sort things in some kind of order, say alphabetically, automatically, without having to shuffle everything around by hand.
3) It is hideous. This is, of course, a subjective viewpoint, but the default available color schemes are wretchedly ugly.
Now, to address the inevitable counter-points:
1) Yes, I know you can re-arrange icons by hand. That's fine when you have only a few applications, but I have dozens of applications with probably over a hundred icons among them. Some sort of default order is called for.
2) I don't care whether my complaints seem like minor objections to you. They constitute a non-trivial impediment to the optimal setup of my primary workspace.
3) I also know that you can install programs to return the Start menu to its pre-Win8 configuration. The availability of those programs does not negate the criticism of the Windows 8 Start screen; if anything, they support the criticism because they indicate that there is a significant market for the return of the old configuration.
"I wish everyone would get over the start screen."
I wish I could ride to work on a unicorn, but that's not going to happen either.
Winklevossen, surely; Winklevii would be the plural of Winklevius.
Right, I'm going . . .
"Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so." -- Slartibartfast
Clearly, this is primitive work on bistromathics and/or a Somebody Else's Problem Field.
I suggest you go back and think about life and the universe and contemplate the idea that convenience is not an acceptable trade-off for quality.
On that basis, you obviously would never listen to recorded music at all, because the only true way to experience music is live, and if you're not willing to go see an artist live, then you obviously don't appreciate their music, so you shouldn't listen to it at all.
Back in the real world, people often do sacrifice convenience for quality, hence the rise of things like portable media devices, camera phones, fast food, etc. What may come as a surprise to you is that using these devices does not immediately make someone an idiot; it just means that convenience has value to them.
Eadon gets a feral chihuahua?
And what if you log in from a different device or browser?
The other Reg article you posted makes no mention of the same group even being aware of the male beheading video, just that they were complaining about the double standard that it's okay to display graphic (or even "joke") violence towards women but that it's not okay to post, for example, pictures of breastfeeding or certain art. I saw nothing in the previous article indicating that the group was condoning displays of violence towards men, merely that they were choosing to focus on the female violence issue.
If you don't understand why the issue of violence against women is worth focusing on, specifically, then the ignorance, I'm afraid, is yours.
I'm not going to debate the merits of feminism, its relevance, or the issue of violence towards women in the context of society on an IT forum (although I reserve the right to change my mind), so I'm going to set everything else aside.
This just in: there are groups and organizations which are oriented towards reducing hate and violence against specific segments of society. The reason is twofold: that there is so much hate in the world that simply promoting a message of opposing hatred and violence in general has not traditionally been successful, and people tend to look after their own self-interest.
To my mind, any cause which seeks to reduce violence should be applauded. If you are oh-so-concerned about hate speech against men, why don't you do something about it besides complaining on an Internet forum? Why don't you join or form an organization devoted to reducing hate against men or humans in general?
I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, take your concern trolling elsewhere.
I completely agree with you, except change "arts" to "military" and "public art projects" to "war." Along the way, science can pick up several orders of magnitude more funding as opposed to the utter pittance supplied to the arts.
Mochizuki? Is that you?
*Looks up*. Yes, it's in Bootnotes, all right. Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?
Despite the work being done by the all-flash array vendors, it's still cheaper in some cases to keep cold data or sequential workloads on spinning rust.
You have to say his name *three* times!
Call in the airstrike.
At least he's honest!
Oh good, thanks for proving my point.
I, for one, await the torrent of reasonable, thoughtful, and moderate posts which will no doubt ensue.
Plus iTunes is shit.
Darth Vader is actually Luke's father
Rosebud was a sled
Snape kills Dumbledore
Bruce Willis is actually dead
The hot girl is actually a man
The protagonist is Tyler Durden
Maggie shot Mr. Burns
Gir was the turkey all along
I don't think you understand what the word "meaningless" means. The ratio of CEO pay to the pay of the average worker in a given company is obviously different from the comparison to average worker pay in general, but it can certainly be argued that the ratio within a company is a useful metric of pay distribution.
@Tom 35: This is essentially the current model, anyway. Most US cab drivers rent taxi medallions from cab companies, meaning that the drivers owe a flat rate per month. At least Uber only takes a cut of the actual fare!
If you had RTFA, you would realize that Uber is a US-based company, where the market is decidedly unsaturated. Also, Uber is not just a cab-hailing service, it's actually a car service. The name used to be UberCab, but the company changed the name so as not to fall foul of the ridiculously stringent taxi laws in US.
Excellent Eadon impression, with the exception of not posting "MICROSOFT FAIL" at the end.
After the Mozilla team stopped laughing, I'm sure they thanked Hansen for advising them what not to do.
I know, right? Kids today, with their terrible music, appalling taste in clothing, disrespect for their elders, etc. Back in my day, we had universally fantastic music like 2 Live Crew, 'N Sync, Kylie Minogue, and all the other greats of the era. Truly, those days will never come again!
"I want more life, fucker." -- Steve Jobs
2) Also irrelevant. I have no idea whether the malware spreaders have done a cost-benefit analysis, but your point has to do with optimizing for maximum profitability rather than whether a net profit is being obtained. It may be that the bitcoin miners are not making the optimum profit for their labor, but that doesn't mean they're not profiting.
Incorrect. If you are using someone else's compute power, it is free (to you), therefore any income derived is considered profit. Obviously, this does not include the time taken to write the malware, but that can be considered a sunk cost.
If that question made the least amount of sense, perhaps someone could answer it.
He's a VP of Marketing. Excess twaddle is what they're paid for.
. . . with sorting out one's storage is that the market is moving very quickly right now, making it difficult to choose a best-in-class solution. Storage is also stupidly expensive, and storage decisions are difficult and time-consuming to unwind, leading to a certain conservatism when it comes to deployment: if you make the wrong choice, you'll be stuck with it for years. Also, the tendency in the storage arena is to over-promise and under-deliver, so one must take with a grain of salt any vendor statistics, performance metrics, etc., and be sure to read the fine print.
The reason for all this is simple: storage is about the software, not the hardware. Any numpty, even Eadon, can throw a bunch of hard drives in a box. Designing and implementing a sufficiently robust architecture is more challenging but essentially a solved problem. Writing software which can efficiently and effectively use that hardware is much more challenging. Unfortunately, the hardware and software are usually packaged together and/or buying the software standalone is sufficiently expensive that changing platforms is an option undertaken only with a certain caution. On the other hand, most incumbent storage vendors charge so much for maintenance that, past a certain point, it's no more expensive to switch than it is to stay with one's current provider, hence the proliferation of storage start-ups.
OK then the processes that allowed a junior member of staff to do this task is at fault.
The process that allowed a junior member of staff to do this task without senior supervision is at fault. Of course, all the senior people had been fired . . .
I see what you did there, but I'm not going to upvote you because you're probably hitting too close to home with regard to what upper management thinks.
It depends what you consider efficient. NetApp can do about 2x deduplication on a good day, which about pays for the overhead of WAFL and RAID-DP. It also only runs in the background, so there's no in-line dedupe, which means that there's a buildup of redundant data followed by a slow period when the maintenance is being performed.
Matt Bryant alert.
That's an interesting perspective--have you asked any actual women about how they feel?
In point of fact, Matt, I have no particular allegiance to Sun, but it has always amused me when you've flung yourself into threads about Sun with a venomous rage, which you have been doing for some years now (and on multiple sites, I note via a quick Google search). So, we've pinpointed the mid-90s as the time when Sun touched you in a bad place; what happened, pray tell?
Anyway, best of luck with your jihad. I look forward to the continuing entertainment!