"enter pin code"
But if NFC only works while your phone is unlocked*, why enter another PIN?
* I don't know that it does, but it should.
878 posts • joined 12 Jun 2007
"enter pin code"
But if NFC only works while your phone is unlocked*, why enter another PIN?
* I don't know that it does, but it should.
wowfood has a point.
Given the <rant> tag, I would assume some kind of transform declaration would handle the uppercase. In CSS terms, something like "text-transform: uppercase".
What's that? Oh, don't worry; it's not that cold out.
Does that mean the Light side and Dark side argue about using Vim or Emacs? I'll let you decide which is which ;)
"Cost of living has nothing to do with it and to think otherwise is an indication of a feeble mind."
Nice ad hominem...
"Opera's rendering engine being killed off in favour of Google's - that's most definitely a bad day. It doesn't really matter if Opera's renderer was good or not, it matters that a genuine alternative is going (or gone)"
Rubbish. As a long-time Opera user, I can't see any real downside to this, as long as they integrate all of the current features properly.
The rendering engine is insignificant, as long as it renders HTML, CSS, JS, etc., as the specs say. How else are we ever going to leave the current round of hacks in order to make a simpel webpage appear the same on all browsers?
I dream of the day people no longer need to check a user agent string.
Most of the time you just have to change the agent: F12 > Edit Site Preferences > Network, then change the Browser Identification to Internet Explorer (or Firefox).
Not guaranteed, but I've found a large number then let you just carry on without issue.
Not sure I agree... Opera's advantage (for me) isn't in the way it renders but in the way I use it: hotkeys, tabs, gestures, addins, My Opera, etc.
Almost all the browsers now offer a similar set of features, but the way they implement them is different enough to attract different crowds. And that isn't going to change just because they use the same renderer.
Although I use Opera for 90% of my browsing, I still have Chrome around for things like GDocs, due to a couple of annoying glitches. Hopefully Opera's shift to WebKit will mean that I don't have to.
Can't do 'tube (geddit?) from work, but I'm hoping that's Avenue Q.
Oh good. Now your car can dob you in
It's a fair point, but he states that TWO THIRDS of the charge disappeared overnight. Effectively meaning that the Tesla S needs to be plugged in while not in use, which somewhat diminishes its use for overnight runs away from home.
"Citizen, Big Brother is watching you!"
Had it been able to do spaces, however, they would have known that it was actually a guy called Sam Sung that had pissed Jobs off once.
"Note that windows desktop share and windows server share are both falling, so this isn't just anecdotal."
That wasn't my point at all; you stated that it's because MS' systems are more insecure, but I don't believe that is much of a factor at all.
The only factors I've ever seen in non-public-facing infrastructure is (a) cost, (b) existing licences, (c) existing knowledge. And pretty much in that order.
"Industry is moving away from MS because MS systems are more insecure"
I don't know what industry you work in, but I've never seen such a move on desktops or servers.
Companies in general use whatever they want based on what the person spec'ing it (a) knew and (b) was told was available. If a company can buy Windows boxes/licences cheap and they have tools/people to manage, they will; if they can't, they'll look at whatever else their preferred suppliers have that fits the bill.
Most reasonably sized companies don't build their own servers with Linux on; they pay a supplier (IBM, Red Hat, Oracle, etc.) for a fully supported system, regardless of how good their local sysad is, which cost (initially; not discussing TCO) very similar figures to the Windows based options.
In my experience of working for a company with 250k+ employees, only the security of the public-facing servers were really a consideration, and those numbers were such a small amount compared to the internal-only ones. Internally, all employee access was logged and they relied on standard ACL to limit access. If someone was found to have hacked in to something they shouldn't, they'd be out on their ass.
Presumably built from the remains of the probes that first "penetrated the Martian surface"... by high speed impact
"talking to Shatner"
And how... would they deal... with the a-pparent... pauses... in the feed?
Except that 666 isn't the only possible "Number of the Beast", and no one can even agree as to what (a) the Beast is, or (b) what is represents...
Paper disproves Spock.
Dead trees win!
There's some here: http://www.libreoffice.org/download/4-0-new-features-and-fixes/
Shame. I watched it on G+ earlier and thought that it was the first time that a Chromebook had seemed interesting.
Would you rather just ignore the possibility of security issues?
I thought it was irrelevant.
With IMAP over SSL to the company mail server, we effectively have secure push mail, and we don't have to pay per handset like we did with BBES.
"e.g. if apps have per-user storage"
They do. Users can't even see what other users have installed, but when a second user "installs" an app from the market, in reality it just permissions them to be able to see the already installed copy (but with a whole new data store).
"Who gives a fuck about the Oxford Comma?"
(Disclaimed: I'm a fan of it)
How brittle is the substrate compared to the more typical metal ones? Since this is aimed a laptops, I wondered what the likelihood of smashing one was.
Obviously, the damage to the heads would be fatal in either model, but recovery would be even harder if you've got to rebuild four platters from shards first.
... so... iPhone users should just fan heat every room they go in to?
Jar Jar Binks
Isn't Wine an emulator?
And VOD is not a problem solved by broadcast... Whether they can afford to scale it, though, is a different issue.
Not if you're dyslexic
"Being responsible for aids being spread [...]"
I'm reasonably anti-Ratzinger, but I'm not sure I'd word it *quite* like that... I mean, he's not going out there and actively spreading it. Although, he (and his administration) are responsible for not helping prevent the spread.
Still, semantics, since he actively did cover up the paedophile stuff.
That aside, I wonder what the conversion rate really is... My experience tends to be that the religious people I know are vehemently religious and won't discuss the alternative, the atheist/humanists are vehemently areligious (unreligious?), and the agnostics would rather everyone just shut up about it so that they can get on with their lives.
To paraphrase Hanlon: Never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
@Flatpackhamster I agree, but what if *now* is the time to act? The problem* was built over the course of a couple of centuries, what if it takes at least that long to reverse?
It's right that there is research done in to both sides of the argument, the problem is how emotive it all gets. People like Lewis writing articles that effectively boil down to "ner ner de ner ner, someone with a PhD has disagreed with someone else with a PhD, so my point is proved" is just idiotic. Unfortunately, too many people have an economic position with proving things one way or the other.
The simplest argument is: If it doesn't happen, we've lost very little by trying to prevent it; if it does, we're potentially screwed (although we probably will adapt). However, the first part is only true if there is a global agreement to act, which I would put serious money on won't happen.
Ah, well; there goes my hope that the El Reg commentards were going to solve the whole thing.
* If there is one
I'm more concerned that who ever is in charge is called Mantrid and has plans to consume the whole Universe...
"unable to innovate without Google's help, and as a result none of whom seem to differentiate their products significantly"
I'm not sure I agree with this. There is a lot of innovation going on in the hardware, it's just that the market (read: "consumers") have all decided that they like the candy-bar style with few physical buttons; a design that Apple helped to convince the majority is best.
You can't say that the Note and Note II weren't an innovation from what was around at the time. And the concept hardware that flies around every year is interesting, it's just that the manufacturers don't see enough interest to complete the R&D to market.
If anything, the complaint should be that none of them are willing to take a risk.
2a. Name it after a much-loved cult Sci-Fi series, in order to pull in the geek crowd
Now, where do I send my cheque?
"32-bit and 64-bit Intel processors"
Poor AMD, getting completely fogotten. Especially since "x64" was originally their work...
They would be the fastest, loudest birds ever witnessed.
Surely there must be a video of him outbidding the Penguin for it?
Pah! It was better before the newfags turned up.
The Reg is dying.
"I see you have to "break" the conditions"
What are you on about?
You created the conditions with your skewed analogy, I merely adjusted them to more accurately fit the actual problem. The "kit" you picked up on was (in your version) infallible, but in real life psychology/psychiatry are far from that.
If you actually read my post you'd see that I agree that the nutter was the cause of the incident, but to argue that guns aren't a catalyst in exacerbating the total damage done is an "ingrained prejudice" of its own.
If you argue that everyone should be allowed to own semi-automatic assault rifles, why not fully automatic? Why not grenades, rocket launchers, tanks? It's an argument of reductio ad absurdum, but where is the line?
As someone who has enjoyed firing rifles and consider myself good at it, I still don't understand why any person needs more than one firearm, nor why limiting it to a pistol, shotgun, or manually cocked rifle is a problem. Also, ammunition limiting. Why are questions not asked when someone buys 12,000 rounds of ammunition?
"You are locked in a room with ten people, at least one of whom potentially has a particulalry nasty venereal disease, and you have a kit that is the only way of detecting that disease before it reaches the final stages of infection. The final stages of the diseases is irreversible brain damage, causing violent paranoia and aggression, and there is a chance the diseased will stab someone with the cutlery you have in the room. In essence, you are suggesting not using the kit so as not to cause offence, but instead throwing the cutlery away. And - no - I am not advocating stabbing (or shooting) everyone else in the room first, or that giving everyone their own cutlery to defend themselves would remove the chances of someone eventually being stabbed, I am advocating identifying the diseased and keeping them away from the cutlery so as to reduce the chances someone gets stabbed, without leaving everyone else to eat with their fingers."
This is such a poor analogy. To make it more accurate:
* The cutlery should be, say swords: not essential, designed to cause damage
* The "kit" should have a high chance of false-positive and false-negatives: psychiatry is not infallible and requires the practitioner to use their subjective experiences to diagnose many cases
* Not everyone with the disease need reach the "final stage": far more people with mental illness do not react violently
So, in this analogy, why would you say that also locking the cutlery/sword away and only lending enough out as needed is more preferable to only relying on an unreliable test but letting everyone do what they want with the cutlery/sword?
"In which case screening would seem just as if not more effective, and have the benefit of identifying and helping those with mental issues that might not turn them into killers"
Haven't read all of the replies, but I actually don't think many people would disagree that such people do need to be identified and treated before they become a danger to anyone.
But just taking in to account the cost and logistics of such an endeavour, which would be easier: limiting the number and type of guns people can own, or screening everyone in the country for potential mental health issues (which would require regular rescreening)?
Lets say (for argument) both reduce the chance of massacre equally, which would be cheapest to implement and maintain?
In an ideal world, I'd say that both would be great, but I just can't see a universal government mental health screening process being feasible.
Isn't doing something better than nothing? Are there any real legitimate arguments against preventing ownership of assault rifles, or limiting the number of guns to 1 per licensee?
"Guns don't kill people."
Okay, so I've always understood that this was their idiotic rhetoric that a gun isn't capable of killing someone by itself; hence the normal follow on: "People kill people". The (stupid) argument that the person wielding the (semi-automatic) "gun" is solely responsible for massacre A and they would still have done it if only armed with an egg whisk.
"Video games ... kill people." Makes no sense! They've completely screwed their own argument as a video game isn't really even a physical thing... are they now saying that a virtual piece of entertainment can randomly commit homicide, but a device designed to cause physical damage is incapable of it?
Replace either the "you" or the "tube" in the popular phrase "youtube" with any sexual noun or verb and you're likely to find something.
"Whenever people ask for advice on how to lose weight", then I say "lop off a limb!". That's the fastest way.
If they actually mean "get fit/toned", then that's a different thing.
Has anyone found any detail on what he was doing?
I can't find anything on whether he has played with the shipped ROM and found an error that shouldn't be displayed (so, hidden code) or whether he's shifted a ROM from a different product across, where the error would make sense.
My God... it's full of buses!