Re: Windows 7 is too blame
No, we need a real meta-data enabled object store.
286 posts • joined 12 Nov 2011
No, we need a real meta-data enabled object store.
Am I the only person that keeps reading that interface name as "Thunderbird 2"?
No, the extra cost is for packaging it all up, and putting a warranty on it. And ensuring that there is enough margin on it so that stores and distributors will stock it, despite it being a low-volume sales item.
While it is expensive, it is one of those items that if you need it, ALL of the alternatives are expensive too. Clearly, your p0rn collection does not need it....
I was watching the documentary "When Britain Ruled the Skies" the other night, about the giant post-WW 2 push by Britain into jet aircraft, both military and civilian. When Bristol, AVRO, De Havilland, and all the others were literally lighting the skies ablaze with new, ever faster designs. Farnborough airshow became THE huge flying show due to all the new British designs that were being rolled out every year. It was amazing...and for a brief period of about a decade, the small isle of Britain was the leading light in jet design.
But this came at a cost. The test pilots that flew for the companies became household names, adored by adults and children alike. Comic books were written for children about them, men wanted to be them, women wanted to date them. But the truth was, that at the peak of development, about 1 British jet test pilot was killed every month. Some were very famous men, such as the son of De Havilland himself. The toll was, in retrospect, staggering.
And yet nothing deterred their dreams, or the companies that pushed ever higher, ever faster designs.
What will happen here? Unfortunately, I think I know the answer even before I wrote this...
+1. The problems are well known, and if you read the aviation professional press well commented on. The simple fact is, they cannot get the oxidizer to mix evenly with the solid fuel, so it burns very, very unevenly. In a liquid fuel rocket this is accomplished by configuring the combustion chamber and inlets in ways that ensure a well-mixed fuel stream prior to ignition. But when pumping a liquid over a solid that is itself changing shape as it burns, it is much, much harder. That is the reason why hybrid engines have not been used for government-built rockets. It is clear that the switch to the new plastic fuel has not helped this, and it is now very much a long shot as to whether they every CAN get this problem solved.
My guess is that the program will need to switch to liquid fuelled rockets, which they probably cannot do and maintain their funding windows. So my guess is that this will be the end of Virgin Galactic.
That's because you're googled research did not count ground-based accidents done during the development - like explosions during static engine testing. Whereas the Virgin-based accidents include three people killed during an engine fuel flow test at a subcontractor's venue. So hardly an accurate standard of comparison. If you research all of the R&D accidents at Boeing, Rocketdyne, Rockwell, etc., you will find a lot, lot more than 13...
Administrators don't go back and re-do all the testing. All they can do is ensure that the checks and testing was done, and the paperwork supports that it was done correctly. That IS the essence of administration in a free-market economy.
Now if the sub-contractor (Orbital Sciences in this case) does that testing incorrectly, or incompletely, or incompetently, then they are at fault, and they have insurance to cover that business eventuality. Their reputation suffers, and their insurance rates will likely increase per launch. NASA has no responsibility in this instance...nor should they. Being administrators means they orchestrated the launch, ensured Wallops was ready, and ensured the area around it was clear for launch (oops). That is what an administrator does, not reverse engineer the engine, re-perform the testing, etc. By all accounts, Wallops was ready, NASA tried to ensure the area was clear, and ensured what would have been a safe and successful launch had the sub-contractor been successful.
NASA is entirely blameless, IMHO. There is a culprit, and that is whomever inspected and certified those engines most likely.
Elon would just put on his shiny Iron Man suit and take it out with his hand-mounted repulsers...or just fly next to it and tip it into the ocean.
He does have that suit, trust me.
They are NOT maximizing shareholder value in anything more than a year or two.
Once the market digests this, they will find they cannot sell a POWER-based system to any of their major corporate accounts, due to lack of future support for the architecture. And having sold their x86 business to Lenovo, they have little to take up the slack. So overall, sales will plummet on hardware. And, systems integration work based on hardware sales will decline.
That will take 2-3 years to really kick in, but it IS totally predictable, and shareholder value at the 5 and 10 year marks will be greatly negatively impacted. Of course, Ginni isn't planning on being their then....
No, it's a metaphor. It would be hyperbole if the real solution was to do something painful that did not involve shooting them - say a good spanking.
But since the real solution does not involve corporal punishment or violence, but more likely shareholder lawsuits, it IS a metaphor.
You miss the point - the entire IBM mid-range product line is BASED upon these chips. It is also their main market differentiator, their USP.
Getting rid of the fab, and getting only a 10 year guarantee, doesn't just close down the fab - IT SHOOTS THEIR PRODUCT LINE IN THE HEAD!
If that fab is running at a loss, then guess what? Consider it the Cost of Goods Sold, and ameliorate it with one of your other strategies. Solution 3 works for this. Because Option 1 and 4 basically tell your customer that you cannot guarantee a future state of POWER chips beyond one or two more IT lifecycles, and so they should begin to consider other options in the marketplace. There are customers out there with thousands and thousands of blades running POWER...and you have just told them they have an infrastructure that will likely go out of support, and the smart ones will cut their losses sooner rather than later, killing IBMs mid-range sales. (remember that they just sold off their x86 server business to Lenovo, so WTF they are planning to sell without POWER escapes me. And I suspect Ginni as well...).
The point is you cannot just consider the economics of the fab. You have to look at it in light of the entire IBM value proposition to the marketplace - anything else is a broad breech of fiduciary duties. And just f-ing stupid. And right now they have just cut their mid-range architecture off at the knees in the marketplace, and sold their x86 business. As I said, line that "management" team up against the wall...
This saddens me greatly. I remember growing up across the river from the Fishkill, NY fabs, and going on a tour of them as a kid, and getting an IBM keychain with a bit of IBM chippery embedded in Lucite. I thought it was SO COOL back then.
This effectively spells the end of the POWER architecture too. Knowing that the support contract to produce new chips is only for 10 years, any business that is not already on POWER systems would have to have a huge second thought before committing to a future purchase of POWER-based systems, knowing that they are now effectively a dead end. And business on POWER-based systems have little reason to not look at alternatives very quickly, as they cycle their hardware, and thus consider other vendors.
What that leads to is the following conclusion: this is really a HUGE abrogation of leadership (and perhaps fiduciary duties!) from the current IBM management team - they have, as usual in America - optimized their business for next year's quarterly reporting, and F*CK what happens to the business in the long-run. Can you imagine a Japanese company being so short-sighted as to effectively kill off their product line in the marketplace in a single gesture? Or, more to the point, the Chinese?
No, Ginni & Co. have decided that all that matters is next year's executive bonus comp, and fattening their own pay checks, and to hell with what happens to an American business icon in 10 years. They ought to be lined up against the wall and shot**...
(** - that is a _metaphor_ , for any plod or NSA or FBI reading this)
Hi, what sports do YOU do you pathetic wench?
I am sure that they are "unnecessary", and in some way detrimental to others. Even running and cycling have some impact on others - congestion on the sidewalks, slowing down of traffic, etc. NOTHING we do not not pose some imposition on someone else, unless you never leave your house.
I shoot for the camaraderie. I shoot for the thrill of competition. I shoot to get my mind into a good place and practice keeping it there. I shot a really great score in trap shooting last weekend, and it took getting my mind in a good place, finding a rhythm, and mastering my emotions and my body. When I shoot rifle, I have to practice getting my mind and body still, empty of outside distractions, and mindful. My breathing needs to be controlled. My eyes clear. It is Zen. And I can tell how well I do at that by the scores of that day.
What is it in your life that has you seek self-improvement? How do you measure it?
You are a pantywaist, really. And I won't post AC, too bad you didn't have the courage of your convictions to stand up for your own point of view publicly.
Silencers are called "moderators" in the UK. And yes, they are totally legal, as long as you have them noted on your FAC. They do make it easier to shoot and not disturb people, and they are used for both hunting and competition shooting.
Yes it is different.
A domestic disturbance is here and now, and someone is in jeopardy. IF a similar situation exists with a gun owner, the correct response is 999, NOT an anonymous Crimestoppers line. Given a 999 call, the police already have sufficient power to enter immediately if they believe a crime is being committed and someone is in danger.
What this seeks to do is give police that same power, even when there is NO IMMEDIATE THREAT. So you say you have concerns that someone is not securing their guns properly, or is being radicalised? OK, fine, neither of these place anyone in jeopardy TODAY. The police should go see a judge, and get a warrant to enter. If they cannot convince a judge that they have sufficient reason to enter without telling you in advance, then...perhaps they don't.
That is supposedly part of the checks and balances so that the police do not become the law unto themselves. This change effectively entails that where gun owners are concerned, they now are.
From a practical point of view, you would have to ensure that none of the shot falls outside of your own property. For anyone in the suburbs, that will be difficult. Given a sufficiently pastoral setting, this is not a problem.
However, even with a 32" barrelled trap gun with full chokes (I shoot a 32" Gold E Xtrap), you are not going to be hitting much beyond 60-80 yards - and that is both in horizontal and vertical distance. I know highly skilled clay competitors like George Digweed can hit out to 100+ yards, but frankly, that isn't you, and your likely gun and chokes. And after they operator hears the first shot, he will send that drone straight up at full throttle, if he has any sense. So you have one or two shots at most, likely at a target just at or beyond your maximum range.
The real issue is that it is likely that the drone will have a camera, and will quite possibly have you on video as firing at it, and.or destroying it. That is destruction of property, and unless you can prove the drone was a threat to you, you will likely be done for that. I don't think it will be a firearms offence per se - but with the plod trying to do it's utmost to limit ownership, being convicted of the destruction of property may very well be enough for them to pull your Section 2 Shotgun license, and certainly your Section 1 Firearms license if you have one. These are being pulled for convictions such as even getting into a physical fight in self-defence, or too many speeding tickets, or a single drink driving conviction, to put that in perspective. Wanton destruction of other's property is pretty close to that sort of thing, and at that point I believe you would be at the mercy of whatever judgement your local firearms team would happen to make. Some may laugh it off, some may put you under caution, some may revoke or suspend. You can challenge any action in court of course, at your own expense. In my mind, it isn't worth the risk, given how hard they are to get back.
But you miss the entire point...ext file systems are basically not usable by anyone on a cloud-based net book with only plug-in USB FAT storage and non-ext internal drive. Basically, it is the hardware specs and use cases that pretty much make ext redundant. If you don't like that, then a Chromebook and Chrome OS are not for you. You can take the hardware and install Debian just fine, with ext. or you can simply buy a non-Chromebook laptop. But installing a set of software just to "honour the devs" seems really pretty silly. It is very much the same as not loading X-windows code on an embedded Linux controller system...
The issue is that of those that have not paid yet, nearly all of them simply reformatted their NAS and re-loaded from backups, or decided that their p0rn and pirated movie collections were not worth it, and simply reformatted without backups. As they will never be used, those remaining keys are probably very low value, to either Synology, or the previously infected victims.
Again...no Object Store? No metadata management for data objects stored under the file system? Are we still using...gasp....raw files?
What is it about current OS releases that really seem to just be ever more incremental updates on UIs, with few real changes in core functionality and usage? When do we get a proper 21st century desktop operating system that actually embodies computer science concepts that have been talked about for years to make OSes more modern, but have not been delivered?
This is particularly galling on the data storage side - with HBase, HDFS, and even MongoDB showing off alternative methods to store files, data, and objects, why is such functionality not native to the OS, and exposed directly to all apps via standard APIs? Instead...we get yet more 1960s file technology. We should be far angrier at that than whether or not there are tiles on the desktop...
But the author's analysis is really, really, simple minded.
Supply meets demand - true in most cases. But not this one.
The problem with the housing crisis is that a huge percentage of the top of the market is no longer being actually used to provide housing. It is INVESTMENT, and usually offshore, tax-free, and sometimes illegally-gained investment funded. These houses stand empty, great towering symbols for how wimpy the UK's laws are, and how we are simply being used as a giant game of Monopoly by Russian oligarchs, Arab princess, and drug lords. All because the UKs laws make it very, very easy to escape paying taxes if you can claim foreign investment or transfer of ownership.
When such a situation exists, the "supply" and "demand" of housing is totally out of balance, because it breaks the relationship between housing and actual income used to pay for it. By making it essentially a tax free game of Monopoly investment for the top of the market, it has introduced distortions that have filtered down to every single level.
IF you want to solve the UK's housing crisis, it is simple. Close the tax loopholes that have elevated the top of the market and made it a speculator's paradise. This will then correct down the market chain in a few years.
Oh, wait...you see, that CORRECTION is actually reflected in lower house prices. Which we that are struggling to BUY houses really, really need - but the top 10% of the country (being landholders) do NOT want to happen.
Which is why, in reality, the problem of housing in the UK is basically unfixable. Because to truly correct it, the landed gentry, and even the upper-middle class, will have to take a huge hit in house valuations. And NO government will let that happen...
I just want to see Ballmer get up in front of the crowds, in the Staples Center....in front of tens of thousands of sports fans...and take the microphone...
and scream "WINDOWS, WINDOWS, WINDOWS!!!!" as I have seen him do so many times before...
Yes, Mr. Watkinson, I ALSO have a third-edition copy of Ted Nelson's "Computer Lib" to give cool diagrams on MMUs, and I did grow up programming in Fortran on time-shared mainframes in my high-school, then eventually moved on to 6502-powered PCs (my first was an Ohio Scientific C1P, with THE first copy of MS Basic in ROM AFAIK, copywritten 1977 by Gates). I also programmed a variety of single-board computers, like the COSMAC Elf along the way. I grew up reading "Soul of a New Machine", and that made me want a career in computing. So, similar vintage to yourself.
And I think your article is twaddle. I remember breaking security on my university mainframe FOR FUN when forced (against my will, but required to) take a COBOL class, and getting caught because I bragged about it. 45 minutes with the Dean of Students before I managed to get off with a slap on the wrist - because I had thankfully ALSO told my teaching assistant so it was deemed "an experiment" rather than hacking. I remember my first time with a DEC-20 at RPI university...and breaking passwords on that in 20 minutes to admin accounts. I remember my roommate at one point in GREAT detail describing the Man-In-The-Middle attack being used to break VMS networks he was working with. Security was NOT golden back in the golden days, it was utter rubbish! The only thing that made it SEEM more secure was that there was two to three orders of magnitude fewer hackers, because there were fewer high-value targets, and fewer trained people. Back then, there were very few criminal GANGS responsible for it - underwriting teams of coders/hackers, auctioning off automated attacks for Bitcoins on the Tor network. It was all individuals, or very small teams...working in private. Now hacking is a full-blown criminal enterprise, with outsized rewards, safety via huge distances and extradition laws, and often the threat of physical violence.
So of course we feel less safe these days...the level of intrusion investment being deployed against modern systems is at least two to three times the magnitude of the "golden days". And THAT has a whole lot more to do with the relative "insecurity" of today's systems (which all do have MMUs that are insanely well-engineered, btw) than any mythical hardware/software deficiencies.
They will probably have an SD-capable, dual-SIM version in China, and possibly India. You can usually buy them off the web from places like Merimobile.
But really, how much CONFIDENTIAL data do you really keep on your phone - the most likely to be stolen device that you own? Or is it that you think your movie/music/porn collection is so top-secret that it can't be stored in a cloud, for fear of the NSA? Only if you are a paedo...
I think the benefit of Atmos is that it CAN be of use in smaller spaces, as it allows the processor to intelligently model the room and it's dimensions in computing the channel split assignments. I have heard very convincing 5.1 in smaller spaces, even on cheap Logitech 5.1 gaming sound systems (not as good as my lounge set-up that cost a mint, but pretty good for the space).
I have recently bought a new Arcam, and am so happy with it that I cannot bring myself to replace it anytime soon - mainly because it's performance on music was critical in my decision to spend that much. I am fairly certain that until a musically oriented company like Arcam or Rotel brings out an Atmos-enabled receiver they will probably not be very good for dual-use movie/music set-ups (Denon / Marantz might be acceptable in their higher-end units, we will see).
Sure, they are 24 out of 26...but that is not the whole story. The larger story is that EVERY motor maker (bar the Chinese at present) is VASTLY more reliable than they were 20 and even 10 years ago. So a 24th scoring maker now is way up on where the mid-level was 20 years ago, and probably pretty close to where the mid-point was even 10 years ago...while having a lot more features and toys. The fact that they are not quite as good as the best today doesn't mean an automatic horror story, as was usually the case in previous decades. And I say that as someone who is a Land Rover devotee...which no sane person would be if we just went by JD Powers scores.
You beat me to it - Vandersteen made/makes all of their speakers to be time aligned across the multiple drivers. Having said that, I am still not sure that their drivers can match an electrostatic's for linearity. But it is important to remember that at least Vandersteen did emphasise their time cohesiveness...
Your last sentence says why you are wrong - "a particular speaker in a particular room".
The main benefit of "finagling the signal" is that it can be dynamically adapted - in near real-time or as part of a set-up procedure - to the acoustics of ANY room. Which you simply cannot do by "tweaking the layout and mechanics" in the vast majority of cases. Or at least not as well outside of an acoustically damped room.
Where the author is perhaps mistaken however is in assuming that such correction needs be in the speaker. Today's home theatre amps are incorporating dynamic room set-up DSPs of ever-increasing complexity and power, and as they use a calibrated microphone to measure room acoustics and dynamics, they obviously incorporate some level of speaker correction.
So it will be an interesting contest to see where the industry goes - self-powered and correcting speakers, or traditional designs with some level of correction incorporated in the preamp or receiver.
I loved your line "gross ignorance of the author".
You do realise he has decades of experience in engineering speakers and audio equipment, and is the author of many of the reference textbooks used in the field? As well as being a guiding light behind some truly great speaker designs over the years, such as those electrostatics bearing the QUAD label?
And you might check out his 750 page reference book on digital audio...which I am sure will truly prove his "gross ignorance": http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Digital-Audio-John-Watkinson/dp/0240515870
It was obviously for the mention of evolution...we get the stray American in here, and anything that claims to "have proven evolution" must get a down vote, especially if they hail from south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
It is one of the reasons I relocated across the Pond...how America expects to keep a lead in science when they care so much about the literal interpretation of their sky fairy stories is beyond me...
Given Elon's track record...and I've been watching this space for half a century...what he does is NOT SCIENCE.
It is magic, by Arthur C. Clark's definition.
His latest capsule has "3D metal printed rocket engines". And flys with touchscreens, not banks and banks of switches and knobs. No, really. What he is producing is nearly a generation ahead of competitors...in short, magic.
It is AMAZING how few commenters here recognise your "breakfast cereal" quote, or the context, or why it relates spectacularly well with the original article's sense of humour. I loved it.
Really poor showing of a lack of reading Douglas Adam's works from some of the commentards here...
"Why are there still no RISC systems that thoroughly outperform x86 on a core for core basis?"
There are a number of reasons. The first one is that Intel has a huge investment in fabrication plants ("fabs" in industry parlance), and usually manages to be a generation ahead of the ARM builders in implementation technology - lithography, insulation, and/or feature size. They just have a better _chip_, regardless of the architecture. Samsung and TMSC are catching up, but for a long time Intel has a huge advantage simply in construction - and this gave them faster clock rates, lower voltages, etc.
The second reason is that convoluted x86 architecture makes no claims to be elegant or simple. But it IS well known what the asymmetries are, and Intel's compilers are heavily optimised to work with them where possible. So having finely tuned compilers has greatly helped even-out the architectural differences.
Thirdly, Intel simply invests a whole lot more into developing their x86 follow-ons than ARM has. Such is the result of market dominance. Intel really does have a number of very smart designers, and as even you stated, it may be a turd, but it is a WELL-POLISHED turd. Things like branch-prediction, out-of-order execution, superpipelining...Intel has these down to a very fine art, with a degree of circuitry dedicated to this that ARM historically lacks.
Lastly, for ARM to focus on execution speed, it would need to add lots of transistors on-die to do these things (Out-of-order, prediction, superpiplining) to the degree that Intel does - and THAT would negate a good portion of ARM's power consumption advantage. There is no free lunch - having a better instruction set doesn't make up for lacking the degree of dedicated silicon that Intel uses to speed up execution. The day that ARM begins to catch Intel in single-core execution speed will also be the day that ARM begins to catch Intel in power usage...
And of course, if you left it to experts, and chose a publicly reviewed cryptosystem, then for many years you could have been using RC4 encryption and been quite happy (as even Skype was when using it). Um, of course...RC4 wasn't REALLY secure, was it???
That is the problem with all of the public-reviewed systems. There is an underlying assumption that there are enough eyeballs and experts actually putting in the months necessary to break it in all kinds of ways. But as the recent HTPS breakage shows, there sometimes just are not enough eyeballs probing it to find the errors...
Fantastic book. Loved the part when he talks about interviewing new candidates to work in the propulsion chem labs, and how he always made sure to make something explode during their interview to see how the candidate would react...had to filter out the jumpy ones!
I just need to know: what IS a pocari, and at what temperature does it begin to sweat?
I had visions of something like milking sheds, but instead of cows with their udders attached to vacuum lines, pocari's are standing under heat lamps, over drip-collecting trays...
'Tis true, the Japanese will go for anything!
Awww, how CUTE! An American that has never left his home country beside trips to Cancun for Spring Break.
If you had any real knowledge of world affairs - which you can get by travel and living abroad, I will quickly add - then you would know that Germany is the most economically and militarily strongest country in the EU. And you would also know that Germany gets a HUGE amount of its energy imported as Russian-sourced natural gas. As do many countries in Europe. Some - like the UK - are able to access local supplies and the North Sea gas wells, and so COULD say FU to Mr. Putin. But the fact is, most cannot, and are dependent upon Russian energy, and will be for some time.
Worse yet, even when there are other supplies available (it is a world market, after all), the cost is much higher than Russian energy, which is close and has nice pipelines to Europe. So...the people at the very top would HATE to have their corporations actually pay more for energy, as it would hurt profits. And of course, many people would have trouble heating their homes, as much of Europe IS colder than the US average temperatures. So the plain fact is that unless someone can show the EU how Crimea or even Ukraine as a whole is more important than say, saving the EU economic recovery, and the thousands of EU lives that are likely to be lost due to a cold winter without enough home heating...then frankly it is a smart play to simply not get involved.
I do feel sorry for those living in the Ukraine. My housekeeper just returned there to be closer to her son and his family, and I have spent hours talking to her about the situation they face there.
But the simple fact is, it was STUPID to try and expand NATO the the very edge of former Soviet land. It was STUPID to think that the Russian Navy would give up it's only warm-water port, located in Crimea. It was stupid to think that they would not demand some buffer around their space, as we do as well. It was cowboy American thinking that drove NATO to think that treating Russia as a defeated foe rather than a neighbour was a good idea. Now you reap what you have sown - a huge nationalist reaction from Russia, headed by a crazed, militant nationalist that could well be another Hitler given half a chance.
I am counting on the Chinese to bail the West out before he gets too far....they need us to buy shit to prop up their economy, and they hold too much US debt. If it hits the fan, they will subtly - or not so subtly - apply pressure from the East to reign him in, probably in exchange for selling out some Japanese and Philippinean fishing grounds and drilling rights to China.
The water tables didn't STAY risen during that flooding. This would be a permanent change, and would never dry out.
The interesting point that Don Jefe made however is not the telephone poles - it is the impact on coastal buildings. Basically, we would have to abandon every major human city near the coast and move the entire population inland to find stable ground. Good-bye London, Paris, NYC, Hong Kong, Melbourne, Sydney, LA, San Fran, errrr,....jeeze, most of the biggies were all built by coastal resources and transportation. I think Zurich, Geneva, San Paulo, Mexico City, etc. are probably safe.
So basically we will have to re-locate nearly every major human city over the next few centuries, while avoiding the nuclear contamination from those settling ponds that become flooded, and dealing with the loss of a hell of a lot of arable farmland. And taking in millions of desperate third-worlders that can contribute nothing to the solution, but the UN will insist that we take them in to avoid a mass outbreak of death and disease.
Yep, we're fucked.
Fairly sure that flight plans for the Grand Canyon tourist flights would be filed with negative altitude above sea level....
Pretty sure those are all VFR anyway however...
I cannot believe the poor arguments that are being made in this thread. Honestly cannot believe them.
Firstly, recognise that in MOST of us cannot afford to hire lawyers to get a request to have this stuff taken down. Nor do we have that much stuff about us to be worth hiding. Most of the time we can address that at the actual source of the material a lot more cost effectively, and Google WILL delete the index in short order (I KNOW this, as my ex-wife has a conviction or two, and Google _used_ to have links to the electronic court records...which disappeared).
NO - this law is for the top few percenters to allow themselves to abuse the law (and many of the rest of us) and have us all conveniently forget about their transgressions. Next time a person runs for local MP - how WILL you find out what they really have been doing prior to entering politics? How many convictions they might have had, and for what? Did they fiddle their expenses in their previous positions? Or before dealing with a company, how WILL you legitimately look into their background and history before placing a large order - and know for sure all the dodgy stuff and customer complaints wasn't just taken down by order?
This is REPUTATION MANAGEMENT FOR THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS. Get that...it won't protect the rest of us in any meaningful way, but WILL enable THEM to ensure that we remain ill-informed of their past misdeeds and transgressions. And this is all being done under the name of "data privacy", which is frankly a hoax, because that is best addressed at the source.
This is a low, low day in the history of a free and uncensored web...and my heart bleeds a bit for humanity.
Really? Do you know how long it will take to get an order to remove it? A LOT longer, most probably, than Google's natural re-indexing takes.
This is not about hiding innocent mistakes of data releases...re-indexing takes care of that far faster in most cases. This ruling is for politicians, con men, et al to hide their pasts from the rest of us.
Methinks you are terribly ill-informed as to how web indexing works, if you think Google "elect to build their systems in such a fashion that they are unable to distinguish (sensitive information) rom insensitive information".
Do you think that sensitive information has flags, indicators, or meta-data that scream "DO NOT INDEX ME - I AM SENSITIVE!!!"?
Don't be a twat, of course it doesn't, and more to the point the same data structures and even context may be sensitive in one case, and non-sensitive in another. THIS IS OBVIOUS to anyone that knows web indexing 101. It would require artificial intelligence of a VERY high order (think HAL 9000 without the psychosis) to be able to discriminate sensitive versus non-sensitive information on the web, in any reliable manner.
Prissy little idiot you are, and hiding behind AC...
You may call them amateurs, but they are in a similar position to Skype, which at one point was ALSO revealed to be using RC4 to secure communications...and crackable.
There are times when using a symmetric cypher makes things easier. But more to the point, it is quite possible that the crew that released this code intentionally went public with a crackable RC4 implementation...and kept a better, more secure one, for their own use.
I want to upvote this a million times. Or have your babies. OK, not possible. But well said nonetheless...
Bullshit. Pure bullshit.
IF there was any real finagling of the numbers, then some smart dissenters in the committee would come up with the "real facts" and get several million dollars from the petrochemical companies for exposing the lies of the other scientists.
CONSISTENTLY - that simply does not happen. Scientists HIRED by the petrochemical companies do their OWN studies and find quibbles. But scientists pulled from academia that work on these panels simply do not step forward and say "Hey guys, it's all a lie, and let me tell you about it." And collect a huge payday.
And that TO ME is the single most telling piece of the climate change debate...
Two thoughts -
1) I look at stuff like this, and realise that we are an intelligent race when we actually want to be. 2 to 3 times the network capacity over existing kit? Bloody brilliant.
2) The guys that name this stuff are obviously still all watching Dragonball-Z to come up with names like this. "Hey, Gohan is going to fight Mumimo to stop him from destroying the city". I mean...really?
I am really, really struggling to understand why the author bought the Play 3s to start with. The sound quality of Sonos really isn't _that_ great, for the money. It makes a ton of sense only if you want whole-house audio, with speakers in every room, that is fairly unobtrusive. (to put the SQ issue in perspective, I just bought a 6 year old pair of Epos M12s from a man who replaced them with Sonos - and as he said, it was a huge step down in quality).
So if you can afford to buy a ton of Sonos and put it in every room - and you are not technical enough to use AirPlay to build something similar yourself - then it is OK. But ONLY if you can afford enough Sonos speakers to really make it worth it! So if you are in an income bracket where you can do that, the Playbar shouldn't even be a second thought - it works, it fits your system approach, take it to the checkout.
But as the author states, he can't afford it. So what good are the Play 3s? They are a whole-house audio solution that is lacking the funding for expansion to the whole-house.
For £400 to 500 or so, the author could have gotten a pretty nice AV receiver, and a decent sat/sub package in a bundle deal from any high street audio store (Richer Sounds or similar). That would have included a centre channel speaker. And full multi-channel decoding, and video switching capability.
IMHO, sell the Play 3s to someone that needs whole-house audio, and go buy a good system for your AV needs...