UK FTTP is 0.8 per cent.
Sounds credible. But that's not "only 0.8% of the population able to access high speed broadband", because almost half the population have access to cable.
4296 posts • joined 1 Jun 2012
UK FTTP is 0.8 per cent.
Sounds credible. But that's not "only 0.8% of the population able to access high speed broadband", because almost half the population have access to cable.
become the telecoms equivalent of Network Rail sounds like a grand plan to me
Evidently you don't remember what an execrable mess the railways were under state ownership. And not just in their last few years, but throughout the dismal history of British Railways, and under governments of all political persuasions.
But vote for Jezza Corbyn next time round, and you'll have your wish, as the UK is magically transformed into a workers' paradise.
Only £270 per kWh, if my maths is about right. That even makes Hinkley Point C look cheap.
1) 95% of their userbase are men;
Wow. Either the blokes will not be getting their money's worth, or the women are very busy, and probably having to operate a shift and rota system.
Now where is MattBryant when you need him?
Signing on at his local Jobcentre Plus?
WiFi Calling is coming soon to O2.
What, a bit of a makeover of the utterly crap Tugo service that allows you to make outbound calls unreliably over wifi, and with latencies that would shame Voyager? I used to have the Orange SIgnalboost app, which nominally allowed inbound and outbound calls over UMA and wifi. That wasn't much less crap than Tugo, so my hopes aren't high.
Mobile operators seem to understand nothing of user's requirements. Or they simply don't care.
Maybe OFCOM should invite the UK Telco's in for a chat and cup of tea?
That's OFCOM's problem: Its heaviest sanction is to withhold the jammy dodgers at the next meeting. Faced with spending a few tens of millions to fix problems that only affect customers, the telcos just laugh and bring their own biscuits next time.
That and threat landscapes shift all the time, suddenly an excess can become insufficient.
Do they now? Like the surprise Islamic extremist threat that magically appeared on 9 September? Because it wasn't obvious that arming, grooming and encouraging a bunch of twig-beard nutters to fight the Russians through the 1980s might backfire?
Or the possibility that Russia might retrench to a centralised, nationalist and militarist agenda after their economy imploded in 1998?
All of the threats our military might have to be justified against date back multiple decades. The only sudden shift aspects are either idiot Western politicians either cutting their own defence forces too quickly too fast (Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron), or idiot western politicians pouring fuel on existing foreign conflagrations (Reagan, Bushx2, Obama, Blair, Cameron).
They also represent the armed forces of a country with 40x our land mass, 5x our population and 6x our GDP.
Choose your preferred metric! If we assume that it's population, then I have to ask why with only 5x the population, the US needs 70x as many combat aircraft as the UK? Even on the suspect land mass metric, they've either got twice as many as they need, or we've got half the number we need.
From a naval point of view, the CIA World Factbook identifies the US coastline as only 1.6x that of the UK, so I have to ask if you're arguing that the UK needs 14 aircraft carriers, and nearly 400 frigates?
theres more F-16 fighters in that photo than the RAF has working Tornadoes and Typhoons combined
You could make a similar comment about our navy, on course to be a one ship and one submarine outfit by 2025, or our soon to be five-tank army.
But much as I disapprove of Feckless Dave's stealth disarmament strategy, imagine how much safer we'll be because he won't be able to participate in other people's hobby wars. We don't need the military to defend our borders because they are now intentionally porous (you did vote for that, didn't you?), and as a nation we've got nothing worth invading or stealing. And a side benefit is that the clueless clowns of Defence Procurement won't be able to indulge themselves in multi-billion pound cost overruns when there's nothing to procure. And the Chinks and Ruskies will be in right old pickle if they put all the usual effort into try and hack'n'spy and steal defence secrets, but there are none to steal.
What's not to like?
That is since you're so fond of making comparisons based around absolute worst case scenarios.
You've been reading too much of the Grauniad. It is a simple reality that serious and violent offenders ARE being let off due lack of prison capacity, and the vast majority of those who get sent down will be let out after serving 40-50% of what most people seem to agree is a lukewarm tariff in the first place. If your mother gets murdered, the criminal responsible will get "life" if he's UNLUCKY. But "life" in some bizarre civil service definition is fifteen years, so he'll be out in less than seven years.
We certainly don't want a free for all in the area of non-violent crime, but the simple reality is that a law to make it feasible to send on-line pirates down for longer if pure window dressing, given that we can't put the serious offenders away for any decent length of time. Maybe you'd be happy with your mother's hypothetical murderer moving in next door to you, having "paid his debt to society", but personally I'm a "lock the fuckers up and throw the key away" sort of person.
When the idiots of Westminster have actually sort out the existing criminal justice concerns, THEN I'm happy for them to turn their attention to protecting the financial interests of the likes of Sony Pictures and Ben Dover, in the meanwhile there's bigger fish to fry.
Recipe for disaster.
Looking at the long and embarrassing list of IT and data security failures, I have to respond that the "all tech under one director" approach has been tried and found sadly and repeatedly lacking. The contention between spending the cash on shiney or on belt & braces exists everywhere across a business, but it usually is (and should be) the board of directors taking those decisions collectively on an informed basis. The dull choice of infrastructure hardware needn't tax the board, there's a CIO for that. But choices that can affect the continuity of the business, or incur multi-million costs and penalties, that's something for the board to agree.
The idea of elevating CISO to a board level appointment is a lovely idea, but I can't see it being successful - more likely the CISO becomes a sort of alter ego of the CIO. What might be a more credible option is a chief risk and security officer, with responsibilities including the business risk management & insurance, business continuity/emergency & pandemic planning, data protection and information security, audit, fraud prevention and business standards plus old fashioned premises security.
The purpose of the wider scope is that all those things need doing in a large enterprise, they need doing well, and they almost always need a higher priority than they get. Split out the elements individually, and any C-badge is simply a pretence - the CEO and the CFO won't see this person as an equal. But there's a much better chance that a chief risk officer might have that clout, particularly if they are seen as protecting the longer term interests of the business rather than just saying "no". In my own business we've not rolled in the CISO, but we've had great success by having a chief business resilience officer encompassing most of the other activities mentioned above.
but with that at least there is the prospect of crossing the Alps to freedom.
If the workers will organise themselves into an escape committee they could tunnel out of the Rugeley distribution centre, and make a break for freedom across Cannock Chase, trying to avoid recapture or encounters with the local doggers. When they get to Stafford they could keep their hoodies pulled down over their faces to avoid identification, pretend to be Polish workmen if challenged, and catch a London Midland rattler back to Wolverhampton, before signing on at the Jobcentre Plus on Queen Street.
It'd be a like an exciting combination of "Sound of Music", "Great Escape" and "Von Ryan's Express", although I'm not sure about a title yet. "Where Seagulls Dare", has too nautical a ring, "Parcel Van Down", "Captain Corelli's Missed Delivery", maybe.
I claim movie and merchandise rights in advance of the actual escape.
I avoid buying from Amazon nowadays.
Well, bring together their unsavoury work practices with their "tax is for little people" thinking, their predatory pricing, and their suspect business practices with regard to resellers, Amazon are really coming across as a responsible corporate citizen, aren't they?
No more irrelevant ads targeted at mind-blowingly annoying yoofs?
You wish. Look at the incompetence of either Google or Amazon. Amazon in particular have a VERY good idea of what I buy, but still push adverts for stuff I bought months ago, and won't need again for years. Google have a pretty good idea of what I have probably bought, but make things worse by assuming that anything somebody in the house has searched on might be something I might want to buy. You can imagine what turns up after the wife has been Googling to verify a phrase or activity from the Profanisaurus.
This is an arms race between the public and the web marketers, and technologically the marketers CAN win, I suspect, simply because the web intermediaries want them to, and because the paid for development of spamming and placement will have far greater resource than largely freeware privacy tools. But in "brand" terms they are guaranteed to lose if they continue the escalation, because they will so thoroughly alienate customers. Sony's rootkit mess up shows how technical extravagance leads to shame and failure, and that is the ghost of Christmas future for the web marketing industry.
When you open Mozilla's new privacy mode, will it shut down Windows 10?
In all seriousness, I'm hoping for a simple to use third party privacy tool for W10 that will stop Microsoft deciding what I can and can't run (including the privacy tool, natch), block all feedback and data leakage to their servers, and kill off all the other privacy destroying aspects of W10.
I acknowledge that I may have a long wait, but if that's the case maybe maybe I just need to abandon Microsoft altogether. Steam is available on Linux, after all....
he missed the chance to call the system Vodafone so the company would have had to call itself something else.
A search on Companies House reveals that CustomerHatingDogfuckers plc has not been registered yet, should they decide to choose a more appropriate moniker.
So that's what Vodafone are doing, instead of fixing their miserable, frustrating, unhelpful, time-squandering customer dis-service. What a useless company.
and it doesnt matter which department they are from.
...because they're all equally useless. Be it strikers, rioters, or illegal immigrants, who ya gonna call? Not the gendarmerie.
I hope he is sincere and tries to sort out this problem
Kudos to you mate, for your naieve optimism. In any organisation I've ever worked in, you can have isolated pockets that differ from the norm, but that allowed, an organisation's culture is always the shadow of its leader. The number of deeply unfavourable and similarly toned reports about Amazon seem to be more widespread than can be accounted as isolated pockets, and that implies that unfavourable attitudes, values and behaviours have pervaded the entire business, and by implication they have spread top-down.
That said, Bezos specifically says that if this *is* the case for someone, they should report this to him, so it can be investigated.
Most whistle blower programs are simply way of getting troublemakers to self identify, IME.
I don't expect to hear very much in the way of Windows 10 success until at least in to 2016.
I'm sure that Microsoft will soon be trumpeting success on the basis of large numbers of home user installs. And for the majority of home users, there's three simple things that make this inevitable:
1) Most/all users don't read and understand the EULA
2) Most are ill equipped to understand the privacy issues that are the major concern
3) "free" trumps all other considerations
On that basis I'd guess that Microsoft will see very rapid uptake of W10. Business will remain loyal to W7, and we can expect all flavours of W8 to be end-of-lifed as soon as indecently possible, in the hope of forcing the holdouts to roll over to W10.
Not a very pleasant scenario, but one that seem inevitable with most national legislatures "bought", and most privacy regulators utterly ineffectual.
I know. I was born in Stanford Hospital, raised in Palo Alto (with a side-trip to Yorkshire for me "O"s and "A"s).
Mr Curtis, perchance?
And as a practical matter, who is going to fill these $40,000 a year jobs if there's no affordable housing in the area for them to live in?
There's plenty of people who need a job, they'd just have to commute a long way, adding to the long, poorly paid hours they already work, and eating up more of their low wages. This is how it works in any city with sky high property prices, be it LA, SF, New York, London etc etc.
Just part of the way that the rich get richer, the poor get ever poorer. In this case the rich have more premium apartments, and fewer poor neighbours, the real workers get even crappier homes and have to spend more time and money to get to jobs shovelling shit for the rich.
And that wouldn't have anything to do with the ability to get an answer more effectively from a website instead of having to sit through interminable "Press 1 if ...
If you think O2 have a problem with this, you should try Vodafone, who are the most incompetent clowns I've ever come across. Not only is the Vodafone IVR system (IVR="press 1 to be disconnected, press...") a complete fucking mess designed by world class retards, but the website is equally unhelpful. At Vodafone, they don't want to interact with customers by voice, or by digital channels.
Message from Planet Earth to Vodafone plc: YOU USELESS, USELESS DOGFUCKERS. IF I PHONE YOUR COMICALLY TITLED CUSTOMER SERVICE, ITS BECAUSE I WANT TO SPEAK TO SOMEBODY. QUICKLY. ABOUT A SIMPLE MATTER THAT ANYBODY WITH AN IQ OVER 40 COULD RESOLVE.
But they get points for trying :-/
Yes, they do.
But you can help make it more accurate by submitting your response to the feedback request. For myself I've suggested that it would be quite feasible to have a form to submit a user experience report asking for the reception strength reported by the mobile phone? That'd then modify the predicted data, and over time the map would better and better shows the truth (although I'm not suggesting a user-editable map).
And I suggested they differentiate the "amber" category into upper and lower divisions of performance.
It's great that you can get something so cheap, even if you do have to put on your slippers and go to Asda.
From observation, the majority of TV sets sold by supermarkets are high on specification, low on quality. Asda or Tesco are almost the last place on earth I'd look to buy tech goods (albeit marginally ahead of CurrysDixonsCrapphonewhorehouse).
As far as I could see, hand-wringing and excuses are the nearest we will get to a solution.
As far as BT are concerned, they couldn't give a hoot (in the same way that VM don't give a hoot about the fringes and backwaters of their coverage, TBH). But why not up it to your MP, write to the local rag, your councillor, and the chamber of commerce. Four letters, based on similar content, but intended to garner support and attention. A bit of thought and there will be other sensitive touchpoints, and a bit of momentum may build. Maybe not, but other than four sheets of A4, a few quid on postage, what have you got to lose?
1) You have to rent it in future
In two ways perhaps. You've got the opportunity to buy things you used to get for free, but in addition Win 8.1 upgrades came with a perpetual and transferrable licence, regardless of the EULA that the machine originally came with. From what I've seen (not having "upgraded" myself) the EULA for W10 upgrades ties the software to the machine it is first installed to.
I'm not sure this really affects that many people other than homebrew PC builders and upgraders, but I suspect it has been exercising the minds of the beancounters who run Microsoft.
So now we will get a load of posts claiming this to be the China Export mark which doesn't even exist.
Come off it, everybody knows it stands for caveat emptor. I must say it's a slow news day if the Reg are having to blather on that the wrong font or spacing were used for the CE mark.
I suppose in the parallel universe of Brussels it means something, but as far as I can see the "CE" mark is a pointless bit of bureaucracy with no value to consumers at all, and no relevance to whether a product is safe or effective, whether it appears or not.
Like you, I have some respect for Corbyn but the main reason I would support him is because he seems to actually believe in something;
What, like The Austrian? He had very clear beliefs. Sadly that episode of electing a charismatic ideologist didn't work out so well, did it?
1) It's an appropriate point
2) I didn't name He Who Must Not Be Named
I would save that in a few hours if voting for Corbyn keeps Labour out of government...
Well, the pollsters and the media were absolutely convinced that Millibrain and his motley shower of piss were going to win the last election. And they weren't the only ones. My employers did their own forecasting and reached the same conclusion, and even spent the year up to May cultivating relationships with the Labour party. Now they've wasted their lobbying budget smarming up the losers, and have zero engagement with the governing party. I wouldn't ever assume that the public's intentions can be accurately predicted, particularly five years out.
What happens when in four and a half years time, the electorate are getting tired of Cameron and Osbourne, we've had a wearisome, thoroughly botched referendum on the EU whose conduct and outcome please not a single voter, and then that ghastly, smarmy c*nt of a prime minister reneges on his promise not to seek relection?
Voting Corbyn in puts him within shouting distance of number 10.
The only one they somehow couldn't get around to interviewing was Mr. Assange,
Well, lets be honest, this has become really embarrassing for Sweden, the UK, and Ecuador. None of these countries want this pantomime to continue.
But as far as I can tell, the case against Assange had nothing to do with crime or these countries, and everything to do with Assange's association with Wikileaks, and the fact that he is thus "guilty" of embarrassing a fading colonial power. Fading certainly, but still able to get the UK and Sweden to jump at their command. So it will go on until either Assange is dead, or the miserable bureaucrats of the US give up. In my experience of miserable bureaucracies, they'll outlast Julian, because their lifeblood is the inexhaustible well of taxpayer funded unicorn blood.
Geography isn't your strong point is it?
Not today actually. I'll raise you an upvote for that.
£50k for targeting the elderly, doesn't seem much.
But beyond the scale of the penalty, I wonder what the ICO's success rate is in actually recovering the penalties it levies? I'd expect all the scumbucket firms they fine will have (having been notified of the ICO's plan to levy a penalty) wound up the legal entity on the receiving end, moved assets into their wife's name, and all the other low life tricks to avoid paying. Somewhat like the "bankruptcy" of Andrew Crossley, who is now apparently working for a law firm in Eastbourne. Not that far from Bournemouth, funnily enough.
So not even lighting up Jupiter would do the trick.
Ordinary scientists content themselves with vandalising comets, or smashing small ummanned probes into unsuspecting planets. But you were contemplating setting fire to en entire planet, just to put off time being called.
Do you have a long haired white cat? And are you recruiting henchmen? I'm a good henchman, so long as the JD doesn't include "being eaten by piranhas for trivial mistakes"
The Chilcott report is published
In some parallel universe where they didn't send a civil servant to do a man's job.
Seems like a complete waste of high-grade energy, but the most cost-effective use for a small solar PV installation here in the UK under current rules is probably to run a low voltage immersion heater in your hot water tank! (No inverter needed, just a thermostat)
With the low cost of panels it is probably a lot cheaper to use PV and and a low voltage DC heater than to have a relatively expensive inverter, or to have the greater complexity of solar thermal (though see comment at bottom). I think the subsidy scheme rules do permit this, but I'm unconvinced that the supply chain will be geared up to deal with this type of application. You also need to be mindful that a domestic installation could easily be constrained on a sunny summer day (ie you wouldn't have the hot water demand to take the full panel output). Normally the FiT you get is deemed (assumed) from the panel size, but that assumption includes the export of half your generated power - if you've not got an inverter to permit export, and your on site use is constrained, then you'd have to declare that, and strike an agreement with the supplier paying the FiT.
The other thing to think about is that a modest 3kW of panels running at (say) 24V is going to be producing around 125 amps, or around 60 amps at 48V. That's going to need some chunky cabling (circa 50 or 25mm^2 respectively), and you might have some interesting discussions with the suppliers who are used to standard inverter installations. That sort of variation can easily increase project costs.
They could leave themselves wide open for claims of incompetence, intentionally poor security and data mis-management, as well as obvious court cases.
Unlikely, because they are a UK company. "Class action" exists only as a political fiction in this country, and the chances of the general public having the resources to take a private legal action against a group with turnover of £10bn.... The worst that the clowns can face is a paltry fine from the ICO - limited to at most half a million quid. Dixons Carphone is a business that made almost £400m pre tax profit last year. Does anybody round here think they give a flying **** about the prospect of a fine of the order of half of a percent of profit?
One thing I find particularly damning is that the incompetent twerps used email to communicate their insincere and inadequate apology. How many people will simply ignore that as a scam?
Lets be realistic: The directors of Dixons Carphone aren't personally affected by this. The executive directors have average "remuneration" of about £1.2m each - so that's about £60k a month, every month, even after tax, so they aren't in the same universe as the people whose data has been nicked. And even if they were made to walk the plank, they all hold shares with typical values around £5m. These clueless fatcats are loafing around in first class, quaffing champagne, laughing at the idea that their investors might cop a £500k fine, and smirking at the fact that customers might be subject to fraud as a result of Dixons Carphone incompetence.
No one gets out of the this life alive, so maybe the answer is Kool-Aid with additives. But I suppose you would refuse it?
Au contraire, I have behaviours that expose me to specific health risks. But I choose what I do, and for example I keep my weight under control. If the hambeasts amongst us are going to have their pie-munching constrained by the state, then logically we all need to be forced to give up our various poisons - in particular, sloth, unhealthy (as opposed to excess) diet, booze, fags. The public health fascists are currently trying to paint sugar as the new arsenic.
Now, call me old fashioned, but it sounds a bit grim to have a state approved diet, high in veg, low in fat, red meant and bacon, no sweets or choccies, no smoking, no drinking, and to have to do a state-mandated volume of exercise. For those that want that lifestyle, good luck to them, but don't expect me to vote for it - I shall be at the barricades, fighting heroically alongside the freedom fighting chain smokers, drunkards and big boned.
"3rd school says, we all pay for your bloody healthcare"
Maybe, but obesity tends to encourage things like heart attacks, which mean that the bloaters don't get to claim the pension they've had to save for, nor do they burden the health service for three decades of retirement. A PROPER cost benefit analysis that took account of the financial and health effects would see fatty foods, booze and fags given subsidies.
Tim Worstal's commented in this thread, so how about it, Sir? A proper economic analysis of the costs and benefits?
And furthermore Wipro, Tata et al are very viable alternatives if need be.
No they're not. ITOs share a common business model: Promise 20% savings against the incumbent provider, write a complex SLA where the vendor knows all the caveats and get outs (from experience) whereas the buyer knows none (doing this once every five years at most). Then take a seven year deal at a nominal loss, wait for inevitable variations and business change, and coin in during later years. There's even a term for this, "back loading", and my employers are currently in the phase that involves being reamed out by our IT "partner".
This situation is made worse by the common practice of building your ITO through acquisition, which leaves vendors with a balance sheet weighed down with vast amounts of "goodwill" (the amount they paid for acquisitions beyond their real worth). Unfortunately, the goodwill is capital on which the ITO have to make a return for their investors. This means that even if they do employ the cheapest of cheap, barely literate monkeys, the costs they have to recover from customers exceed the amount the customer was paying for inhouse and onshore skills in the first place, although because backloading gives a couple of years cheap it means that most customers can pretend that they've saved money. Although the converse is that those losses need to be made up by much higher charges in the later years, over and above the illusory "savings".
By the time the customer is paying the true cost, its been management musical chairs at the customer, and nobody remembers how much it cost in the first place, nor who made the decision to outsource. The skilled employees have retired, been P45'd or TUPE'd out, and nobody has the balls to even think about bringing IT truly back in house.
Outsourcing is the business equivalent of selling your kidneys - you only benefit on paper, and once you've done it you can't go back.
and start adding sufficient tax/fuel duty to the electricity supplied
They could, but a more likely route is "road pricing" using some complex, difficult to understand scheme whereby GPS tracking is used to monitor and record your movements, and you then get billed for your use of the roads according to the time of day. As a major side benefit for big state enthusiasts, Big Brother then knows where you've driven, when, and how fast. And by manipulating the pricing they can move traffic where they or their mates want it.
Do a search on the term "road pricing" and you'll see the extent to which the bureaucrats have this all thought through already. But by the time the peasants find that electric vehicles suddenly aren't cheap to use any more, it'll be too late.
They are investing on a factory capable of a larger number of cars than whey they currently make.?
There's two elements to Tesla's cost. The first is that the batteries are too expensive at the moment. This is what the gigafactory is about, building batteries in such high volume that the cost comes down. And that's why they have been so keen to sell the Powerwall - the original motivation was simply finding additional battery demand to support the gigafactory, and to thus help lower costs for the automotive application. I think that Tesla are now considering that power applications might be a better business model, due to far more possible sales in the domestic PV market.
The second element of Tesla's costs is volume related, and that bit is vehicle volumes. By industry standards, knocking out 12k vehicles a quarter is purely a cottage industry. Tesla can't survive on that. Growth is a problem because despite the vast subsidies that Tesla have had, and that buyers get (both explicit cash and avoided taxes), the vehicles are simply too expensive. If Tesla can't grow volume to reduce costs, then (a) they'll go bust because they'll never recoup the investments they've made, and (b) even if the assets are bought out of chapter 11 as a standalone business it will only become a niche maker with the sort of scale of Aston Martin or Maserati - but without the brand cachet and history.
I think Tesla is a grand venture; the product is impressive and innovative. As an ownership proposition it exploits a time limited opportunity where running costs are low purely because there's so few EVs on the road. If the owners had to pay taxes equivalent in value to those other vehicle owners do, the case for ownership becomes far less compelling. And as a commercial venture, Tesla is like many US tech stocks - wildly over-valued, paying no dividend and making no cash, hoping to sell out to Wall Street or another corporate buyer before the cash runs out. I'd guess a "merger" of Tesla automotive into a large automotive making group is an inevitability, with the main question being how quickly that occurs, and which set of shareholders do best out of the deal.
I suspect we'd all like Tesla to be the bold, pioneering upstart, that stuck it to the fuddy-duddies of the established motor makers. But at the moment their business is simply making subsidised green bling chariots for the very wealthy, and I can't see that ever morphing into the electric equivalent of Ford or Toyota.
You don't just divide quarterly cash flow by number of cars and "OMG $4K PER CAR LOSS".
That's quite true, and they didn't. This is (site relevant) re-reportage of Reuters coverage. And Reuters have done their sums right, and in your hurry to condemn the Reg journos, you haven't. If you divide quarterly cash burn by sales, you'd have a largely irrelevant number, but it's about $31k per car. The $4k per car reported is exactly the right number, of operating loss for the period divided by sales.
Moral of the story: Think before you post.
We will have to agree to differ. Speaking for myself, I still hold the view that they didn't need to disturb the wreck in pursuit of nick nacks to create a memorial. Are you honestly saying that it will somehow be a better quality memorial because there's a piece of Hood stuck on it?
And to extend the debate, we're now good friends (of sorts) with our European neighbours. Do you propose that the bell of the Bismarck be retrieved to remember the crew who fought for their country? Or the bell from the French navy battleship Bretagne, sunk in port by Hood, with the loss of a thousand French sailors?
Or maybe it should have stayed where it was. Personally I'm unimpressed by American billionaires fishing for trophies on war grave sites.
when you've finished installing updates run this from an admin command prompt:
How about those clowns at Redmond get off their fat behinds, and get the OS to look after itself, without consuming ever growing gigbytes of hard disk?
"Got a £20 voucher for each, to spend in EE online shop."
If it's anything like most service companies "on line shops", you'll shortly find out that forty quid will buy an awful lot of tumbleweed.