2136 posts • joined 1 Jun 2012
Re: Missing the point of the article
"There is a lot of potential there."
No there is some very small potential. if you're a paranoid Iranian IT tech, then you've perhaps got cause to worry, but for the rest of the world I doubt it. For starters the physical security of the air-gapped systems needs to be breached to get the devices in proximity. If air gap security is done properly then external electronic devices don't get carried on site. So that's mobiles (which could be used in lieu of an infected laptop), laptops, MP3 players, tablets, smart watches, Googoggles, arguably even stuff like portable satnavs.
I would have expected that sensitive sites already ban their staff from bringing portable electronic equipment on site - not purely because they don't trust the staff (that being a separate issue), but simply to avoid mistakes and unknown-to-the-vector attacks.
"Then I guess you carefully drive pins into it until it seems to have stopped making useful noises and hope you don't knacker anything fragile behind it)"
If you've gone to the trouble of air gapping your systems, then getting a tech to desolder a PCB mount speaker is not going to be a big hairy deal, IMHO.
And most PCB mount speakers are in small cans with an opening at the top, and simply sticking a bit of electrical tape across the aperture would get you 10-20 dB of attenuation at a guess, and something like a foam sticky probably around 30 dB or more. I'd like to see them demonstrate a PC to PC audio link with 20 dB silencing on the target system.
Re: American geography
"Er, Citizens Financial seems to be located only in the Chicago area"
Oops. North East US was what I meant, not North West. It being West of me by some few thousand miles causing some cognitive problems. There is quite a lot outside of Chicago, with a reasonably large footprint:
But to return to the topic, Citizens is still part of the Rancid Bank of Scotland group, albeit with a big "for sale" sign above it.
"couldn't give a f__k what us Yanks think of some bank we have never had to deal with"
Many of your compatriots DO have to deal with RBS, because they own Citizens Financial who have about 1,500 branches across the North West of the US. And the dodgy practices that RBS are famous for seem to have been matched by Citizens, who were fined $140m for excessive overdraft fees.
Royal Fuckwits, still, though.
It really is about time the royal charter was withdrawn:
C'mon Regtards, sign up, damn you sign up!
Re: Something not yet considered
"I've already been moved onto a different URL for on-line banking and banking-as-an-app, and we've had our debit cards re-issued twice in the last 18 months with different numbers, presumably with a different bank code hashed in the long number."
And you're still sticking with them? Were you the bloke over the barrel in Deliverance?
"This is just a stupid thing to say, sorry."
Well, strictly speaking RBS did fail, and the government had to bail it out as the UK deposit protection scheme meant that either the state paid up, or other financial services companies (who couldn't absorb losses on that scale) would have been dragged down with RBS.
The mistake the state made was not in making attempts to revive RBS - they should have accepted that it had failed, and actively facilitated its disappearance from the market, whilst keeping the core bank operational. Much in the manner of an insurance fund in run-off. They should have opened the banks books to the SFO and City police, offered an amnesty for whistleblowers, and cleansed the dirt. Had they done that then a fair proportion of the LIBOR rigging guilt would not have attached to RBS, and the bank wouldn't now be sucking on a total of £700m in fines (perhaps more like £200m). New entrants and competitors could have bought tranches of customers if they wanted (not the failed hive off a few dormant and unprofitable accounts model that RBS offered, mind you).
Re: private property doesn't exist up there in space.
"There is no such thing as a natural right."
Going on strike in France. That's a natural right, apparently
Re: No property rights
"I see the future of space mining to be not unlike our current energy market, miners mining, transporters transporting and cellars doing their utmost to keep it dark, dank and full of secrets."
The current example isn't energy, its defence research where you pay astronomical sums for incredibly advanced research, and then the department/ministry of defence decides that the best use of that new technology is to keep it secret and apply it only to killing brown people, rather than making life better for everybody. The ultimate owner of all energy resources is always the government of the land under which it sits, and they, not energy companies) decide if they want it coming to market. Generally the answer is "Yes, yes, YEEESSS!". Except if you're say France, sitting on the largest shale gas deposits in Europe, where the answer is the usual surly "non".
Re: The Wild-West days are here again
"A mining operation can't cede if it wants to keep selling stuff on the home planet. "
Of course it can. In the most unlikely event that Scotland ceded from the rest of Britain next year, both parties would still trade, even though (for some bizarre reason) the Westminster government is vehemently opposed to the Scots controlling their own destiny. When the European colonies were given independence, they continued to trade with the former colonial power. Looking at the leaky and ineffective sanctions on renegade nations, I very much doubt that all Earth countries would refuse to trade with space settlers who have something worth buying. If the Yanks didn't like it, the Russians or Chinese wouldn't give a shit, and vice versa.
Re: @Steve Todd
"I don't think they *need* to be anything like as complicated as they are, but I also think organisations like RBS, in particular, find it very hard to simplify things while keeping it all working."
So we're agreed it *is* the fault of RBS management past and present. In fact they've admitted as much in the press. Whilst we and they talk of "IT" failures, this is actually a failure of their core business, which is keeping transactions flowing and accounts balances correct through IT. Instead, the dogf*ckers who manage RBS have considered IT as an evil necessity, a support service, to be done as cheaply and nastily as possible. And meanwhile they have persuaded themselves that casino banking and reckless lending are the core purpose of the bank. In my view even regular "high street" lending isn't really the core business of the bank, it is simply a by product of holding account balances of savers and depositers, and sitting on funds whilst they clear.
Somewhile back one of the Reg articles referred to banking's core business as being an IT operation with a financial services business attached. That's self evidently been proven by RBS who chose to believe the opposite, and in which form it doesn't work very well. Will RBS admit their incompetence, bring IT back in house, onshore, properly designed and resilient? Somehow I think not, they'll just do the usual, in the form of unbelievably expensive sticking plasters that won't cure the underlying failings.
Re: Failed sla ...
"which will result in a full explanation to the FSA."
Following the musical chairs the took the FSA away and made the FCA, I'd wager there's little continuity in enforcement.
Re: Resolved? I think not.
"Having worked for several old and new, I'd have to say DO NOT TOUCH a new entrant."
Each to their own, But I work in a very large customer facing business. We have a strong track record, documented processes, oodles of resource, all of which make our service worse than new entrants and systems less reliable because the new entrants aren't weighed down by vast crappy legacy systems, and hidebound by years of "doing it this way", or a business model built on millking retained customers.
And in the case of RBS, have you noticed how the IT failures often seem to be ancient legacy code or processes that they no longer know how to operate or support? I have no illusions that new entrants, mutuals, or any other player could have their own IT disaster, but I wouldn't personally equate "new" with "worse".
Re: while I understand the sentiment...
" So please, people, stop being hysterical, it's only Tuesday."
How about "no"?
It's two thousand and f***ing thirteen. Expecting one of the world's largest banks, backed by the entire largesse of the state, located in one of the most technically advanced nations on the planet to offer a reliable and continuous service is unreasonable is it?
In this rotten, festering POS bank there are about one hundred people paid over a million quid a year. And every year they are on the hook for something new - manipulating LIBOR, wilfully bankrupting business customers, mis-selling PPI for donkeys years, mis-selling interest rate swaps to SME's, misleading investors during the cash call before seeking a state rescue. And then there's the reason WHY the f***ers are owned by the state to be taken into account.
Face it: RBS & Natwest are useless. Has any other bank had repeated large scale screwups of customer service? Has any other bank been as routinely associated with incompetence, deviousness, dishonesty and fraud?
"RBS is an extremely complex computing environment, probably more complex than most people commenting here can begin to comprehend."
And evidently more complex than many of the people working there can begin to comprehend, to judge by their history of IT out(r)ages.
Re: Resolved? I think not.
" I am a little bit cynical that there is actually much difference."
I think that's a very fair comment. But is that reason enough to stick with poor service or unethical behaviour? If you don't switch then the incompetent or dishonest not only continue with their existing behaviours, but you continue to reward them for it. Better to take a chance, in my view.
If you look at the state of the energy market, you might easily conclude that the market failings are due to the fact that most customers can't be bothered to switch "because they are all the same", and because of the linked issue of British Gas' dominant market share.
Re: Resolved? I think not.
"I transferred a large amount of money to my RBS account yesterday. It's now disappeared"
Then I suggest you (and all other RBS & Natwest customers) explore the new fast account switching service, ideally to a new banking market entrant or a mutual. Admittedly that doesn't avoid future IT related problems with your new provider, but it does stop rewarding the persistent failure of RBS (or endorsing their unethical behaviours by their "global restructuring group", pushing businesses over the brink to take control of the assets).
I left RBS in 2007 purely over the unethical behaviours that wiped out my then employer, andI've had no problems at all from Nationwide since then.
"How much does a Sidewinder missile run to these days?"
Dunno, but as most of them are infra red seeking, and designed to head up the exhaust of a gas turbine I wouldn't expect them to be much use against a parcel drone. Even the radar guided versions relied on target illumination by a proper radar set, so factor that into your shopping list, and hope that Amazon don't use stealth delivery drones.
Re: Guns won't work, so let's look at alternatives...
"Trebuchet firing a net made from wire, with perimeter weighted with something heavy and with small cross-section"
Human heads? Outside of Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan you might have to reuse them, rather than have fresh for each shot.
Re: Guns won't work, so let's look at alternatives...
Third idea: Cheap remote control aircraft. Just ram the drone, and accept the loss of the toy plane. Or could be even more fun trying to make the R/C aircraft tough enough to keep flying after the collision, like a reuseable airborne battering ram.
Re: Guns won't work, so let's look at alternatives...
"Think of it as a mini SPB project....First idea: Another drone."
This is an opportunity to let my inner redneck loose!
Second idea: AIrbust shot gun shells filled with aluminium pellets (lower density metal to reduce the lethality beyond the kill sphere, he suggests hopefully).
Re: To be fair cable cutters are cheap.
" they want to develop the technology + availability of material so that should they decide to do so, they can do so very quickly"
My question still stands, though. Even if they merely want the materials and knowledge, why get themselves in a pickle trying to use subvertible modern tech, when they don't have to?
They don't need enough materials and the technology to build a fleet of nuclear powered and armed subs, just enough for two or three small truck portable weapons. The US did that seventy years ago with no computers and no prior knowledge.
There's a Western obsession with missile delivery of payloads, that means miniaturisation and complexity, but that's driven by our desire for stand off weapons, and shaped by the Cold War. For Iran things are a lot different. We think the far more backward North Korea has nuclear weapon technology, so there's no reason the Iranians couldn't have developed them if they really wanted to.
Re: To be fair cable cutters are cheap.
" Is the obvious perhaps too obvious ?"
Depends whether you believe they have a credible nuclear programme, and then believe they want to achieve nuclear armed status. As per my post above, the failure of Iran to produce a nuke is arguably more surprising than if they'd succeeeded.
Re: Stuxnet 2? Far fetched?
"So Iran's claim of a new Stuxnet variant (Stuxnet 3) is not far-fetched at all"
I'm sure it isn't. And the article's claim that Israeli's wouldn't want to upset the Yanks, now THAT'S farsi-cal. The Israeli's regularly wag the US dog.
Having said that, the whole enrichment programme seems to me to be political theatre by Iran. The two nukes originally used in anger (and the test weapons) were developed using brown paper, string and bits of wood, long before IC controlled centrifuges. Likewise the huge nuclear arsenals built up by the Soviets and the US through the 1950s and early 1960s were designed and constructed without the aid of PCs or the internet. If the Iranians really wanted to create a big bang, they could have done it the old fashioned way in a third of the time that it has apparently taken them to not develop their own big stick, and without the risks from electronic surveillance, hacking or sabotage. The latest "rapprochement" between Iran and the West doesn't seem a real development, simply a fig leaf to cover up th fact that Iran have evidently made no progress on building a bomb, and to continue the myth that they might.
It's the same with conventional weapons - look at the comedy stealth fighter they displayed, when you don't even need any engineering training to spot that the thing probably couldn't even fly, certainly wouldn't have been capable of either supersonic speeds or weapons delivery, and would have been as stealthy as Coco the Clown. There's lots of clever Iranians, they'd know that nobody would be taken in by that, or by badly photoshopped missile launches, or unevidenced "Islamic monkeys in space" claims.
So what exactly is the game? Iran doesn't have the forces to pose a credible threat to anybody in the region, other than by sh!tstirring and destabilisation, which are not really different to the activities of anybody else active in the region. The most obvious thing is Iranian gas reserves, but what the tension plays to is keeping those out of the market - why would the Iranian regime wish for that to be the case? Presumably somebody is getting rich on the back of this, and if the Iranian peasantry need to be oppressed then that's just dandy.
Re: not rocket science
"I think you'll find that Desertec's plan used solar thermal, which is an efficient way to harvest all of the solar spectrum by heating a working fluid to high temperature and hence drive a pretty conventional steam turbine."
I know (my employers were a founder member of the consortium), my shorthand simply referred to the idea of solar energy capture in desert locations.
But to take issue with your comment, harvesting solar by thermal means may collect a greater proportion of the spectrum, but end to end it is not really that much better than PV - the cost, complexity and losses of solar thermal are big offsets, when pv is simply a "fit and clean" solution with minimal maintenance requirements.
Re: Dark side of the Moon
"As ever, the hard part of this is the "beaming the power to Earth", which always seems to be accompanied by a lot of hand waving"
How about focused reflection of sunlight? OK, so this is getting a bit "ant & magnifying glass" for people, but rather than mess about with multiple conversion stages and energy beams, simply use mutiple reflectors to focus on solar power plants on the surface, concentrating to perhaps 5-50x normal sunlight intensity. Not so good for unlucky birds or careless flyboys, but harvesting the energy would be "relatively" straightforward (as in "nuclear power stations are relatively straighforward"). I'm sure that this must have cropped up in sci fi somewhere already, because it is obvious. And the idea of building a series of precisely controlled space mirrors seems closer to our capabilities now than the alternatives.
That "beam" could be multiply reflected to serve the dark side of the planet, could be split or consolidated into whatever made the most sense for the collection plant and power transmission networks. Concentrated sunlight would (?) burn through cloud or fog, and if correctly focused would have limited impact on stargazing romantics.
"Governments are the only organizations that can absorb the massive losses in proving a concept, private money really isn't well suited to extremely expensive pilot programs."
Tell that to SpaceX and Elon Musk. Ooh, and go tell it to the private investors who bankrolled the invention and construction of most of the rail networks in the UK or US, or did the same for motor transport, or built the first decent roads in Britain after the Romans left (the turnpikes for anyone not paying attention), or developed aircraft in the face of governments blustering that these things were of no use. Obviously we don't remember all the things that didn't work, but I think you're wrong to believe that government is the best answer to funding, organising or delivering major R&D programmes.
Re: A solution in search of a problem
You're right, but there were even more problems that didn't get a mention - the short life of wind turbines, the harm to wildlife of such a close mix of habitat and bird & bat death machine, plus noise, weight and dynamic load even before vibrations. And then there's the high cost of property-specific installations, and the rubbish output. There was some amusing news recently about the Welsh Assembly installing a £48k wind turbine that churns out a stonking £5 or electricity each month.
There's some interesting stuff in this link for those still hoping that a small scale wind turbine might answer their prayers - a little dated, but the physics and the fundamentals haven't changed since:
Re: not rocket science
" So 60 square kilometres of PV cells could match the entire global electricity needs"
That's what the Desertec consortium reasoned, and reckoned they could build in North Africa to supply Germany. Unfortunately German energy policy is even more misguided and chaotic than our own (not by much, mind you), and the prospective energy company participants no longer have two pfennig to rub together, financial backers look at the energy policy death zone that exists across all of Europe and concluded that such schemes were not a safe investment, and the existing German plan of subsidising solar and wind in not-quite-so-sunny Germany met a fair chunk of demand that might have made Desertec viable, but in a less efficient manner.
The UK made a similar mistake to the Germans of supporting build out of immature, sub-optimal renewables, although in our case by promoting vast amounts of low output on shore wind, when (if you must have wind power) the answer if not "small, crappy, onshore" but "vast, efficient, offshore".
Re: Store the energy @fpx
No. Volumetric and specific energy density of any known form of energy storage would make the aircraft too heavy. If you look at the existing solar powered "aircraft" you'll see that they struggle to stay airborne overnight, and that's with the craft made of string and paper. If the most energy you can bring back is sufficient to fly what is barely more than a glorified glider for a eight hours then this won't be supplanting even land based solar or wind ever.
Re: A solution in search of a problem
"There are more than enough lower cost and easily implemented solutions right here on Earth. The first being solar on rooftops. The second being rooftop wind."
Solar isn't low cost in the UK, largely because the output is so dismal. Perhaps you confuse the subsidies and redistributive effects of policy with the underlying economics. And rooftop wind is a joke anywhere. Not only will the roof itself and adjacent buildings interfere with the local wind field, such devices will be far too close to the ground and suffer severe boundary effects and low wind speeds, being on land there will be strong diurnal variations....but even ignoring those the size of rooftop wind collectors will be pitiful. This could be why the cutting edge technology for wind turbines is 500 ft diameter rotors on 330 foot masts, located well offshore.
Re: are friends electric?
"An enforced landing is not the same as a crash landing"
Nor is it the same as a forced landing. These days enforced landings usually involve a couple of RAF Typhoons and an unplanned detour to a remote part of the tarmac at Stansted.
Reading the request, seems to me that you have similar requirements to those running transaction data rooms. The need to have a hosted solution to which people can load or access files of all sizes, have fully configurable user access under client control, with proper security and audit trail.
Have search on the terms data room provider or electronic data room. I've used Merrill Corporation services as a data room manager, and found the system was excellent, and not expensive for the service on offer (though you'll be paying a lot more than Dropbox for the capabilities you want). There's plenty of competition in the sector, so just make sure you're not paying over the odds just because many other customers come fromn the "money no object" banking sector.
"i plug my 3g phone into my PC and have been using web n walk for my only home connection on my for 7 years"
Lucky you. Most of the rest of us have to fork out for a landline, broadband and mobile because at home we can only get a signal from network A, and then only in the upstairs back room. Lazy f***ers at the mobile companies are so busy messing around making Kevin Bacon adverts that they've completely overlooked the real money making opportunity that exists if they actually had a 3G (HDSPA+) service that offered sufficient speed and coverage to allow the rest of us to abandon land lines altogether.
Re: "prioritise voice and sms over data"
"If everytime there's network congestion or a failure the people needing our help most will the ones really suffering from denial of service"
During the London bombings, one or more of the networks were commandeered for emergency services use. Whilst that would be sensible from the point of view of supporting the emergency services, it does illustrate that their dedicated networks (that we also pay for) were/are unfit for purpose.
And in that case you've either got no coverage if all the networks are commandeered, or the proposed cascade of users from the commandeered network would saturate the other networks (assuming in a major emeregency they are already overloaded).
As far as I can see this proposal sounds far better than it is. In reality the bandwidth of the mobile networks isn't wide enough anyway in emergencies, so we're talking about either a specific tech failure by one network, or a fairly gentle sort of emergency.
Re: Radio Silence in Cars ?
"Adding DAB at home is fairly easy - buy a set and plug it in."
Except that I don't fucking want to. DAB offers me nothing that FM can't do, in fact the quality of FM is usually better than DAB, and I've already got FM receivers.
The sooner knob end politicians stop trying to tell me what I want the better, and at least Ed Vaizey has had the sense to realise that DAB is a solution looking for a problem. If he really wants to separate himself from the herd of incompetents and thieves at Westminster, then he could simply admit that DAB isn't wanted by the majority and doesn't solve any problems. And then he could develop a close down strategy for DAB, instead of prolonging its zombie existence.
Re: Tell you what. Mr. Vaizey...
"You have a shedload of work to do yet, don't you?"
No, he doesn't. There is no sensible question to which the answer is "DAB", except for the question "Which crummy technology do people not want, and should be put out of its misery soon?"
Re: Bah humbug
"but an excuse to spend, eat & drink too much"
Feast of the turnover, mate.
"I just wondered, is his wife called Su?"
Probably. But he no longer uses the title of "count" after people started getting the wrong impression when he told them he'd dropped an "o".
" If the measurement is to be in fiscal terms then the cost of tobacco related disease and currency export has to be balanced with the value of tobacco tax to the treasury."
In which case, there's a few more things to take into account. My starting point is that in the UK we have insufficient housing that leads to high prices and speculative booms, we have overstretched public services that can't cope with demand, inadequate infrastructure & transport for the current rising population level, old buzzards who are living longer and longer putting increasing demands on the NHS despite no longer being part of the productive economy, and a welfare state struggling to cope with said old buzzards who (in aggregate) didn't save to provide for their old age and expect the state (that also didn't accrue) to pay for them. And even for the working age, there's insufficient jobs to go round.
Put that lot into the equation, and fags are a miracle cure for the economy, because their general impact is modest during most of the smoker's working life, the diseases tend to come on suddenly, have a very high mortality rate and often low treatability. So fewer unfunded pensions to pay, fewer winter fuel payments, fewer geriatric healthcare bills, a few more jobs for the younger people, reduced demand on services, infrastructure and housing. What's not to like?
Re: Operationally, Snowden is a hero@ TopOnePercent
"When you have the heads of the 3 Brit intelligence agencies testifying publicly that Snowden has damaged their operational capability "
The same people who allowed the government to lie about Iraq's supposed WMD, the same people who didn't stop the London bombings, the same people busy doing a good chunk of the NSA's dirty work in Europe and the Middle East, the same people who maintain one of their own people zipped himself up in a holdall and then locked it, and then passed away of natural causes, whilst they didn't think to ask why he hadn't turned in for work for a week....
I'm British, I don't think the UK security services have covered themselves in glory. The UK government runs the same mass surveilllance as the NSA, damaging public confidence and privacy, yet unable to achieve much useful.
If you want, go find another reason to pillory Snowden, but don't rely on the handwringing of British bureaucrats to justify the US government's utter contempt for its own constitution. The critical point of defending liberty is that the liberty needs to be there to be defended, not trampled all over in the latest edition of "The War On Something" (tm).
Re: To put it into perspective ...
Put another way, they are spending the equivalent of the entire gross domestic product of Jamaica (or Iceland) on adverts. Or the arms budget of Israel, or the UK foreign aid budget.
"It's pretty obvious that their dull blank plastic products need to be pushed hard to get people to buy them."
Actually, the advertising is part of a cost problem that Samsing have but won't address. The S4 is (for most people) an attractive piece of kit, But Samsung aren't Apple, and the disappointing sales reflect the fact that the S4 is hugely overpriced in the market. Putting Samsung's costs up with a civilisation ending burst of advertising won't solve that, it'll make things worse. I'd say we're at the boundary of the late Samsungian, and moving into the Googgilian, and the dinosaurs like HTCosaurus and S4-rex may have had their day.
Which is a bit worrying, because in such existential crises, it is generally the rat-like forms that inherit the earth. Windows Phone may be the future.
"Then why bother posting it?...."
It's about time all the single issue loons who besmirch the Reg forums were given the Eadon treatment. The Vogon could be next in the queue.
Re: Peak Samsung?
"From what I've seen your better off buying the S3 as it is a lot cheaper and you don't gain much of any use by getting an S4."
Now match that with the launch of the latest Google and Moto products, and you start to see the crisis facing Samsung. If all the loot is made on the top end handsets, and somebody removes the need to buy your fat-margined top end handsets, then suddenly the profitability of the entire mobile handset division disappears. That's what I would call a crisis.
Nokia and landfill android stop Sammy making money from the low end handsets, the Sammy mid range is outshone by the Google/Moto devices at similar price points, and the S4 may be better but can't compete at that price, in which case Samsung have to slice either volume or price and thence margins.
Which I think is what SuccessCase was saying in the posts above at greater length.
Excuse me SuccessCase - all good stuff, but could you be a bit more concise? I'm a rambler and a half when I get going, but you could have published that lot in three volumes.
Re: brain dead boss
"this is a good sign."
Depends how you interpret it. Almost on the same day that npower announce 1,500 poor blighters will get their cards (and their jobs go to India with TCS) and another 500 npower peeps will be TUPE'd into the bowels of Crapita, the movement of around 300 security guards, mail room and reception people between Securitas and BTFS isn't changing the direction of the tide.
Moreover, note that it's low wage jobs that BT are taking back, not the white collar ones that most Reg readers have a direct interest in, and that the UK simply can't afford to keep offshoring. On that point BT are of course notorious for their dismal customer service and rampant offshoring. Don't expect the IT, accounting and call centre jobs to be coming back to the UK too soon.
If they've only fallen by 75% then the shares hold 25% of the value they did beforehand, and given that the shareholders will probably see nothing out of this, I'd suggest the markets have taken this very well (having lost their shirts in the past few years on OCZ anyway).
However, a shame for all those early adopters with OCZ drives, should they be hoping for any support.
"I much prefer board games to video games. They cost about the same and I don't need to upgrade my PC when new ones come out!"
You're missing out on half the fun. Nothing like drooling over the latest graphic card performance stats, wondering whether selling the wife would raise the necessary moolah for it (and a pair of ear defenders for when the fans ramp up). The joy of purchase, installation, the free game of "hunt the stable drivers" for any new card. Then running the video test option of your latest game and marvelling at the fabulous framerates (carefully not considering that it looks exactly the same as before). And then there's the need to stick in an SSD to give instant load times, more memory (well, you're inside the case, doesn't make sense not to...).
Having said all that, a mid range Core 2 Duo and a good five year old graphics card will still run most new titles at a stonking rate, with the only exception being for the lucky few with 27 inch monitors and above, or if you're mad enough to try and run at fully otimised, anti-aliased, max detail etc.
Re: It's all about the money
"The downside is Apple will probably change their phones to not charge when plugged in to a non-Apple charger. For safety of its users, not for the extra profit it will make from selling more chargers."
I find it strange that those who happily throw money at Apple (when equivalent quality WP or Android phones are hundreds of quid cheaper) should carp at paying a fairly small sum for a decent safe Apple branded charger. OK, Apple will charge a fat premium, but the cheap and dangerous charger is like buying a Porsche and fitting some completely unheard of make of tyres bought from a bloke on the street corner, rather than premium branded tyres.
If there's an issue with paying Apple's accessory prices, why not invest in a Sammy, Moto,or a Nokia phone where the savings on the phone will free up the money for a drawer full of chargers, and those chargers are cheaper and the OEM premium is less than for Apple kit?
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- FOUR DAYS: That's how long it took to crack Galaxy S5 fingerscanner
- Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?