23 posts • joined 9 Jul 2007
Re: Design goals 101...
"On the other hand you had a company which made stuff which worked practically forever by simply concentrating on the best possible engineering. Of all of these, only the last (Rolls-Royce) is still around. I wonder why?"
That's easy: Rolls is, and has for some time, been owned by BMW (and uses the BMW V12 engine - by any other name). Oh, and Bentley is actually owned by VW, and mostly uses VW parts, including all of the engine. It's very successful too - even though it's largely a copy of the pretty unsuccessful VW Phaeton.
"It's not the first time we've heard the line that iPhone sales have been held back because it's so innovative"
Should that, perhaps, read "... so impractical"? If they can't get it right in the factory, what chance has the average fanboi got?
I'm in the market for a tablet. I currently have a 27" iMac but, unlike my previous MacBook Pro, it of course isn't portable and the idea of a tablet, particularly in the kitchen (I do like cooking and recipes) and to use outside, appeals.
Yes, I will look at the new Windows product (amongst some others) but I suspect that I will eventually plump for the top-of-the-line Mac product. My reasoning is mostly that (1) there are plenty of apps for it (even though I'm not an app fiend), (2) it should be easier for me to "learn" than any other tablet (I'm already used to Macs), (3) Macs "just work" and although that can be debated, it *is* a valid argument, (4) say what you will but Apple products are definitely "stood behind", my current iMac is about to get a new HD because the previous one (Seagate as it happens) could potentially fail, my previous iMac got a replacement Logic Board, both free and both replaced well out of warranty and (5) it is a currently proven product rather than a brand new item in this genre. I suspect that (5) will eventually be the final arbiter to persuade me to go Apple - yet again.
I note that they describe this device as "waterproof". Good luck to them - most manufacturers today prefer the term "water resistant", it's much friendlier when it comes to a court case (for example). The device will never be made which can properly be termed "waterproof".
Batteries, of whatever ilk, are highly toxic. They also require a great deal of energy levels to manufacture so:
1) Disposing of them [a car (ATM) has plenty] is a problem indeed
2) The energy required to create electric cars is mostly disproportionate to what they are capable of, as is the price.
Some of the European manufacturers, Audi, BMW, Mercedes amongst them, are doing great things with current technology, principally diesel. Porsche (part of VW nowadays) has just shown a "supercar", and what a one, at Geneva which has better fuel characteristics than that "benchmark", the Toyota Prius which to my mind is nothing short of a marketing exercise.
I live in Oz.
That means that I have to associate (at whatever arms length) with idiots like Conroy.
I'm not a technophobe, yet I watched, and avidly, tonights 4 Corners and QandA programmes on the ABC and, essentially, am heartened by what I saw and what was said.
Personally, with little knowledge of the ramifications, I feel that Conroy and his ilk are "pissing into the wind", that they will never get a working solution - I hope I'm right and I do hope that they keep pissing in that direction.
I'm 69 with no axe to grind. I live by myself, and proud of it, use the internet prodigiously and I believe, and strongly, that children are to be brought up by their parents rather than the government.
On behalf of the majority of us Aussies, I apologise for the stupidities of the perpetrators of this ban.
Unfortunately that kind of thing is going to get worse before it gets better. There are people in our (democratic remember, as distinct from the Chinese for example) government who seem the think that they can control the Internet for all Aussies.
Yes I know, totally absurd.
Umm, excuse me?
What happens if you take your card out of the wallet to make a transaction?
Or doesn't that count because there's no "nasty" scanner nearby?
I happen to use iiNet, not that that matters.
One of these fine days we might actually get a politician (worldwide, not just here in Oz) who has a semblance of a clue of what this internet thingie is about. Right now the Federal Aussie pollies are taking the cake (and eating it too).
It's a jet ski type boat?
Heck, any of today's Masers is only a Ferrari by another name. As well, they're both owned by Fiat, as are Alfa Romeo, Lancia ...
Conversely, Lamborghini is owned by VW, as are Audi, Bentley (yes), Bugatti, Seat, Skoda ...
Oh, and Porsche now owns VW!
Just waiting for an SSH client
Gosh, are you inferring that Paris know anything at all?
Re: Two Sides To Every Story
Here's another thought to those carefully made by NT.
I'm an amateur photographer, law abiding, conservative, elderly. I used to photograph underwater only but SCUBA is for the very healthy which I am not any more and so I have taken to land photography (a considerable step in itself).
I have, since December, a significantly sophisticated SLR camera that is, increasingly, getting a supply of sophisticated lenses and I'm fairly proud of it, but still learning this above water lark.
Back in February I met with some friends in the local Pub's beer garden (this is just north of Sydney Australia) and decided to take the system because I wanted to show off the latest two lenses, and so forth and so on.
There was a family, probably grandparents, parents and two children at the immediately adjacent table. The daughter, at a guess around five years old, got seriously involved in some kind of computer game and so I snapped a few pictures of her, she was very cute in the way she screwed up her nose and eyes in concentration. I did this in full view of everyone, this was not a long lens, and eventually asked the parents for their e-mail address to send the pictures to them, which I did. I also asked them whether they'd like the raw files and having explained that to them, they said yes.
A little later two of my friends commented that I should have asked permission first because the taking of pictures of people without their permission is illegal. I have yet, in fact, to bother to find out whether that is the case, but what happens if I take a Paparazzi picture with a 300mm lens, even a 150mm lens, and the "model" doesn't even know that it's been taken? Yes, we have Paparazzi here as elsewhere.
If that law is correct, which I doubt, then the law is an ass - again.
It follows therefore that a long lens, from further away than, say, the cops in that undercover BMW (a BMW? In England?!!!) would ever know of, would be perfectly benign to the photographer - never to be harassed by the local constabulary.
That would sort out phone cameras though although unfortunately, unless I miss my guess, those are going to become increasingly serious problems as the technology gets more sophisticated.
Lapel button cameras anyone? Oh, I forgot, no one wears suits any more.
I am nor a happy mobile me recipient.
Done all the usual things, jumped through the usual hoops, but as soon as I attempt to manage more than, say, five posts - haven't exactly counted - the whole thing dies.
This guy is a microshaft executive?
He's also for real?
Cuts the other way too
I bought a 17" MacBook Pro for personal use almost exactly four weeks before Apple anounced iWorks (whatever) 08.
I am now obliged to spend $Au100 on the wretched programme since I'm also a .mac member and intend to start my own website there (beware all) for which I need the damned thing - apparently.
It's not the money, I can well afford $100, it's the principle. I know that there has to be a cut off date somewhere but two weeks? That's pathetic.
I am a Macologist (can I patent that?), I am typing this on a brand spanking new MacBook Pro 17", a retirement present to myself.
I don't have a mobile (cell) phone, I'm not important enough although I did use a company supplied one - as rarely as I could. Today most of my communication is via the internet, including the likes of Skype (if I have to) and I am about to change to wireless broadband from landline broadband. If I make five landline calls a month it's a lot.
So when the iPhone hits the Australian market (whenever) I plan to get one and get rid of the landline altogether in part because next northern hemisphere summer I plan to do a big tour of that neck of the woods and a cell phone would be useful.
Seems to me that for my purposes the iPhone suits me ideally however the likes of AT&T are never going to get much custom out of me since phones, per se, are not something that I am enamoured of. Having said that, what the iPhone otherwise offers is, mostly, a thing of beauty and a joy forever.
I am not a Christian, matter of fact I do not hold with any religion at all. All of them are tarred with the same brush.
The Australian "proposed restriction" should be taken in context. It was issued by an incumbent government trying desperately hard to bolster its image, no more, no less, with an election looming.
Those of us with some semblance of a clue about the internet fully realise that any endeavour to restrict it will be met by failure.
That will happen in China sooner rather than later, especially given the imminent Olympics there.
Those Olympics? Should never have happened in present day China, but that's another story.
Christian (by name but not by nature)
10 mps on that size sensor does not for a good picture make, it's kind of like fitting her step-sister's feet into Cinderella's shoes.
I am constantly amazed by the "megapixel" war, thank goodness it doesn't (yet?) happen on the DSLR genre.
> the iPhone may yet find its way into corporate hands - if there are any left.
What, iPhones or corporate hands?
Re: dust to dust costs
Thank you Steve, took the words out of my mouth. :) I wrote my response before I saw your's.
By Robert Grant
Posted Monday 9th July 2007 07:56 GMT
> If you were to look at the overall cost of these vehicles you would be well avised to buy a huge four wheel drive instead.
Well, let's examine your arguments:
> It would not surprise me if Toyota, and their ilk, even made a loss on them
Great, so I get a subsidised car.
>> and then if you look at the costs of building them (not much car for the buck)
>Well actually it can't be that bad if they're selling them at a loss, can it?
Just look at it from the planet's point of view, rather than your own. Somewhere, somehow, those resources have to be paid for.
>> and, more importantly, disposing of them (especially the hugely expensive batteries)
>Probably just sell it on, for now.
Did I mention an immediate disposal? Yet, sooner or later the vehicle has to be disposed of.
>Well so far you haven't mentioned anything that argues that it's a worse carbon emitter than the "huge four wheel drive".
These cars are totally stupid anyway
If you were to look at the overall cost of these vehicles you would be well avised to buy a huge four wheel drive instead.
It would not surprise me if Toyota, and their ilk, even made a loss on them and then if you look at the costs of building them (not much car for the buck), running them (lots to go wrong) and, more importantly, disposing of them (especially the hugely expensive batteries) it all adds up to a lot more dineros and carbon emissions than a conventional vehicle.
So the latest fad actor gets out of his Learjet and into his Prius - only goes to show how stupid he actually is.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'
- Analysis Pity the poor Windows developer: The tools for desktop development are in disarray
- Analysis BlackBerry's turnaround relies on a secret weapon: Its own network
- Hire and hold IT staff in 2015: The Reg's how-to guide