Re: Sub heading should read
Me? Dodging taxes? I donner what you're talking about!
400 posts • joined 2 Jul 2008
Me? Dodging taxes? I donner what you're talking about!
Why is that? Serious question, I have no clue about parachuting. But this thing claims an altitude of up to 10000ft, and Google says you can typically deploy a parachute down to 2000 feet, or even 700 feet for a reserve chute. So to the non-expert at least, it looks like there's parachute potential from an altitude standpoint. Presumably you'd have some sort of break-glass-to-access emergency button that would stop the rotors if you wanted to bail out, so you wouldn't get diced. As long as you have the altitude, it seems like it could work.
Wrong. The GDPR specifically does not apply to anonymized data, so this would be perfectly legal in the EU.
Recital 26: The GDPR does not apply to data that are rendered anonymous in such a way that individuals cannot be identified from the data.
Firefox started off with a great idea - a small core browser, which the user could then customise by using various Add-ons (Extensions, Plug-Ins, Dictionaries) that were important for what they wanted to do.So you ended up with exactly the browser that you wanted. That vision has long been lost :-(
I hate to point this out, but that was never Mozilla's vision" that was what people outside of Mozilla decided Firefox was good for. Mozilla primarily trumpeted the core features of Firefox - tabbed browsing, pop-up blocker, etc etc - things that were ground-breaking at the time. The minimalist, extensible browser idea didn't come from Mozilla. To quote the goals from the Firefox charter 1.0 from 2004, first line; Delivering the right set of features - not too many or too few (the goal is to create a useful browser, not a minimal browser) .
Yes, they aimed for a bloat free browser, but that mostly meant not shipping it with a suite of other applications in the way of the Netscape Suite. And yes, they promoted the hundreds of add-ons as a benefit, but those of us who've used Firefox since the pre-1.0 days, when add-ons were free to shit all over each other and all over the browser, will recall that the Mozilla devs attitude was that if a given add-on worked for you, great. If it didn't, don't use it. As far as they were concerned, add-ons were just a bonus, and a way to experiment with new features, and their job was the browser's core features. It took them literally years to engage with the fact that people were using Firefox primalrily because of the add-ons and extensions, and start working towards stable and secure add-on APIs. I quote another goal from the charter; Develop and maintain an extension system to allow for research into new areas without affecting the core and to allow for techies, early adopters, web developers and other specific communities to customize their browsers to suit their specific needs without affecting usability or download size for the mass market.. Extensions were not intended to be part of the mainstream Firefox experience. Which is probably a large part of the reason why we are where we are today.
Mozilla isn't a for-profit corporation so they don't have the incentive to 'cheat' others collecting data might.
"Not for profit" != "Doesn't need money". Mozilla burns through plenty of cash, and with Firefox's dwindling market share, the current sources of that cash, such as money they get from certain search engines for making them the default provider, definitely aren't guaranteed. So there is certainly reason for Mozilla to think about additional revenue sources.
That point aside however, I tend to agree; they should just collect the data, bury the note about what they're doing in the small print like everyone else, and make sure that for those that do go looking, there is a very clear description of what data is collected, how it's anonymized, and what it's used for. Having a public debate about it, as this has now become, just makes all the privacy nutjobs flip their lids, and hilarious as that is to watch, it's not really productive.
I wouldn't personally put David Weber on the same level as some of those greats, but there certainly are more recent sci-fi authors I would put on that level, or that might be headed that way with a few more titles under their belts. Not many, but that's the point about greats - they are rare.
It's pure censorship.
Actually it's worse than that - it's backdoor censorship.
If the content of these videos contravene any current laws, then Mr Khan or the police should prosecute the individuals concerned. If Mr Khan feels new laws are needed in order to criminalise the contents of these videos, well there's a procedure for that too.
But by trying to manoeuvre the likes of Google into performing the censorship without any law being broken, or any legal procedure having taken place, means the censorship would happen without any transparency or accountability whatsoever. Content would disappear into a black hole, administered only by internet companies' internal policies.
If Mr Khan wants to censor content that he finds distasteful, he should man up and call for a law that allows him/the government to do that, and take any electoral heat that results from passing such a law, instead of posturing.
They were definitely a step up from TalkTalk I was with previously.
Okay, let's list who isn't a step up from TalkTalk. Any takers?
At first glance, despite Hipsterman's ridiculous pitch, there are actually a few desirable features being proposed, but I am dubious about the practicality of the whole thing, in terms of implementation and cost. It does integrate several items that I sometimes carry around when I travel. And I did leave my phone on my windscreen again last night (doh).
But my wallet is already thick enough without adding a battery and a bunch of electronics; I just can't see any way that this thing is going to be something I actually want to squeeze into my pocket. And how's that global wi-fi hotspot going to work? Is that just basically an embedded MiFi that you're going to buy a local SIM card for wherever you, or are they talking about something more interesting? And you're now going to add your wallet to the list of things you have to charge up every day?
I will be amazed if this ever actually sees the light of day.
On the plus side, I'm betting these stamp machines will never be taken down by ransomware or hackers.
+1. I use KeePass too, and sync the database between my PCs and phones using Resilio Sync, no cloud required. KeePassDroid is effective (if a little aesthetically challenged) on Android.
It's a shame how fast this seems to be becoming the norm. I fixed many of my own phones over the years, up to my Nexus 5, which needed the screen and back replaced at different times due to drop damage. My current Pixel will be the first phone that I'd need to deal with heating up adhesive to get the screen off, and having had a bad experience doing that with my Lenovo ultrabook (it's amazing how fast thin plastic parts can melt under a standard heat gun, even on the lowest setting, if you're not paying attention), I'd be a bit scared of that process.
But the fact is that repairability is not likely to be a key consideration in most people's buying choices, since repairing the phone is something you probably hope never to have to do, and most people will probably upgrade before the battery dies, so it's going to come way down the list of considerations when choosing a phone. So with little incentive for manufacturers to worry about it much, I suspect they'll do whatever suits them best, and if that means potting the whole innards in resin and making it 100% non-repairable, that's what they'll do.
I do that with the SuperHub 3 that they forced on me. Can you believe that in router mode, you can't change the lan-side IP address of that thing? Must be the only router on the planet that brain-dead.
"In the past, patent trolls had to hire lawyers and law firms," Prince said. "These guys do away with it entirely and have the owner be a law firm themselves."
So basically Blackbird Technologies LLC is to patent trolling as Prenda Law was to copyright trolling? If so then I wish CloudFlare spectacular success.
Maybe they mean "at the moment", as in currently operational?
The hardware compatibility is an interesting twist, and that does make it a somewhat interesting proposition, although similarly not £200 worth of interesting. And the thing does look pretty cool, I have to admit. But I can't help feeling that a new, updated speccy is no more a "real" speccy than an emulator is. I no longer have a speccy, but if I got one, it would be for the nostalgia of having the real thing that I had back in the day. A clone, no matter how good, is still a clone.
Well said. But I have to say, I'm a techie, and I don't care (that much). As far as I'm concerned, my password strength is selected to stop someone easily guessing my password, or working it out from readily available information. If someone is going to get hold of the encrypted password DB and make a concerted effort to crack it, assume they're going to succeed, and look to other layers of security for protection. Otherwise it's just stupid; with the continually advancing power of CPUs and GPUs, do we just keep recommending longer and longer passwords? Reductio ad absurdum, people.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying it, but if we're going to have the TV licensing system as it stands, then everyone who's supposed to pay up needs to pay up, and that requires enforcement. If they were nice about it, people just wouldn't pay (that is to say, even more people than the hundreds of thousands of freeloaders that already steal BBC content by dodging the license fee); that's a fact, so distasteful as it is, they're getting a necessary job done.
I already watch very little BBC content, and chafe somewhat at paying the license fee as it stands, but if I have to not only pay for stuff I don't watch, but subsidise even more free-loaders who watch without paying makes it even more annoying. Personally, I'd support switching to a subscription model, instead of this silly pseudo-tax nonsense we're stuck with; so if you want to watch, pay for a subscription, just like any other pay TV. But sadly there doesn't seem to be any great deal of momentum behind implementing such sanity at the moment.
I'm guessing because it's not that easy a task to usefully combine the output from an array of lenses into a single image. I have read papers on doing that (Googles for PiCam [PDF]), looks like a good read. Certainly looks possible, but no idea how close that kind of thing is to being a commercial option.
Of all the things the EU spends/wastes money on (I'm sure we can all name a few hideously expensive EU white elephants, not to mention the absurd Brussels-Strasbourg shuffle), scientific research is probably the one that I have least problems with. Even if this particular project is not particularly well managed, some useful research will probably come out of at the end of the day, regardless of whether its specific goals are met.
I have long been unimpressed by Mr. Orlowski's chip on the shoulder about Wikipedia, but I might have to change my opinion over this Daily Mail move. While the Daily Mail certainly has its issues, some other news organisations, for example some widely acknowledged to be little more than propaganda outlets for certain governments, are not similarly banned. I looked through the discussion they had before deciding on this ban, and while a handful of examples of factual errors on the part of the Mail were given, they were mostly on issues of low importance (celebrity news etc), and not enough anyway to say that they are systematically unreliable. I could certainly point to similar numbers of factual errors on far more important topics from a number of other news organisations.
Wikipedia has now put itself in the position of being the arbiter of what constitutes a reliable source for citations, without having a clear set of criteria for what constitutes such, or a rigorous process for considering and implementing a ban on a particular organisation. It looks bad to me, really bad. They need to step up and regularise this now, set credible criteria and procedures for deciding what constitutes a reliable source, and explain how they plan to evaluate all news organisations that are currently widely cited on Wikipedia in a fair way. But I'm not holding my breath.
That's a really feeble excuse for bringing Clara back. But I can't say I blame you.
There doesn't seem to be much behind this. Huawei made the choice to go with Alexa over Google's assistant for it's own reasons, according to Andrew's source; "It’s likely that Huawei made the decision in order to be in Amazon’s good graces, given that Amazon is an important seller of Huawei phones to U.S. customers." The post also mentions that Google has selected a single partner for the Android One (probably LG), and the blogger speculates "You’d have to think this is going to cause even more friction with Android OEMs. The smartphone market is slowing down (in the US as much as anywhere) which could mean some wondering whether it’s worth competing if Google isn’t making the field level (as well as playing in it the game itself)."
So we have one probably unrelated decision by Huawei, and some idle speculation from some blogger. No real information to support it. And even if he's right, as others have pointed out, the OEMs are the ones causing major problems in the Android ecosystem, with their inability to provide updates, and their insistence on stuffing their phones with bloatware and crapware that does the same job as the Google defaults only worse, and completely unnecessary clunky UI overlays.
I can only applaud Google's making sure that there are at least a couple of "clean" Android handsets on the market (fair disclosure; I'm a long term Nexus and now Pixel user). I'm pretty sure Google would play ball with any OEMs that were willing to return the favour, but they mostly want to preserve their ability to crapify Android, and try to divert users away from Google's ecosystem. That's their right, but you can't expect Google to be entirely happy about that.
All "flagship" phones are shit price-performance wise, compared to what you can get for 1/3 or even 1/4 the price in the midrange. You don't buy a flagship phone if value for money is your primary goal, they're priced as luxury items.
“If the machine over-exerts the human, it reduces the possibility of human sex,” Bendel warned.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if you have a sexbot that you find so attractive and sexually fulfilling that you allow it to "over-exert" you, then you're probably not going to be that bothered about human sex.
Just like it used to be "ooh, look how thin we can make the phone", now it seems to be "ooh, look how narrow our bezels are", regardless of whether it actually does anybody any good.
Personally, I'd rather have an extra millimetre or two of thickness, and a battery that lasts a few hours longer. And likewise I'd rather have an extra millimetre or two of bezel, and be able to hold the damn thing without accidentally touching the edges of the screen. But hey, can't have such practicalities get in the way of fashion, eh?
Only a tiny fraction of them burst into flames, the only problem really is with you not being allowed to take in on many airlines now; if you have to travel, that's a bit inconvenient.
Yes, this article makes no sense, or I'm confused. As far as I'm aware, the only "nerd goggles" Microsoft is producing is HoloLens. Windows Holographic is not "nerd goggles" in any sense that I can relate to; it's an augmented reality software platform which requires a suitable display device to display its output; that is HoloLens right now. So contrasting the requirements for Windows Holographic and HoloLens would not seem to be meaningful.
Microsoft has also said it plans to make Windows Holographic work with other VR display devices than HoloLens in the future, but again, contrasting the requirements for Holographic with the requirements for its potential display devices doesn't seem to get you anywhere, since you'd be using both.
It's a creditable effort to recognise even that short list of acts to the claimed degree of accuracy, though, give them some credit. But if there's one thing the internet's not short of, it's source material to test this application on, so I imagine it will improve fast if it's being actively developed.
Almost every paragraph has a fake 'fact' in it.
Astounding, even for El Reg.
The whole article has a whiff of character assasination about it. I presume it was funded by a Musk detractor somewhere. ULA? Any car company?
It's a shame, because there are some interesting details about this plan that bear discussion, but the tone of the article may detract from sensible discussion. For example, I read elsewhere that the projected operational life of each of these satellites is only 5-7 years, which would seem to imply that 600+ satellites a year will need replacing. I have no idea how many such satellites can be deployed in a single launch, but it can't be that many, so that would seem to require a pretty ridiculous launch schedule. Or do they plan to somehow refurbish the satellites in orbit once they're initial operational lifespan is over? That's the kind of stuff I'd like to be talking about.
My porn collection is on a 6TB WD drive. It's a WD Blue, whereas the WD60EFRX used by Backblaze is a WD Red NAS drive, but my understanding is that the only difference is that the Reds have their firmware tweaked to be more reliable for 24/7 NAS use compared to the equivalent Blue drives. Better check those backups, eh.
Umm, these are consumer drives that Backblaze uses, are they not? At least that used to be the case.
Not sure it would be in any way practical for El Reg to test a sufficient quantity of a sufficient range of drives to be worth doing, unless they were going into business as a cloud storage provider or something.
No! Noooooo! NOBODY can possibly believe that, no matter what marketing peeps claim. It's a phone FFS.
A Daydream-compliant phone is by definition designed, at least in part, for VR; that's the whole point of having the spec. Now while a manufacturer could in theory go to the trouble of meeting the fairly stringent display, sensor, and processing requirements to comply with the Daydream spec (which only the Pixel and the ZTE Axon 7 currently meet), and then not bother to do any development or testing of it under VR usage, that would seem to be a strange thing to do. Especially if the phone is being built for Google, and VR with Daydream View is one of it's more hyped features.
Hmm, well I just bought a Pixel, and am waiting for the headset to become available, so I guess I'll find out soon enough if this is a real issue. For sure, extended VR use of my Nexus 5 with Cardboard leaves it very hot and crashy, but I kind of expected that since Pixel has actually been designed for VR use, that that wouldn't be such an issue.
On the plus side, it's winter, and the advantage of phone-based VR is you aren't tethered to a PC, so I guess I can always go outside and freeze my nuts off to keep the phone cool.
@ FuzzyWuzzys - unfortunately I see a growing number of average Joe's buying £50 Android boxes with Kodi pre-installed, following a couple of simple steps apparently widely detailed online, and streaming away to their hearts content; it's pretty much plug-n-pirate, no skills needed. Premium TV, latest movies, the lot. I'm talking about people who barely have the IT skills to turn on a PC, so it can't be very hard. If the anti-piracy people really want to stop illegal streaming, they need to do something about that, because I can see that really turning into a nightmare scenario.
And yet, for largely political reasons, the Administrative Council – which consists of representatives from all the European countries that make up the EPO – refuses to fire the president.
It's stuff like this that means I'm beginning to warm up to the whole Brexit thing.
I don't see how you reached that conclusion, and I suspect you haven't actually used Gear VR or Daydream. Plenty of reviewers who have seem to have a very different take, e.g. this, "go blow a chunk of paycheck on the Samsung Gear VR. It’s 85-percent of the same experience for 50-percent of the price."
If Gear VR is really not all that much worse of an experience than Rift, by all reports Daydream is significantly better than Gear VR. The Daydream spec for screens, sensors etc was set precisely to enable a good VR experience, we're not talking slow-refresh LCDs and whatnot here. Plus mobile VR is, well, mobile; you don't need to lug a PC around like with your Rift.
Dual-SIM means extra cost and space, and only benefits a tiny fraction of customers, so it's going to be a very rare feature in mass market phones, it just doesn't make sense except maybe as a differentiator.
I'm not sure if it's fair to claim that the EU goes easy on Apple, but what you can say for sure is that this is political bollocks, and not in the least bit acting in the consumer's interests. It's in the consumers interest to be able to pick up and switch between Android handsets from any manufacturer, which actually requires a standard set of apps and user experience. Stop Google from providing that, and what we'll see is a proliferation of carrier bloat, manufacturer lock-in and fragmentation; exactly the opposite of what I'd like to see. Great, thanks EU. As long as Google isn't actually preventing users from installing alternative apps, as far as I'm concerned, the status quo is by far the lesser of two evils.
I think they're insane. That being said, the argument is probably that the bakers make the show more so than the presenters; we spend a lot more time watching the former than the latter during the course of the show, and so as long as they can keep getting great characters in the tent, they might just pull it off. It's not quite like Top Gear in that respect, as with that, the presenters are the show. The presenters are the glue that holds it together though, and they will do well to replace Mel and Sue.
Any duration of erection can be lethal, it just depends where you stick it.
@LDS - to be fair, they were right about the Borg queen. Talk about a weird boner.
I agree. If they must keep on milking the franchise, how about some spin-offs based on some of the better bond girls? Jinx Johnson or Xenia Onatopp for example, must have some pretty decent back-sorry potential.
Unfortunately that won't work. The form factor is good, but it is not a drop-in floppy disk replacement, and I'm guessing there aren't any drivers I can install on old CNC machines.
From your link; "FlashPath is hardware compatible with all standard 3.5" High-Density Floppy disk drives, but is not a drop-in replacement for real floppy disks. A special software device driver must be installed on the computer that is to access data via FlashPath. Thus, FlashPath is only usable with computers and operating systems for which such a driver exists and can be installed."
Historically interesting device though, I don't recall hearing about those before.
I still deal with people using CNC machines etc that take their data via a floppy drive, and so have to have a PC with a floppy drive, so I thought for a second this might be an option. However for this to be a solution to that problem, they'd have to be willing to modify all of the machines with one of these drives, as well as putting one in the PC. And that's assuming the drives in the machines use standard PC floppy connectors etc.
What would be ideal for them is something in the physical shape of a floppy disk, that you can put in a regular floppy drive, but which actually stores the data on an SD card, or built in flash memory, doesn't need to store more than 1.44MB. But I guess the potential market for that product would be so minuscule that it would never be worth developing.
I'm afraid it's you that can't read. Going to Mars involves a trip through space, and that is what the links refer to. Let me give a few quotes from your NASA link;
Strange things can happen to the human body when people venture into space -- and the familiar pull of gravity vanishes.
That's the sub-heading. Note "venture into space", "gravity vanishes".
In zero-G, muscles atrophy quickly, because the body perceives it does not need them.
Paragraph 2. Note "zero-G", not martian G.
Within two to three days of weightlessness, astronauts can lose as much as 22 percent of their blood volume as a result of that errant message.
Paragraph 4. Note "weightlessness".
The question is, do such losses matter? Perhaps not if you plan to stay in space forever.
Oh look, we're still talking about space, not Mars.
"You want the crew members to function normally when they come back to Earth ... and not have to lie around for long periods of rehabilitation," he says.
And Earth isn't the only planet that astronauts might visit. One day humans will journey to Mars -- a six-month trip in zero-G before they disembark on a planet with 38% of Earth's gravity. "[We'll have to maintain] those astronauts at a fairly high level of fitness,"
Paragraph 10 or so. Now here we do mention Mars, but notice the context; we're talking about Mars as another gravitied destination for the astronauts, like Earth. The article is talking about maintaining the health of the astronauts while they are in space, so that when they land on a planet, be it Earth or Mars, they are able to function.
The article is absolutely clear that it's talking about health issues resulting from weightlessness while the astronaughts are in space, not effects experienced under Martian gravity, and it's a complete mystery to me how anyone could read it otherwise.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017