Posts by Robert Grant 2234 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Aug 2006
Good grief downvoters, this was a joke. Don't you know anything about Linux? (And if not, don't you know what a smiley is?)
Well no, you didn't say any of those things but perhaps you ought to have done. 0-60 in over 12 seconds is SLOW. Slow and dull. You didn't say it was short of space but it clearly is from the pictures you've posted. It IS an unattractive car.
Maybe Newton had a delicate little friend who complained that the apple wasn't a perfect taste and colour.
This car is a technology showcase, and you feeling a little better about yourself by being able to go ever so slightly faster is not a good enough reason for people to stop researching every method possible of making transportation more sustainable. The last 50 years have done enough to screw the current/next generations; it's time to grow up and think of them for once.
But congratulations on kicking off the inevitable chorus of commentators posting the same tired, unworkable "solutions" to the problems with the patent system, such as non-transferability and eliminating NPE ownership. We never get tired of seeing those same proposals in the comments for every single story that mentions patents.
Is this your example of a comment worth making?
Possibly, but that only applies to music. Not filmmaking, for example. You've picked the easy case.
And even then, but there is lots of work to be done by the man in the middle, and record companies only make profits (and thus invest less per-artist) because they have a lot of scale.
So for example, if you want to only sell music on iTunes and never have any large live events organised or radios playing your stuff, for example, then you...can already do that without a record label. You just won't necessarily make a lot of money doing it; probably much less than you would make working with a record company. It's when you want to do bigger stuff (such as a film or live concert) that you need capital investment and lots of experts and equipment and contacts.
Some of these services may individually become commoditised (e.g. iTunes could facilitate pay-per-play for artists on the radio) but most are a long way off.
The way to desocialise bootlegging is not to do it. All I do is say "no thanks" when someone offers me bootlegged content, and if you don't do that, then it could well be that you're recommending an impossible course of action (all media industry must vanish before I stop bootlegging!) just as an excuse to keep doing it.
If you want parents to watch everything in full before their kids do (unlike with films, where there's at least a guideline), then that's fine, as long as at least one parent stays at home to keep up. Or, don't moan about a classification that doesn't have any role other than helping parents avoid obvious stuff their kids shouldn't watch (if the parents agree with the classification levels). So if you're 12 and your parents don't mind you watching 15s, then they can exercise that choice, but still stop you from seeing 18s. I honestly don't know why you think that sort of thing is bad.
As for your alternative to an unenforced classification system, which is that parents shouldn't let their kids use a computer growing up, as they probably can't configure it properly, then we're going to have a lot of IT-illiterate 18-year-olds. How you can think that a blanket ban on technology is better than a classification system is beyond me.
Finally, and more generally, can we cut out the moronic "if things are given a classification then parents aren't being responsible for their kids" nonsense. Parents can let their kids do anything or restrict stuff with or without a classification. It doesn't change anything, and anyone saying it does is just arguing by excluding the jaw-droppingly obvious middle (you can use classifications and be responsible for everything your child does).
This is stupid - parents have their own jobs and areas of expertise. Just because this site has lots of tech-savvy people on it, it's not automatically okay to foist lots of extra requirements on parents. You and I grew up in an age where the advice needed was basically "Don't talk to strangers when you're out, or let them in the house", "If the phone call isn't from someone you know, then get us and we'll talk to them." and "Don't watch stuff that's rated $whatever, or after 9 o'clock without us knowing."
And we were enough of a handfull even with that. Saying that parents now need to be all over internet, phone and tablets, and you think they shouldn't have any content guidelines, is plain absurd. This may not be 100% perfect, but it's needed by anyone who thinks that parents shouldn't have to work in IT to get the right to parent their kids the way they think is best.
such services were nationalised.
Unless you're saying that the private sector was providing equal education and healthcare regardless of income, you've missed the point that educating and providing healthcare for everyone provides a more inventive, productive workforce, that is wealthy enough to spend money and drive the aforementioned kickstarted economy.
(Moral arguments about whether is better to let poor people suffer and die from illnesses they couldn't afford treatment for are left as a simple exercise for the reader.)
The richest countries became rich first, then the public sector became large. Countries are not rich because of a large public sector.
That may be, but it sounds simplistic to me. It could well be that healthcare and education allow many more people to work at a more valuable level, so I think the (ill-gotten and Imperial, technological or resource-based) riches of a country's past kickstart a sustainable way to stay rich.
Given Apple's farcical attempt at writing their own software, maybe they'll nab a licensing agreement from BMW to use HERE Maps instead.
Can't wait for 2020, when all the Apple users are delighted with their local maps that don't require streaming, or whatever other thing we've had for ages turns out to be just the feature they always wanted, even though they didn't want it when it was only on other phones.
Apparently has a lot of wasted time - lots of playing table tennis and other stuff. Anywhere that's funded by too much VC is going to struggle to not get like this, and FB goes further than most with all the PC stuff going on that's great for the recipients of that, but isn't exactly going to contribute to the bottom line. Hopefully they'll find a way to do both.
Dude, don't be an idiot about it. Yes, running it in userland is bad now. You're saying modern Macs (some of the most expensive consumer computers on the planet) can render fonts in userland very fast, when Windows on a 386 couldn't? What an amazing point to make.
Hate these forums when illogical, rubbish reasoning gets posted, and upvoted just because it (nonsensically) ridicules what other people disagree with.
I agree that Americans (incorrectly) link car ownership to independence, but that could easily change if the thing works better and doesn't take away any conveniences, and adds others (e.g. you'll be independent from having to repair or insure the thing).
E.g. what if there was a self-driving car lane, like a car pool lane? All the cars drive along 10cm from each other at full tilt, getting you home much faster. Adolescent fantasies about independence might vanish then.
As already mentioned, this article is weird. ReactJS doesn't compare directly to Angular (for obvious reasons, if you know a little about each of them) and ReactNative is even less comparable, as it's for building native apps with. Why is Angular even being mentioned here?
It's standard stuff - a group that's oppressed (or even one that merely views itself as oppressed, although that's not relevant here) learns how to fight, and that fight becomes part of its identity, making it more like a tribe, and then the tribe keeps fighting long after its won (or about to win) the stuff it's been fighting for, because the fight is all it knows.
Thus the old liberals become the new conservatives, because they were never genuinely liberally minded in the first place. They just happened to want certain changes that liberals wanted. But once that change appears, they defend it using classic conservative tactics.
You easily solve this problem by resigning if you aren't allowed enough budget to do what you think is best, instead of getting a well-paid job and hoping it'll all be okay.
You can't do that, however, if you aren't ethical or expert enough in your field to understand the situation.
Websites have different views for phone browsing vs PC browsing because people tend to use the platforms differently.
This is a perfect analogy for what MS are trying to do - responsive views/layouts based on screen size.
An analogy that would help your point would need to argue in favour of going back to totally separate mobile and desktop websites.
I remember those days. Don't miss 'em.
No idea what the stuff about some US Constitution amendments is about, as it seems to imply that warrant-based searching is unconstitutional in the US.
Anyway, to the non-crazy response: thanks - that makes sense. Except, as far as I understand things, that's not 100% correct, because you can forcibly open someone's house while they aren't there with a warrant. It doesn't require their cooperation. Basically the equivalent of a skeleton key.
Does it just boil down to the process not being in place to restrict law enforcement access, or is there some other genuine issue?
I have some experience of it, as I work for an IT service provider. It's not a terrible plan, but it takes a lot of time* to shake out all the communication and blame-game problems between suppliers who need to regularly interact to provide a service.
* How much time? I'll let you know when we've done it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
