Thanks Mike, I'll take a look!
421 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
Thanks Mike, I'll take a look!
Seeing as I am not that familiar with OSX - I'm going to ask how? (Which log, and where do I find it).
What I do know is that the according to manual it's sleeping (the light cycles glowing and out as it's supposed to and when you wake it up you have to log in).
Before the upgrade it would last about a week or so whist sleeping.
2011 MacBook Pro and I noticed this (though not so pronounced). 100% when closing the lid, and only 70% the next morning. Leave it sleeping for more than a couple of days and it's dead.
Much worse than it was.
Try reading the comments again, there are plenty saying that is someone is wearing a skirt then she is asking for it, or saying that it is no different to to taking a photo of a face when someone doesn't want it.
Or it is OK if the situation makes it easy (the comment about being above or below).
I'm going to get down voted for this again, but seriously, the comments here do scare me - I may be that person in the skirt or dress, and these people may be on a train when I am commuting. So much acceptance of something like this is just wrong in this day and age.
I would agree that your situation is a tough one. But that is not what is being discussed here.
What is being discussed here is a person taking up-skirt photos. Not public wet t-shirt (which is still pervy unless you ask for permission), but up-skirt. Deliberately going out of your way to violate someone's person with a camera.
Again, how hard is that to grasp?
OK, seriously scared now by the type of people on this forum...
Being down-voted for saying that you shouldn't take an up-skirt shot just because you are in the lower deck of a train and so are looking upwards, and someone may be in a skirt on the platform.
Which means that someone thinks that is what you should do in that situation. I hope that someone gets help.
As to the different types of pictures.
I don't like having my picture taken full stop, I never have done and probably never will. There is nothing I can do about it except never leave the house.
The same does not apply to taking a photo up my skirt. Ever.
With the exception of stalking someone, taking someone's picture where you have to bend to certain angles around someone else is not creepy. Bending around anything to get a picture of someone underwear is! How hard is that to grasp!
Justice changing civilisation, or blood sucking morally bankrupt lawyers?
I don't agree. Just because you are under a platform does not give you the right to take a photograph up someone's skirt. It is not an unintended consequence, it is a deliberate act. The same for trying to get a shot of someone's cleavage from above.
I don't think this has to be that nuanced. Trying to get take photos up peoples skirts = wrong - how is that hard to understand?
As for what a person intended to be visible, I would say that is very easy:
And I sitting with my skirt hitched up and sitting with my legs apart inviting people to take photos? If not then I would say that a person is not expecting someone to take a photo of their knickers.
How the hell is an up-skirt shot a thing that is visible?
Taking a picture of people on the tube. fine
Should something in a normal picture be visible due to the way that someone is sitting, still pervy, but I can see your point.
Trying to go for up-skirt shots does not fall under the above though.
How is that an extreme reaction? F***ing perv seems appropriate in this instance.
If someone was doing that to me I would also be mightily pissed off. The analogy to other sex games is incorrect. If this was two consenting adults, then so be it. Trying to get random up-skirt shots on trains is not two consenting adults.
At least in the original series almost no one died - they all got up afterwards, even if a Jeep landed on them! :)
Firstly, wow could you try and be more offensive with your language?
Secondly, of course a transsexual / gay / lesbian / bi-sexual person can be as bad at their job. It's not supposed to be a get out of jail card for being useless. It's about ensuring that they can only be fired for being useless - i.e. the employer has to prove they are useless just as they do for their white middle class straight american employees.
It shouldn't been seen as a 'special right' to be afforded the same protections as the rest of the population!
I would say try some decent knives...
I have friends who do what you say, and when I cook at their house my knives go with me. Rather than use an OK blade I would much rather have one that glides through almost anything I am trying to cut through without effort. It reduces the effort involved in cooking and improves the look of the end result.
Sure they are not cheap, but at the end of the day a decent set of knives are not expensive either. Just don't buy from a trendy kitchen shop, but from a chefs shop.
OK - you beat me. I'm happy that I have the knives that put my mum through chef school about 30 years ago. When she gave up cooking she passed them to me. I've had them since 2000.
And after that time they are still the sharpest I have ever used, with them being honed on the steel twice a year at most when my mum visits - she can do that far better than I can, and I really believe in knowing what you are good at, and what you should get someone else to do :)
As to topic, I have been told I can put them in a dishwasher by various people, but couldn't bring myself to do it! It's not like they take long to wash by hand (you just have to be careful)
I disagree with both statements.
I'm still of the opinion that before they start kids on any programming language they need to start with getting them to think (see my earlier comment).
As to what language to use in Schools? As many as possible! If you are going to be teaching programming then you also also teach them that the language is simply syntax (sure you need to know the underlying framework, but at this level I don't think that is the goal). Teach them to think about the language as a choice of tool for solving the problem they have been given.
When I was first taught programming I went through Pascal, Ansi C, Assembly, some strange uni only language that was a mixture of Pascal and C and Java. Since leaving Uni I've been through Magic, Java, VB, and now code in C#. Who knows what I will be using in the future. I use MS technologies now, but that doesn't mean to say I wouldn't use anything else in the future - and the same goes for the other developers (some are using various other languages in private projects at the moment). To be honest, any type of evangelism for any coding language scares me - Microsoft or not... It means you automatically close out what could be the best solution to your problem.
As for it not being needed... In this day and age I rather think you do.
But still, you can use the site without knowing how it works.
I'll go with the giving insights into logical thought as early as it's practical, but I think that starting with programming is the wrong way to go.
Starting with programming isn't going to teach this, rather the opposite, it teaches to try, try and try again until the damn thing compiles and runs.
We all know the people who think with the keyboard until they get the result that they want. Unfortunately most of the time take this approach leads to programs which are slow, clunky and impossible to maintain.
Teach them to think first, and then introduce a programming language. That way they can work out the solution and code accordingly.
Wow, that Orange subscription is better than any I can get in Holland!
As for the 4G question, I'm afraid I can't answer yet - the contract starts at the end of this month :)
But you are right, mostly I use WiFi - but if it's available I will certainly try!
I got the subscription as it should work out much cheaper than my current subscription... My current subscription is not cheap for international calls, and as an expat it's useful to be able to call the UK from time to time without remortgaging the house ;P
Looking at a couple of providers I found searching for US Data Cellular Plan they are *OUCH* expensive.
$20/month for 300mb data + $30+ for the mobile contract.
If it comes to that my phone will be WiFi only for data and emergency only for calls. Like it was in '94 when I got my first phone (OK, that wasn't WiFi for data ;p)
I pay 26 euros a month for 1.5GB @ 4G speed with 200 minutes of calls. I am not going to pay double that for 1/5 the data!
I will admit that it wasn't a 'You know what, I'm going to replace my Xperia with the Nokia 820'. It was more 'Oh crap! The screen is in a million pieces! Well, if I'm going to get a new phone anyway let's give Windows phone a try, seeing as I have already done iOS once and Android a couple of times...'
As for what I am missing... What I said and easily switchable (and timed) profiles. That an being able to change the volume of the ringtone (I want it LOUD so I can hear it) without changing the headphone volume (I don't want to be deaf!) and vice versa are really about it.
And dialing :) (OK, now I start to think there are things ;p ) The way that the Sony phonebook works is the best I have ever used. Start typing a number and it will give you all of the matches in your phone book - by name (or sub string of name) or by number, or you can just type the number to the end and dial it. You don't have to search for a person, or dial number manually, or search for a number separately.
Oh and the screen... That 720p screen was beautiful! Before I smashed it to pieces of course :)
Email and surfing are fine, as it the calendar. I'm not a big app addict and so it's really not bad.
Sound profiles and, as others have said, easy access to things like WiFi, Plane mode (seriously, in a settings sub menu!) bluetooth etc.
You can put your settings on the homepage (or use an app to do the same thing), but what I miss from the Xperia S that it replaces are simple homepage buttons to do all of this stuff, not an app to open a screen to do it.
OK, sorry. My bad.
I assumed that everyone had a right to the emergency services, and not just those with smart phones and data contracts.
My parents don't have a smart phone, nor would they have the faintest clue on how to use it if they did.
What happens to those people with no data contract, and so no access to those maps? (Like, I don't know, people visiting the country...)
What happens to those people who are seriously injured who can can just about make a call, but couldn't get to the maps app, wait to find their location and then try to remember what the map said and repeat it to the emergency services. Especially when in the middle of nowhere and your maps shows you a rather large expanse of green countryside.
You are right, the GCHQ are doing bad things (as I think I alluded to in my post). And you know what? They didn't have to steal emergency service data in order to do it!
Yes, take of the tin foil hats. The government (or at least the civil servants) are doing quite nasty things with our data. You don't need conspiracy theories to make that point.
Please take off the tin foil hats guys.
Should I find myself in the middle of nowhere and in need of the emergency services I would want them to know my exact location so that they could find me.
As was said this already happens with home emergency calls, so why not make it mandatory on mobiles?
I'm all for protecting privacy, and against the mantra 'If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear', but I fail to see the Mr Burns like 'Excellent' moment for the spooks here to makes mobiles do the same as fixed phones already do.
This is not the same as the government collecting information on all of your phone calls, who to and at what time to see if you are a bad person...
To all of those saying that people should move and not subsidize the connections.
Fine. But that means that all of the online only services that are provided by taxes also have to have a real world presence in those places.Ouch, there goes a lot of money! (Or should people living in the sticks also be denied anything provided by the government that requires online access?)
What about getting people into jobs (many companies these days have online only applications)? Or should those in the sticks just take benefit instead (you can at least do that over the phone still...)
What about the swathes of the population who would be consumers if they had the connection to do so? Or if people live in the sticks is their money not worth anything to the economy?
There are an awful lot of selfish people in the world who can't see past the end of their nose, and if it's not directly benefiting them then obviously it is not worth doing. Wonderful people trying to create even more of a two tier society...
There are a lot of things that do not directly benefit me, but are provided to those who need it. And I am very happy that they are - the world would be a much worse place without it.
(That said, if it is subsidized then the right people should also make sure that a company isn't milking the system and making a mint whilst claiming that subsidy)
Terrahawks cubes... But then that just may be my age :)
This is an area that Holland does need to improve. When on my run earlier this week I got back to my own street to see two delivery vans from AH (Dutch supermarket) delivering to two houses within 5 front doors of each other at the same time.
What a waste!
Here in NL you pick up a scanner as you enter the store.
You pack your bag as you shop, scanning each item when you pick it up.
You drop your scanner in a machine at the end and pay.
So simple, and so quick. Rather than having to unpack your trolley after you are done, scan everything, repack it again and do all of this in a tiny space and a machine that does not work!
If I need to nip to the shops for one or two items that we may have forgotten in the main shop I can be in and out of the store in less time that it takes one person to go through the ordinary till. Perfect.
OK, not always - you occasionally have the 'I need to scan 5 items to check that you are scanning them all' checks, and sometimes the hand held scanners crash - but i have had both no more than a few times a year and even with them it's normally easier than the pain the UK ones seem to be when we come back to visit!
You forgot expensive home porn :) Sundays seem to consist of buying cheap houses, and then selling them on or simply people wanting to show how much money they have by going on a program saying we want to move to the country but can't find anything in our 800,000 budget...
But I do think that the BBC is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
If they make high brow stuff then they are elitist and accused of making programs that not many people want to watch. If they make low brow programs they are slated for dumbing down and producing things other channels can easily make.
I'm not sure it is carrier specific.
Clearly the carriers are worse the manufacturers, but I have never had a carrier branded Android phone, and updates are still months or years behind Googles.
The problem is that carriers then either won't roll out the manufacturer update when it does, eventually, come.
Having owned an iPhone, WP8 and a couple of Androids from different manufacturers I would say that the iPhone and WP8 are updated most often (I've had a few updates for the WP8 in a couple of months and the iPhone was updated for about 3 or 4 years before Apple stopped support (midway through an OS version I have to say, and the last update it had stopped it working, with the bug fix to the introduced bugs not being released for it, making it an ornament...)
I know I'm going to get down voted here for daring to say something positive, but...
I gave up on Nokia after the dismal experience that owning an N73 was - I even replaced it with a cheap Samsung flip phone long before I could upgrade on my contract as using it was just so painful.
I now have an 820 - and it is a great phone. Sure the app store needs more apps (kind of like the Android App store when I moved from Apple to Android a few years ago) but most of what is there is useful).
If you don't download a huge amount of apps then it's a stunning little phone that is, mostly, very intuitive.
Lets see what they can do now...
The good thing here is that the 'human' part of our brain is what's causing the problems in traffic at the moment (most of the time) and the analytic power of a computer is really what's needed when driving more than the 'Who am I and where am I going' that computers struggle at so much. Google has this working already. I'm sure than Nissan can perfect the science in 7 years.
@Alan Brown - That was exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you :)
"3. reaction time of a vehicle is much faster than a humans, again - alerts can propagate faster through the flow of traffic
Any half-decent driver doesn't need the same reaction time as a machine as they drive within the limits of their abilities and the road conditions."
Aside from the fact that I don't think this happens, ever, you are missing the point. Someone else driving outside of their limits heading towards you. You still need your 1 second reaction time, the computer still needs it's ms (if that) reaction time. That difference in time could be the difference between a nasty accident and an 'OMG! That was close!' moment.
Of course the benefits will be limited until all cars are self-drive, but the benefits will start as soon as people start to use them, and only get better as the technology propagates down to the second hand cars.
Actually... I think the two situations you describe would be far better handled by a RoboCar than a human.
Both in terms of safe driving to begin with (just how close to Enid are you driving - someone slamming on their brakes should not be the start of an accident, though it often is) and in terms of reaction times ms for the computer vs a second for the human.
The same goes for Daz, if a computer doesn't have the reaction time, or space to move out of his way then yu have no chance.
I'm more concerned about the legalities of what happen when a RoboCar *does* have an accident? Who pays for the medical bills and repairs? I think that this needs answering before it can really happen...
As much as I adore driving I would have to say yes, I would rather that people were not in charge of them.
As pointed out 90% of accidents are caused by the people driving them. Whether that be the person has had a bad day and is not completely concentrated, or whether they are just bad drivers full stop. Or whether they think they are Jensen Button, or just doddering people who should have given up their license years ago.
Of course people should be trained to the right level before getting into a car, and should adhere to that level when driving.
But having a license for 19 years now (ouch, that long!) I know that I have some bad habits when behind the wheel. Not holding the phone, texting or other insane stuff, but there have been times where someone was in my blind spot and I obviously didn't check properly because as I started to move I saw them and had to stop the maneuver, or you do something and immediately think it was a bad idea.
And I see far worse - sometimes I think my car is a magnet seeing as the amount of people who wander into my lane when overtaking me on the motorway - because they are distracted, or because they just haven't seen the nearly 4.8m long Volvo in the lane next to them. Or because they are just staring at their crotch where they are busy composing a text, tweet or facebook post (or email or whatever!)
And if you say you have never had those experiences then I am going to call you a fibber! :)
Yes, give me self driving cars - once the legalities have been sorted!
No, I meant Nm :)
In Holland they are dealing with that. Some car parks have charging points installed so you can shop and charge at the same time. And some cities are installing charging parking spots on the street so people can park near their house and still charge (you have to have a card to make it work obviously).
As these spread it will become more usable.
No, not US, UK moved to Holland. Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre (what you are taught in the UK when learning to drive).
If you have a car that is capable of getting from 50 to 80 (which in the country I live in is the maximum speed for the motorway) in a couple of seconds then the gap you need to safely manoeuvre between lanes is much shorter than a car that needs ten or more seconds to do the same.
How is this a difficult concept to grasp? My first car, a 1978 Fiesta, would take a long time to wind up those speeds and when there was a lot of traffic would be stuck behind lorries for a long time so that drivers didn't have to brake when I pulled out.
And yes, in modern day traffic there are a lot of cars that will struggle with that. I'm pleased not to be in that situation any more.
If you hog the middle lane you can now be given a 100 pound fixed ticket and three penalty points. You should not stick to just one lane (as the highway code points out, and the advanced driving handbook does too I believe). You should drive in the left hand most lane unless overtaking another vehicle.
And we are not talking about when you are on a massively congested road, with a variable speed limit to increase traffic flow and someone trying to lane dodge to jump ahead of the queue. In those cases I wait in the lane I'm in until it clears (we've all seen office space haven't we?) or I am approaching my exit and need to move to the left lane for that. It's less stressful and frustrating that way :)
I don't know why you have it you're head that I a nutter on the road for wanting to be able to change lanes or overtake safely, but I'm not... I stick to the limits or less, for both fuel and not wanting a speed ticket, and do my best to be a considerate driver by not forcing other people to have to react to my driving.
Anyway, there is no way you're going see me as anything other than the nutter, you've made that clear - so with this note I wish you a pleasent weekend...
Where did I say get out of trouble? I don't think that was mentioned.
You are on a back road, behind a tractor. The less time you spend on the wrong side of the road going around that tractor the better. The better your in gear acceleration the smaller the gap you need to be safely past the tractor and on the right side of the road again (and I am not talking about being 1/2m safe - I want lots of room to overtake to make sure I am safe!
The same on a motorway, you are behind a lorry, the easier you can get to the speed of the cars in the overtaking lane the safer the maneuver to change lanes.
And all of that safety makes driving a whole lot less stressful and frustrating! Don't you think? And seeing as frustration causes accidents it's safer still!
Oh, and not down-voted, I wouldn't want to give you the satisfaction :)
I don't know... I think that all the modern Volvo's look quite good.
The smaller ones are being made to look cool and classy, and the V70 looks really classy, without being shouty and gaudy about it.
And when you go 10 years down the line they still look classy, where as the cool cars all look rather aged... (Not sure how the new V40 and V60 are going to fair there - time will tell...)
Just my opinion :)
As others have stated the point of the power is to be there when you need it and for in gear acceleration. My V70 has to make do with (sarcasm) only (/sarcasm) 320nm and 240bhp.
And apart from occasionally having fun on slip roads to motorways, when there is not a slower car in front of me, I don't hammer the throttle from standstill very often. Seeing figures like 99l/100km (Dutch car) on the instant readout puts you off doing that rather quickly!
But, where the car comes into it's own is busy motorway driving and back roads where the in gear acceleration is used, this is also traditionally also what Volvo concentrates on more than 0-60 times when it comes to power. The ability to get from 50 to 80 in a very short space of time when needed makes life a lot less stressful.
I'm due for a new(ish) V70 in 4 years. I hope that this drive train is an option for a V70 around that time. Dutch road tax is prohibitively expense for a diesel, where as hybrids are cheap. Outside of makiing the money back in Diesel in 3 years, it's more than 1000 euros a year cheaper to tax!
Whilst I think this is a totally BS patent, the point of gifting something that has been picked by the giver, rather than a gift card, is that some people prefer to give something they have picked than just hand over a card and let the other person do the picking.
It depends on what the relationship is between the people. Someone who knows me could get me a new Muse album and know that I would love it, where as someone who doesn't know me that well could simply get me the gift card and let me pick.
And then onto the "It's the thought that counts." I know people who feel gift cards are a sign of not thinking about the gift and just doing it because they feel they have to. (I don't subscribe to this viewpoint, but there are people who do).
So the whole idea is fine, it's just the idea of patenting it that is stupid!
And what makes you think turning the camera off won't simply turn off the little red light :)
I have one of the best packages available in NL. 2gb fair use. Tell me: just how is that supposed to replace a 64gb data card! And what when I visit the UK and pay roaming details? Or when I'm at the TT and there is no data coverage for the weekend?
A data contract is no substitute for removable media. And this phone is trying to replace a camera. Cameras need removable storage...
And no it's nothing against windows phone 8 - this is being written on an 820. And yes I picked the 820 over the 920 because I could add the 64gb card for my music :)
Whilst I have never seen a phone that I would consider as a replacement for either of my cameras, 32GB including OS, apps, music, videos is not even close to enough to consider using the phone as a camera.
When I take my 5D to something like the Assen TT I generally fill all 32GB of my memory cards.
My phone has a 8GB + a 64GB SD card in it. I have 27GB free with the music I've uploaded and the apps that have been installed.
On this phone I wouldn't be able to store my music, let alone my music and the pictures the phone can take.
Because you can't fill the remnants of the 32GB with pictures doesn't mean that an enthusiastic photographer can't.
That's just what I was thinking...
Given the pointless rant you just wrote... You?
Honestly, I don't care about the colours, or the shouty menus in VS 2012. It's all window dressing and, basically for me, meh! It doesn't affect my productivity.
What I care about is the abomination that is the pending changes window these days! That they have decided to wait for 2013 to implement the old style interface rather than putting it into Update 3 is just plain stupid (not from a money point of view - we have MSDN subscriptions for the devs) but the whole we need to install the new version viewpoint!
And of course the restructured context menus that mean what was two clicks is now hidden away behind multiple sub menus that make no sense.
These things cost time, effort and concentration and should be reverted to something simple where people can simply get on with their work!
Hey, that's not fair!
The lawyers are winning hands down!
However the joke was meant the point that many people have made stands out. An article about women in IT and the first comment was about sex. That is how it is viewed (kind of like playing on-line on the Xbox - that's a barrel of laughs for a woman...) and even if someone wanted to do something in IT they can be put off.
And yes, I do know that a group of women working with one man can also make their life just as interesting, and that is just as bad.
As to me needing a knight in shining armour before I commented. Hello? Have you seen the time of the comment? I'm in continental Europe so it was an hour later than that - but I had got into the office, got a coffee and had a quick read of El Reg.
I was not staring at the screen waiting for some guy to come to my defence before commenting. That insinuation is more insulting than the joke!
As for the commenter never having had issues with it - well done. Though I wonder at your username to be able to make that comment effectively. There are enough people who make the belittling comments without even realising it. When it's bad it's infuriating. I have been asked by a sales guy just how technical I was when he realised that I was there as administrator of a server we were upgrading. Not one of the others in the room was asked that question. His company did not get the job to help us, needless to say.
But no, it is not that I have a bad workplace here where I am under a constant barrage of attacks, actually it's a lot of fun and you do have to give as good as you get - just as the guys do to each other. But, yes, sometimes it goes to far and gets too much.
And there is one of the problems of getting women into *any* male orientated branch.
A question I am constantly asked is "What is is like to be one of the only women in the whole department and to work with men all day."
For the work, fine - I'm (almost) as geeky as they are. But yes there are the jokes, comments etc etc.
It doesn't bother me most of the time, but it can get too much...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017