Why is there a video of some rather obviously Sidney related imagery dumped into this article?
Why didn't you read the article? It does explain.
3263 posts • joined 19 May 2010
I agree with Mage, rescue organisations should not expect normal civil infrastructure to still exist after a natural disaster like this. The International Red Cross is a well funded, well organised group, who should have their own communications ability.
In the UK the local Red Cross and St John Ambulance have their own VHF / UHF radio gear, as well as access to RAYNET etc.
extremist Muslims represent the most likely source of terrorist activity in the UK.
30 to 40 years ago, you could have said "extremist Irish Catholics represent the most likely source of terrorist activity in the UK."
I wonder if you would have been one to encourage the view that anyone Irish or a Catholic was therefore likely to be a terrorist?
Terrorists often co-opt a religious or political ideal to justify their acts, but it doesn't mean that they represent the views of normal followers of that religion or ideal.
What could possibly go wrong here?
the tech support were unable to find the problem and asked me my cPanel (in fact my account's) password!
I don't see that this is something to get worked up over?
Wouldn't it be worse if tech support had their own login to your cPanel, or, even worse, were just able to look up your password for themselves?
Sorry to reply to you twice, but this has only just struck me:
As much as I respect Musk and SpaceX and their ilk I'm very uncomfortable letting some an important element of our future fall into the hands of private companies.
Do you not see this as an opportunity for Space travel to finally become mainstream?
If you look back at the history of all the world's transport infrastructure, from ships, to railways, to cars, to aircraft, most of the innovation and funding necessary for the advancement of the technology has come from private companies, or even, on occasion, private individuals.
The advancement of space travel has not followed the traditional path of most of those other modes of transport, because it was hijacked by political interests to score points, which gave us the Apollo missions and the Shuttle.
Normally, a new method of transport would start with a few eccentric entrepreneurs, then would become a plaything or diversion for the rich, and finally would attract sufficient commercial investment for it to become available to the masses. This is how cars, railways and aircraft developed, and is how space travel should have developed.
We are now seeing the beginnings of the first stage of this with Musk and Bezos, and Branson is offering the second stage, of being a rich man's toy with his proposed Virgin Galactic flights to LEO.
What we need now is more long term commercial investment in space hardware, until we have the equivalent of Ford or Boeing building spacecraft on a production line.
Err... forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't the International Space Station you know *International*, does NASA even have the right to sell it?
Don't worry, It's "International" only in the sense that the "World Series" only has teams from North America.
Joking apart, you raise a fair point, as whilst NASA is by far the majority stakeholder, they have only paid for about half the total cost of the build and ongoing funding.
I don't see how this can possibly be PCI-DSS compliant.
I know that every year we have a fight with the Pen-Testers because they say our password reset facility on a certain site allows enumeration of valid email addresses. (It doesn't, if you put in a non-existing email address you don't get an email - no message to say whether it was valid or not.)
Maybe they should get a different QA.
For me, in a rural area, it's not so much oncoming cars / suvs which are the problem, it's the oncoming nitwit cyclists using strobing white front lamps after dark which just remove all possibility of seeing anything other than their light, and a glowing after image where my retinas have begun to char.
"As part of our multi-billion pound investment in our network and services over the last few years to ensure that customers have access to cutting edge products and services, we have been replacing many of our legacy systems and reviewing the products and services delivered over them: as part of this review we will no longer be offering free email accounts with our broadband products."
It's a shame that part of the "multi-billion pound investment" couldn't be spent on maintaining a doman and an email server. They don't have to offer free email to new customers, but would it really hurt them to support their existing ones?
That's not what the Wiki says, nor is it correct.
The British government decreed that a flight to India, using petrol engines, was too hazardous for R100 to undertake, because of the "unknown" effect of the tropical heat on petrol. This was complete nonsense, and was purely done so that the government sponsored craft would get the kudos for the Indian flight.
I feel it's a little disingenuous to quote the R101 case as concrete proof that Airships don't work.
R101 was a victim of typical British bureaucratic interference in an engineering project, and the design was betrayed by cost cutting and ill-informed autocratic oversight.
The R100, which was built in parallel by private interests, performed admirably, matched or exceeded all of the goals set by the same requirement as for the R101, and was a complete success.
Unfortunately, to hide the bungling which caused the R101 incident, the British government declared that the civilian Airship was not a viable proposition, and the successes of the R100 were quietly buried.
I'm afraid your credibility has taken a severe beating with this article.
Not only does the whole spiel appear to be written in an attempt to justify your ownership of a smart-band, but you gratuitously admit to having purchased it in PC World.
Shame on you sir, I thought you knew better than that.
I'm no fig plucker's son but I'll pluck figs until the fig plucker's son comes.
Woah, where did fig plucker come from?
As I know it, the rhyme is:
"I'm not the pheasant plucker, I'm the pheasant plucker's son, and I'll keep on plucking pheasants 'til the pheasant plucker comes"
and there isn't a day goes by that I don't get to see and enjoy photos and videos of my young nephews, nieces and cousins as they learn to walk and talk, play in their gardens, start at their new schools, attend their proms, graduate from their Universities, and eventually post their own videos of themselves getting wasted in fancy dress.
Either you have an inordinate amount of relatives spread over a large age-range, or they live somewhere where time works differently to the rest of us!
I saw this on BBC News the other day, and at the time thought that an all-in-one banking app was a bad idea.
Their stated aim is to "promote transparency and clarity while providing an incentive for customers to switch providers" but I cannot see that one-app-to-rule-them-all is in any way likely to promote transparency and clarity.
Enforcing extra competition for the sake of it seems to be something this government have tried to do for a number of sectors, and it just doesn't work. I don't understand why they feel someone switching banks every six months is something to encourage?
As someone posted earlier, maybe people don't switch banking providers because they are generally happy with the service they get - or, more likely, there is not enough difference between the services provided by any single bank which would justify switching.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019