It's generally very dim people who can earn enough to spend £500 on a phone.
6127 posts • joined 28 May 2010
It's generally very dim people who can earn enough to spend £500 on a phone.
I saw this mentioned in the other review too, and found it surprising. Isn't insane best-of-class JS performance one of the things Chrome is known for?
Just because a phone lacks one feature you deem essential does not mean it can't objectively be deemed the better phone, if that feature is one few users want or use.
The fact storage support hasn't become the norm even now some people provide it, seems to show it's not a big deal to the majority.
Probably because W8 embedded/etc versions are more often going to be used in tough-based scenarios, and because they have kinect-functionality so you can interface without having to even touch the screen. I can see real uses for that.
Thanks for feeling the need to tell us which brands you're snobby about Ross.
Even if that were true (doubtful for many nerds) most are not smart at all. How can you not want the ability to select your coffee type from your phone/PC as you leave your desk and find it ready waiting for you by the time you arrive?! Just think how much time talking with colleagues about their stupid pets and boring families, or pretending to care about sport, could be saved¬
In general, I think these 3 comments show who knows science and who watched Big Bang Theory.
It takes a special kind of person to understand your joke.
Only 0.18% of c
c is pretty fast.
Are you being deliberately stupid or does it just come naturally?
How is your friend possibly equivalent to a stranger trying all the door handles to see which are open?
>>I've seen plenty of documentaries in which UK policepersons will sneak up on unsuspecting people in railway stations or similar places and take their bag (which they are not watching properly) and wait until the person notices it is missing (usually when then setting off) before advising them of the error of their ways.
It used to be common practice for police on foot patrol at night (OK, I know, I'm nostalgic) to rattle the doors/gates to commercial premises to check they were secure and if not, to pop in to check that all was well and if possible, later advise the owner to apply better security.
Both of the above are laudable, and done with the best of intent.
1)Both of those are done by POLICE not VIGILANTEs
2)It's not illegal for me to pick up your bag. I'm not going inside to rummage about and then handing it back. Entering your computer system uses cycles and you cannot guarantee his code is bug-free.
Your arguments are entirely bogus:
>> How is it unethical? The ethics are in the intent
Are they? So it's not unethical to secretly use eugenics with the intent of making the human race better?
>>He purposefully designed it to eat the fewest cycles possible.
Probably lots of malicious malware is written to be efficient too so it doesn't get noticed as easily, and can spread better.
If I joyride your car but stay under 30mph does that make it OK?
Ragarath's example is bad, a better analogy is if I don't lock my front door, it's still illegal for you to come in and lounge around on my sofa. You know you aren't allowed in, regardless how easy I make it.
If someone breaks into my car while I'm on holiday and drives around in it to do their shopping, then washes it and tops up the fuel and leaves a thankyou note, it does not stop it being a crime.
If they break into my house and live there but do no damage it's still a crime.
Please, buy a ticket to the real world. Just because it's the internet does not mean it's OK. It's cool and clever in the same way many crimes are cool and clever but it's still a crime.
Not taking action sends out a message plain and simple that this kind of thing is OK. What happens when 100 people do the same thing and all target the same devices?
Because of course designing your server to be shared and deployed without security issues is exactly the same as just dumping it on FTP and saying "here you go".
And of course everyone wants to run a mega server for local gameplay. Just install MySQL or Oracle or Amazon S3 locally...
There's a slight possibility that the backend of a FPS game and the backend of SC are rather different.
Why is it a rip-off to sell an add-on, people have been doing this for over ten years. Extra levels, new campaigns, etc.
I have that game - I play it often - and you do not need to buy add-ons to 'complete' the game. It's completed when you have unlocked all the races. The add-on packs are just that - additional content for people who want more (most will not and we'd all have to pay more for it if it were included).
And I don't know where you got £12 from, I looked last night as it happens and I'm sure it was more like £5.
Just buy the next game for £10 instead. Or look for a deluxe edition with it included.
Because most people have an online connection 24/7 these days. Simply "it requires internet connection" isn't actually a problem in itself, it's what that implies and most people aren't thinking that far ahead.
I don't really care about the DRM angle, and personally I am only going to play games at home.
But if you wanted to play on a laptop while on a train or whatever, that's a PITA.
I think the biggest legitimate (rather than hand-wringing "it's just bad because it is") concern is that you are reliant on their servers. Never mind the odd outage - many games have been released buggy - but what happens when they pull the plug? You can still buy and play SC4 as they are pointing out, but in 5 years will SC still be playable?
>>This appears to contradict EA/Maxis' earlier claims that allowing the game to be played offline would require "a significant amount of engineering work by our team".
Does it? The hack lets you play offline as long as you don't want to be able to save your game. That could be relatively substantial to rewrite depending how it is set up.
Presumably someone will set up an alternative server, or a way to run a 'local server' with a hack to let you point the game to any server you wish.
Of course EA could still release an "offline play" patch and say "this took a lot of time but we've heard your love to play SC offline and have put your first"
Yes I did rather glibly suggest removing speaker entirely and no I didn't think about the phone ringer :)
However let me modify... what if the only speaker was a crappy one used for alert tones only.
But why for the love of God would you not use headphones?
Just ban built-in speakers on mobile phones, for the benefit of the rest of us (on a serious note would that save much weight/volume?)
Developing on that project, let alone deploying updates. Knowing that if you stuff it up untold billions (trillions?) of dollars, millenia of man-work and unique scientific opportunity could become unreachable ever again.
No matter how many levels of safeguards in the code itself, and the level of paranoia in the testing and deployment of the software... can you imagine what it must feel like sitting there with the "are you sure you want to upload yes/no" prompt in front of you?
I'm not sure I could do it. Could you?
BBC have been selling their content on DVD and before that VHS for decades. Why does living in the digital age suddenly mean that just because you can download TV programs, they should be free?
How do you know the BBC budget doesn't rely on selling DVDs and stuff, rather than on the licnese fee which is merely a subsidy rather than the entire budget? i.e. if they made the content free, but put the fee up 50%, would you be happy?
I wonder why people on benefits don't get free TV license... all the "they should be getting a job" stuff aside, it would surely make sense not to pay them benefits which they then spend on a TV license... or more likely don't spend and watch illegally.
Ah yes. No pedophiles in the private sector. THINK OF THE CHILDREN
But the argument is if you only want to watch Sky channels you still have to have a license... owning a TV automatically puts you on a 'wanted list'. Shops demand your address when buying TV equipment so they can pass it on to the enforcers...
However it does seem to me there's an argument for removing the TV license and taking it from the tax pot instead, adjusting tax levels and so on accordingly.
>>Dream on with that belief. The only thing the "cloud' is, is that you are handing over hardware responsibilities for someone else to handle.
Someone with hardware and backup redundancy about 100X better than anything you can hope to build. And security the likes of which you can only dream about. In these big stories, I don't recall them talking about data actually being lost. Scale wins.
>>that's not the point. If YOUR servers go down, then it's in your power to get things fixed. You can apply what resources (or not) you see fit.
In a medium-large business with dedicated sysadmins working 24/7, sure. For a small business where people go home at night, not so much.
Let's face it, the longest outage we've seen has been something like a day, to fix a total global screw up. That's pretty impressive... I'm pretty sure Google's thousands of people working 24/7/265 are going to fix things faster than a developer who got lumbered with the sysadmin work because he knows how to build a home network :)
I want to focus on developing stuff, not managing my network.
I'm sure the timing of this is a great relief to MS, that it's not simply them with issues.
Because your local servers NEVER go offline and take hours or days to fix?
My phone is basically a touch-sensitive rectangle. I don't think that has changed in the last 5 years. A bit like how Windows 95 thru 7 kept the same basic interface, I don't really see the need to innovate the basic UI if it works. Apple have a design that works. Android have a design that works. MS have a design that works (no, really). Now even BB do.
Well done chaps, but just because you only just got yours finished doesn't mean it's better than those who got there 5 years ago.
>>@JDX - Have you noticed yet that people here automatically downvote you, then sometimes read what you posted?
Clearly you have access to the Reg database so you can track a given user's voting & commenting times.
Either that or you're a small-minded immature FOSSboi who takes any critical comment about FOSS software (or even a lack of attack on M$) as a personal attack.
I wonder which it is.
The "good guys"? Oh Bob you don't just have wool over your eyes, but a sheep sitting on your face.
Well corrected Dave, thanks.
While it's cool to have more GP languages, I call BALLS that Python is the most popular language.
Hmm, I've only ever used off-the-shelf PCs and I've had one die, ever, in 13 years. And that was a single component - one component in 13 years is hardly unreliable.
Please define 'worthwhile', oh lord of other peoples' business.
How is that going to give you a better FPS or run at higher detail settings? It's not.
>>this wasn't about "building a prudent, realistic, budget but well rounded gaming machine". So this comment has no place here.
You miss the point which is that a 6-core PC could be slower than a 4-core one. Bonkers means the pinnacle of performance, therefore the components best for games should be picked rather than the most powerful components in a general sense. Chips which auto-overclock one core whe the others are not being used for example - which possibly those CPUs do anyway?
I'm not convinced most games are optimized to maximise performance on 2 cores, let alone 4 or 6.
Yeah... it's not like these old game articles are blatant adverts... they note problems as well as successes.
Personally I've really enjoyed the series.
<=== EA you owe me one
Maybe when you start up a company, rather than 'fleecing' your customers you can pay developers £30k a year to write lovely software you give away, running on servers you pay for.
Of course you won't be doing it for very long.
Seriously get a grip. It's not 'fleecing' for a company not to give stuff away for free. It's only ever done to build a brand or on the shareware principle (I'm not considering ad-supported as free).
Here, let me pass this toy back to you, it seems to have fallen out of the pram.
So they should spend $millions and then give it away? It's their code, for them to bury or burn if they want since they paid for it.
I do fully support the IDEA of them doing as you suggest, just not that they have any moral duty to even consider it.
Although, isn't this exactly what happened to Wave?
>>they are still making plenty of money so I don't see the point.
Companies don't like to make "plenty" of money. They don't like to make a "reasonable" or "fair" amount of money. They want to maximise their income.
They are under no obligation to make any of their products free except market pressure... trying to charge for gmail would make everyone leave.
They pirated an open specification? Good one. I suppose D pirated C++ and C++ pirated C?
C# is way better than Java these days.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017