NO, Three have been nothing but trouble for me, no signal, bad service.
Would walk the day such a deal happened.
125 posts • joined 8 Oct 2010
NO, Three have been nothing but trouble for me, no signal, bad service.
Would walk the day such a deal happened.
Through any other lens this would be an obscure reference man
Free to consume but not free to take and retain a copy. Consumption is fine, retaining a copy is theft.
Radio, YouTube etc pay a licence fee for music they make available. You can choose to pluck out of the airwaves or stream without impunity. Musicians get a small royalty on those impressions.
Keeping a copy for yourself without paying is taking money out of a musician's pocket. Simply because, today, music has been reduce to easily copied data is not a justification for copying and keeping.
I do audition stuff I might want to buy, if I don't like it I don't buy it - I audition it through YouTube and such there is no need to down load it. Streaming is adequate.
Recording time in a studio costs, engineers cost, production costs, media production costs, musicians have to earn a living.
Publishing houses inflate the above costs. They make most money out of the musicians, to a level which is immoral relative to the royalties paid to most musicians.
"Everything they produce is overcharged and most of it, to my taste, is substandard and un-entertaining. It also has no protection, not even moral protection."
If that is so why would you steal it, there is no value or enjoyment in music for you.
Music and art in general have value in their effect on people. To those that enjoy the piece there is a desire to acquire a copy for personal consumption at any time. The ability to satisfy that desire has a monetary value, for a CD or LP between £5 and £20. It is not exorbitant or excessive given the pleasure that can be gained.
Be a thief, please don't try to justify your position with an "I don't like so I steal" argument or please do, try that with the policeman as he pulls you over while you are driving a stolen Ford Mondeo.
Try Sophos, Google - Sophos free
Don't know if it has been said BUT the phone was in posession of the perp however it belonged to the health department.
Surely the police can subpoena the health department and the health department as the owners of the phone ask Apple for help...
Up in the north east of Scotland I get 4G in town and at home even through the granite walls.
5 miles away I get GSM...
Come on O2!
you got your conversions wrong..
68 F .....
68 - 32 = 36
36 * (5/9) = 20C
48 * (5/9) = 26.6C, 27 rounded correctly.
26C is 78.8F
The simple arithmetic..
C = (F-32)*0.55555556
"Windows was not a new operating system. It was simply MS-DOS with a new shell--that didn't work well at first. MS was legally obligated to give IBM the rights to successor OS's and MS waited for that agreement to expire to actually integrate (lock in) the shell with the OS. This happened in the Windows 95 timeframe. However, the underpinnings or Windows 95 was still MS-DOS, just as Windows NT is still the underpinnings of Windows 7, 8."
This happened in the Windows 95 timeframe. However, the underpinnings or Windows 95 was still MS-DOS, just as OS/2 is still the underpinnings of Windows 7, 8.
Fixed that for you.
There is often a misunderstanding regarding the meaning of the word "Theory" as used in scientific literature.
The phrase "I have a theory that...." would in scientific circles indicate a hypothesis that requires proof.
A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been tested. The results (data) indicate that the hypothesis is correct to the required level of tolerance.
The theory holds until a new better hypothesis is tested and verified.
Salts, your idea has merit, the question is who do you trust?
Donkeys years ago I worked in a company that made mission critical hardware. We used a checksum on the software/firmware code at compilation time.
The checksum values were stored on hard copy (paper) and elsewhere, corrections to any errors were signed (on the sheet of paper). An altered entry with no signature was deemed invalid : that software release was checked against the version controlled code library.
The binaries generated were then stored on a server and loaded onto the EPROM devices as required.
When programmed the EPROM was interrogated to verify that the checksum was correct. Verification was against the paper copy checksum.
The devices were not connected to any external networks and could not be interfered with (exception : physical modification).
There has to be a point where trust can be established. If not what remains is the belief that the manufacturers are deliberately compromising their firmware.
There should be no routine monitoring of (world) citizens. Monitoring should only take place when there is a valid reason and a court order limiting the scope of the surveillance.
There is a need to be able to intercept data but just because they can doesn't mean they should.
The only reasons Android succeeded were :
It was free, and good enough to gain a foothold.. It remains free.
Samsung et al could then slim down their programming effort as there was no longer an operating system to write. (modify Android/sort out drivers/compile and test)
This saves them a shed load of cash. Hardware all the high end phones have a decent camera, touch screen, accelerometer, more than enough memory, quick processor (predominately ARM based)
The differences between them all are packaging paper cup or ceramic mug and flavour latte or cappuccino.
To the El Reg spell checker.. Flavour is spelled with a U between the O and the R. W are not all American.
DM Penfold.. I read the new scientist this week too
The concept of now is based on your frame of reference. Einstein postulated after a thought experiment using a train and a reference point that an observer closer to the reference point would see the train cross the reference point before an observer further away. This made now subjective not objective.
Yahoo has acted as a front end for various search engines during the last 20 years but I don't recall it providing its own search.
What it is and was is a portal. It provides hosted information and entertainment and content branded and aggregated across its sites. Yahoo is good at it but the fashion changed. Along with AOL Lycos and many others they opened up the web for mere mortals in the early days. When Google appeared the portal model was broken. Google search worked well enough - a portal to hold your hand became less relevant - visitor numbers declined over time and in turn advertising revenue dropped.
I'd hate to be stuck with Microsoft though...
I played Elite on my C64, Atari ST FM and lately on my PC, Look up Oolite, same game as Elite, smoother graphics.. Whoops, there goes another evening...
I've used MMS twice in 15 years.. emailed photos sent lots.
I'd not miss MMS if it was removed.
What is interesting is that Mozilla are getting updates out there. If they can keep the code efficient and not bloated there should be a viable new competitor to the dominant 2 in a year or so.
"People buying taking out loans / mortgages / credit cards that they couldn't afford, so defaulting on the credit, which in turn made the banks default on their credit, that they couldn't afford to pay back either."
It's a 2 way street. Banks in the UK used to offer mortgages at 3x the major earners salary, that became 3x + 1 minor, then 2 minor and finally 3x + 3x. House prices in each segment increased. Whether the house price increase was the trigger or the extra money available was the trigger .. who knows, the result is that a house now costs effectively twice as much as it used to. (3x + 3x instead of 3x)
Banks folded bad debt in with good debt to offload the debt, Eventually no-one knew what they had, good or bad.
Banks agreed (Basle 1 and 2) to hold 7% capital (cash) assets at any point in time. Clever accountants were able to fiddle the figures so that some of the paper assets looked like cash, the banks were holding as little as 0.5% capital assets. More cash working - more profit.
Banks make money from debt, it is called interest. The system was too free in loaning money in order to get the interest repayments. The bankers could have said NO to anyone at any time - they wanted the money.
"They've got a huge user base that isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and trying to merge the tablet/phone world with the PC world is obviously something they have no demonstrable skills or talent at. They should focus on the PC and make that their Crown Jewel again."
That is fine so long as the PC remains dominant. (I have not been seduced by the various tablets) If, as frequently reported, smartphones and tablets are munching and devouring the PC market then Microsoft will have to pull a rabbit from the hat.
It seems as if the initial onslaught has stalled, Apple/Android have held firm. WinRT may severely wounded for tablets.
Microsoft do have Nokia, good hardware and an improved Windows for phone may give the Redmond Cabal the impetus to move forward.
Sticking with Windows for Desktop/Server/Enterprise and polishing each previous version to make it shiny will lead to a death by 1000 cuts.
Microsoft NEED something new
I'm in the UK, never seen a Zune....
I have a milling machine running DOS....
Exposing the innovation PRIOR to patenting the innovation put the details into the public domain. Prior art was established.
Find apps? - Spotlight Search
There is nothing to stop some spotty oik doing as you suggest however a thief wants to hold on to the stolen kit for as short a time as possible. They want money for their ill gotten stash quickly. They want to offload the kit with great haste - "if I have not got it prove I had it".
A solid remote lock up as the article describes is a good step forward. It may mean your new shiny phone ends up cast aside, broken and unwanted but IF all the manufacturers can implement robust systems the idea of stealing smart phones will begin to fade into the past - there will be no cash as the devices will become unsellable. (Thieves may steal out of malice and not greed - nothing will stop that)
People will find ways around such schemes, Manufacturers will have to stay on their toes but making the task of offloading stolen goods more difficult is a laudable aim.
You have the burden of responsibility the wrong way round.
The ISPs ought to present the question (when it is offered) with the option to turn on the filters un-checked by default.
"If you're not happy with your ISP you can always change."
1. Looking at porn is not illegal.
2. If it is not illegal it is allowed is one of the principals of the UK legal system.
3. The imposition of the proposed filters is censorship, pure and simple.
4. I did not vote for mumsnet and they have no right to tell me what I can or cannot view.
5. I am a customer of an ISP. ISPs are supposed implement "net neutrality", data types and packet types handled equally. (hint : W H Smiths sells porn mags but don't tell everyone)
6. re read 1 and 2
I see red squirrels daily up here in Scotland...
the BBC went into the newly free East Germany, comments were made about surveillance cameras on every street corner being the sign of a totalitarian regime.
23 years later walk through London.. (I lost count of the cameras I saw) .. you will see many cameras watching pedestrians, traffic cameras with automatic (car) number plate recognition.. cameras to trap speeding motorists, policemen with cameras on their shoulders (claimed to be for the protection of the police - evidence in case they get assaulted..
Since then the number of methods available for surveillance has increased, each is exploited.
There is no problem with properly targeted monitoring. It is a necessary evil. Blanket monitoring of a population is simply wrong, expensive and not needed.
The cracking of internet ciphers was/is to be expected, the use of the ability to read encrypted traffic should be restricted by a specific court warrant, be tied to a case and never be generally used.
The problem with Google, Facebook et al is the breadth of information they can acquire and the impunity with which they intend to use said information.
Remember the "free stuff" you use is paid for by advertisers, in turn manufacturers, in turn retailers and in turn YOU - albeit at pennies in the pound.
Google and Facebook are advertisement agencies. The free stuff you use is a tool, a hook to entice you to use their "services" in order for Google/Facebook to siphon off any interesting tidbits that you reveal.
I don't use Facebook, as far as I know I am not tagged on any photos, I have given NO consent for Facebook to use/reuse my image or name (I am probably not that interesting anyhow) but if they were to use my image or name - as indicated in the updated policy they could - where is the explicit permission.
" but with an explanatory note in the bill that if the only novel aspect is the software, then it can't be patented."
Swipe to unlock is the only novel aspect, that part would be covered. (at least on the surface, the implication is that it would be covered)
Google Glass on a Jem'Hadar and Vorta command crew when on board the Dominion space ships...
I control my phone..
I don't control a Google glass device owned by someone else...
The Lightning had a REPORTED ceiling of 65000ft.
Look at peripheral support.....
Not all hardware has manufacturer supported drivers
"Diddums. They're not trying to manipulate you. They're of the opinion that if they put thousands of man-days into a project, they should be able to recoup that money."
The money invested in the tool that is Maps was invested to GATHER DATA, to make you into product for companies willing to pay for the adverts. Google do a good job at mapping applications.
Google advertise their own services - Advertising is manipulation. The adverts persuade you to use the services. You become product - your info is used to enable Google to target ads to your mobile / PC / (insert device here). Google performs its core business activity - SELLING ADVERTISEMENTS. Google is not a software house.
You got it back to front JDX.
You are correct, Google Maps is a good system.
The reason for its existence is simple. It is to provide product to advertisers. It is a tool that Google use to entice people to use Google services.
The same can be said for Search, Picasa, Android etc. etc.
The sole reason for these tools is to capture information about the users. This in turn provides "good information" for targetting adverts.
People who use these tools become product for the real Google customers - the businesses who PAY for the adverts served by Google.
Paying for staff : how to put this... Staff are an overhead that must be covered in order for a business to function. These people are cheap in relation to the amount of revenue generated by their efforts (Google's balance sheet is in the billions). They write programs to hook users.
Google are not altruistic in providing "free" tools for phones or the web. The tools are made to suit Google purposes first and foremost, that they are attractive to users is part of Google's purposes.
Best samsung phone I had was the SGH Z510. It was solidly built and bounced without breaking the screen!
Not so likely, the cutoff date has been publicized for a few years now.
Time limited support is part of Microsoft's business model.
Microsoft is trying to get you to throw XP away so that they can screw more pennies out of your wallets.
Take Win2K, throw in better gaming compatibility... find out that it was not secure... fix it in SP2 and the world is a better place.
XP should never had been given as many updates 2002 to 2006 but because it was XP remained relevant. Vista was poor in comparison, partly because of the extra time spent on XP.
Because of its market presence hardware manufacturers produce(d) drivers. These drivers have been on the whole stable because of the maturity of XP. Its a known quantity.
XP is the success story Microsoft must hate. People won't give it up!
I prefer Win 7 though I dislike the culling of utility applications e.g. Hyperterm. (PuTTy is my friend though not as friendly as Hyperterm)
The basic principles behind the models are the laws of thermodynamics. These are applied to seed data sets with known outcomes (present day) and extrapolated to the future.
The models that are "trusted" are those which are closest to the consensus/average. Outliers are discounted so while there may be 90 models, only those which (within limits) agree form the basis for the reported predictions.
In 1998 a colleague announced that the model with a see data set of 1900 had produced an output consistent with data recorded in 1997. The fudge factors required to match the data are unknown (to me) but in 1998 we had been subject to nearly 20 years of propaganda stating that CO2 was bad and the only way to live was in sack cloth and ashes.
The JASONS (google it) in the 1970s predicted global warming, this was picked up by politicians who ran with the idea and financed climate research. The funding seems to have been allocated to those who came up with the "right answers".
There are currently NO scientifically accepted models that run counter to the Global Warming consensus. Scientists who propose counter arguments are discounted. There is no real discussion. The models are tweaked to match the outputs required and the scientists keep getting funding.
The discussion has got to become more open. The pro GW scientists need to present their findings in a transparent format, there has to be proper scrutiny. The anti GW scientists likewise.
There is no arguing that intel have done a good job getting performance up and power down in it's x86 processors.
Some of us remember that intel got the contracts (ratified) to build the x86 stuff for PCs on the backs of others. IBM demanded a second source.
Since the 386 when intel believed they could "go it alone" they have tried to sue the competition out of the business (486 time), used anti-competitive practices (buy the competition out of the market by bribing system manufacturers), they have used skewed benchmarks (read anandtech and toms hardware around the time of the athlon / p3).
Anything can be proven using the "right" benchmarks.
As for hating intel, naa, not really.. I just don't buy from convicted monopolists.
Targeted monitoring is acceptable, the wholesale monitoring of the populous is not.
No-one knows (outside of the security services) what was known about these individuals. All that has been released is that they were on a list.
An attack of this type doesn't need a huge amount of planning. There is no need to co-ordinate with other perpetrators. There is no need for a huge amount of money to fund the operation. There is little need for any communication outside of the 2 individuals who have been shot and arrested.
You would need to be very careless to leave a trail for anyone to follow if you were planning an attack of this type. Anyone can get a knife or a meat cleaver from Tesco or Asda. Planning can be done over a beer while watching a movie. External communication is not needed.
So back to the article, Politicians of all colours want control, the security services need to have access to everything for the politicians to have the control they want. Just because there is a horrific incident does not justify wholesale surveillance.
Application of existing laws - incitement to (commit crime) should be applied to the people preach hate. Existing wire tap laws should be used where there is intelligence pointing to a crime.
Judges and the home secretary should remain in the path required to get a warrant to execute a wire tap/ internet monitoring.
With regard to the reference to Islam, NO religion on planet earth preaches hate. These people were acting outside of the teachings of their faith.
NoScript - google APIs are blocked too
NoScript and Ad Block
All scripts are blocked unless explicitly allowed.
Scroogle as my search engine
Anyone got any more ideas how I can keep the (do no) evil empire out?
a Fireball 500MB disk drive. It was a n awesome drive for the time. quiet and quick. Shame quantum have all but disappeared.
"Hell half of these 'ideas' aren't even patent worthy, some should be trademarked, others should be copywritten, but none should be patentable."
For the software, mathematical solutions to a series of problems, it ought to be copyright, never patented.
There are many ways to cook a curry just as there are many ways to write a software solution.
For the hardware design - similarities are in the eye of the beholder.
Apple were buying ICs from Qualcom.
Qualcom had a licence to sell said chips to 3rd parties. (the licence to use the chips is transferred to the buyer)
Google/Motorola told Qualcom to stop selling to Apple or lose their licence.
Google/Motorola tries to gouge Apple (for standards necessary patents)
The victims here are Qualcom - caught between a rock and a hard place and Apple, Motorola were discriminatory in their pricing and actions.
Both facetime and quicktime use H.264. The first draft of the standards came out in 2003. This long predates the taiwanese patent claim.
Incidentally, are they going to sue Sony for Blu Ray?
There is no reason to not put the computer icon on the desk top by default.
3 steps to get the bloody thing back is a pain AND un-necessary...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017