My most wished for OSX announcement...
menubars attached to windows, rather than stuck up in the top left corner of my MASSIVE screen.
Is that so hard?
P.S. I'm not a hater. It was fine on my mac plus.
108 posts • joined 1 Feb 2011
It is very hard to clean in its current manifestation, and there are some serious health and safety issues that need sorting out, not to mention the lack of step-free access to the controls(*)
(* Yes, I know, that was the primary defence against Daleks taking control of it but apparently they can fly now (the very thought... ridiculous!)
“Because of the proactive DDoS defense strategies Prolexic had put in place with this client, no malicious traffic reached its website and downtime was avoided. In fact, the company wasn’t aware it was under attack.”
I'm going to start a company with just a marketing department which will sign up customers then occasionally tell them that we outwitted a vast DDos attack to keep them paying the subscriptions.
If an actual DDos attack occurs, I'll tell them that the hackers simply had found a way through our systems!
Does anyone want to invest?
Nowadays, the budding intellectual talks down the size of their telly, or pretends to make do without one at all. (Oi! No cheating with your laptops and tablets though).
To admit to a VLT (very large telly) is a bit like admitting your dinner comes from a different takeaway every night, or that you have, recently, wondered whether it is time to purchase a onesie.
I'm off to read an existential german novel. (Maybe).
...we need not worry about changing the composition of the atmosphere.
I have absolutely no problems with articles trying to get to the bottom of more accurate understanding of global climate, but it's a rather big leap to see such articles and conclude that we need not be concerned.
All things being equal, the less we change things, the better. That should be the starting point.
Sure, the earth changes dramatically anyway. Sure it might be that the changes we have made to the planet have merely caused an extinction event which will be patched over in the long term by evolution.
But there are plenty of idiots on both sides of this debate who take a political decision and then selectively rake through the evidence to push their political viewpoint.
Let's not have this sort of thing happening on The Register. If I want that, there's an endless list of alternative sources to not bother reading.
No not necessarily true.
Someone resigned to life on the dole in a shithole of a place where there's no work to be had, with no chance of it in the future may be helped out of the well of depression just enough to realise that if they go somewhere there *are* jobs.
Right now, the system doesn't do anything at all for people who, through birth, have found themselves where the jobs aren't and are never likely to be again.
I'd prefer the government gave help to allow people to relocate from jobless shitholes and retrain, rather than subsidise a miserable wasted life on the dole... it'd be cheaper for a start, wouldn't it, despite the initial outlay, what with them ending up as economically productive people again who in turn create economic demand?
If we're talking chimneys, perhaps the 787 may save yet more fuel if the batteries are installed in a wood-burning stove somewhere in the middle of the cabin, warming the air without wasting power from the engines.
An wood burning stove is, of course, preferential to an open fire, as it gets through fewer burning batteries per hour.
There are at least two sides to this story about 'villages and towns today which are derelict and depressed, and full of unemployment and all the social ills'.
It used to be that the people moved to where the jobs are. Today, we pay people to stay where the jobs aren't, and instead, enterprising people in their millions happily travel from the far side of Europe or even further afield to do the jobs there are.
We used to build ships that were outclassed and undercut by the far east, and we used to dig coal which cost 3 times what it cost on the open market, and we built cars which were exceedingly crap. Some of these things were a matter of geology, some a matter of relative cost of labour, and some the result of stagnant businesses destroyed by the two arses of militant unions and feckless bosses.
Thatcher wiped this world away, and frankly, good riddance. We're a modern nation now, albeit with some parts of the population still in denial about it.
Anyone fancy sending their kids down the pit?
Thank you to those of you drawing attention to the evil swedish regime and the desperate plight of the poor innocent Assange.
Those Swedes, what with their rule of law, independence of their judiciary, and strict rules governing what can and cannot happen to this man... so evil!
I can't think of a better use for the ...what is it... bolivian? embassy than to harbour fugitives from swedish and, er, english law.
My only hope is that some other embassy will step forward to take up the proud task of confining this prisoner, I mean victim, from the evil forces of law and order.
"We do have one small glimmer in this cloud. Wind turbines have been producing a continuous 5GW of electricity for the last 3 days in this stiff NE wind that has been freezing us. Without that exta power we would already be facing powercuts."
What is the country coming to when we're having to rely on base-load from effing wind turbines. Oh well, let us all pray that these fickle objects continue to receive just the right amount of wind.
The article is only about games you played in an arcade - you know - loads of flashy lights, banks of those copper-shoving machines, a few air hockey tables and pinball machines, usually found on a windswept promenade or pier, and the odd odours of 4 week old popcorn and cigarettes smoked by mucky looking 5 year olds hovering suspiciously by the door?
Playing in an arcade was like entering an illicit world of unbridled, dirty entertainment... oh er I seem to be getting aroused. I'll get me coat!
I don't think anyone claimed russians ate their babies, but true things include: a) biggest problems the country faces are keeping warm and getting a belly full of food, b) There really is a fascination with the ruling class about the hairdos of their fellow citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_trim_our_hair_in_accordance_with_the_socialist_lifestyle
Do keep up!
Though if we're going to be spending money, surely it's easier to work out ways to divert an asteroid than to move a chunk of civilisation into space.
The best spacecraft for humans is the one we're all currently standing on, and that's not going to change any time soon. We're better off concentrating on keeping it going - it's far better at keeping people alive than any human-built replacement for the forseeable future.
There's a very good reason for bothering. Life can be fun, and the fun stops if you get hit on the bonce by a massive rock from space.
True, Sandra from around the corner might be sporting huge bingo wings, but that is her problem not mine, and while I can watch my weight over the next few decades, I don't want my enjoyment of Mass Effect 12 spoiled by a hundred metre wave washing my house into the north sea.
And anyway. Just imagine how cool it would be and how smug we'll all feel if we do divert a dino-killer?
We already have magical power. It generates electricity when we need it with almost no emissions. It kills fewer people kWH than any other power source. Its plants emit less radiation than coal-fired power stations. There is plentiful fuel to last the world hundreds of years. And most magical of all, you can reuse its waste to make even more power.
That's good old fission for you. Nuclear power? Yes please.
"Are we going to stop giving hurricanes names like Sandy and start calling them things like "Mighty Wind of Doom"?"
Yes, it's already happened.
In the UK, we have already replaced the word "Winter" with "Beast From The East".
I believe there's one coming now. Run for the hills! (Or just put a coat on)
Just the sort of world view one needs to feel good about a job in the 'ministry of love'.
I don't think religion is true either, but were I to go around punishing people for doing it, then I wonder how that would make me better than the next freak who likes to impose their will on the next guy.
Well that's odd. We have about 30 of the things in our house and they're all on dimmers, and they're mainly turned down to low light settings, and the only ones we've ever had to replace in 7 years are the ones in the one room which has its lights up to full more of the time.
Are you sure halogen lights aren't hot when turned low on a dimmer? I mean it's still an incandescent lightbulb after all, so it must get hot if it's going to emit any light at all.
"I wonder how long it will take him to admit that countering the effects will cost far more than reducing the emissions."
Indeed. We have the technology today to hugely reduce emissions, and it would cost a tiny fraction of the impact of sea-level rise to replace the world's coal and gas power stations with these green alternatives.
I'm talking of nuclear power of course.
The green movement are the oil companies' biggest assets in a world which knows it should stop pumping oil and digging coal out of the ground but just can't break the habit.
"Sea level has the potential to rise 100 metres if all polar/greenland ice melted. That's not going to happen - but a (highly unlikely) 10 metre rise would be catastrophic for current civilization as it would displace at least 3billion people."
What do you mean "highly unlikely"?
On the contrary. If the history of the planet is anything to go by, one thing we can be absolutely sure of is that sea levels will eventually be 10 metres higher than they are now.
It would be utterly remarkable if sea levels managed to remain at today's historically rather low levels.
Whether we can do something about it is another matter. I just hope it happens in someone else's lifetime.
I'm not too impressed with this article. It seems to me as though I ought to be excited by it, given that most scientists think all that Co2 we've released into the atmosphere to be A Bad Thing.
But how can I get excited by it, when there are no figures. How much of a negative feedback thing are we talking about?
Will the sea levels rise by just a foot then stop?
Or will they rise by 10 metres then stop?
You see, by 10 metres, quite a significant portion of the global population will be running for the hills anyway and will probably not get that excited by their not having to travel quite so far inland as they at first thought.
I suspect this story will just be clung on to and thrown back into climate change debates in a 'and anyway... the salt marshes will fix it so I don't need to worry' sort of way.
...have been slapped hard in the face with this one.
Added to that... they've been denied the chance to have a phone with one of those increasingly popular large screens - for at least another year, all at a point where the competition is really hotting up.
Apple - the biggest company in the world - still offers just a single phone, operating an ageing interface which is looking increasingly long-in-the-tooth.
But religion is hard to shake. Lots of people have worshipped at the fruity altar for years, and it's going to hurt to walk away from the clan.
It ...just... works....
If you'd bothered to read the comments section of that article, you'd see what a mistake it was to use it to try to prove a point.
And in any case, what does this have to do with Page's article today? Are you that unable to counter his argument here and now that you feel the need to try raking around for some dirt to throw?
I think the answer to that is clearly yes!
Though to be fair, this isn't some silly spat between iPhone and Android users. This stuff actually matters.
We really are stuck in a world which, both at the same time, has politicians who largely accept that we're stuffing up the climate with emissions, yet by their decisions are guaranteeing that civilisation will continue to be powered mainly by digging up and burning vast quantities of fossil fuels and liberating it into the atmosphere.
Wind Turbines in the UK are effectively just expensive, occasionally operating spare parts for gas and coal fired power stations. We still need just as many of these fossil plants as we would do if there were no wind turbines, because sometimes the wind doesn't blow at all.
What we need to be doing is removing the reliance of fossil base-load power stations in the first place.
Germany - supposedly the 'Greenest' large country in Europe, is busy pushing up its carbon emissions massively (only they take place over the border. How convenient). In the UK, we've watched our nuclear industry atrophy to the point that most of it will be offline in 20 years, and we're belatedly having to bus in the French to tell us how to build new ones because our own people are retiring.
So, at the very point in history where we ought to be racing to completely replace our dependence on fossil fuels, the world is, each year, growing at an extremely fast rate the amount of CO2 liberated from fossil sources.
The world has gone mad, I tell thee!
Unfortunately, those greens who have faced up to the facts about nuclear power - specifically its actual risk to life (even when the worst happens) and its capacity to generate low carbon baseloads the world needs *today*, have found themselves largely ostracised by the green movement.
Such is the disconnect between reality we're seeing in the 21st century.
A country no less at the centre of western civilisation than Germany only recently decided it was going to ditch its nuclear plants, then pretend it had solved a problem while quietly getting its neighbours to burn fossil fuels to power the country. It is no surprise that Germany is sprinkled with wind turbines. The people there probably think they're generating all the power now.
What adjustment in the calculations would you suggest to make wind viable as a the primary source of power for humanity?
You see, when I have a go, the costs are absolutely off the scale.
What is odd about the 21st century and specifically wind generation is that when the maths get in the way, they seem to just be ignored, and the politicians plough regardless. Wind turbines are *visible*, and it that's enough to make it seem they're working for a better world.
Meanwhile, nuclear power - the only viable low-carbon base load generating technology at our disposal, is reviled and neglected.
The consequence? The world continues to fuel itself largely by digging out vast quantities of carbon rich fuel from fossil reserves and liberating it into the atmosphere.
So much for the enlightenment...
A well reasoned counterargument...
And what's with the 'we'? Who elected you?
Did you get upset at the link to the Nature article which backs up Page's contention that Fukushima wasn't actually that harmful, or was it the sums which confused you?
I quite like the coverage of 'technology'. It would be boring if it was just about IT.
...families would think about how many children they were having so as not to burden it with a population explosion.
...all our food would be grown in a way which causes least damage to the natural environment and least animal suffering
I'm aware that there's an environmental argument that goes: 'we must produce food as intensively as possible to minimise the amount of land we require to feed a certain number of people'
But I've seen the effect of intensive agriculture on the countryside. Wild animal populations have been decimated over the last few decades, especially birds, insects, fish... And it could get a lot worse.
In the end, the ultimate responsibility for the wellbeing of the planet rests with people who have children. Until they stop having too many of them, we are stuffed (and the environment too), no matter how we grow food.
For that reason, I'll continue to opt for Organic to support sustainable farmgate prices, better animal husbandry and crop production that doesn't obliterate all other forms of life in the vicinity.
Over to you, breeders... Do your bit too!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019