If you're going to bring along what you need to make one of those, why not just bring some jugs of water along and not have to resort to drinking your radiator water in the first place?
12862 posts • joined 12 Feb 2011
I wonder if the difference between fighting the Nazis and living under a government collaborating with them might have something to do with it. Let the government know how much they value freedom so it won't be taken away. Too many people in the US and UK assume freedom is their birthright and they don't have to worry their government will take it away - which has made it easy for their government to do just that.
I could sort of understand that attitude in the US, since no war has been fought with a foreign power on US soil in a long time. The UK still has people living who remember the blitz, so I would have thought they'd remember what it is like to fight for freedom. Though I suppose there aren't too many of them left anymore...
Not sure what is going on in France as far as spying on their citizens, but the response of their citizens to terrorism there versus the responses in Spain, UK and the US has been encouraging. Despite the reputation as "cheese eating surrender monkeys" their citizens seem to understand the meaning of freedom and its potential price a lot better than the rest of us.
Turned them off when I got notified about severe storms in the middle of the night. If the definition was "tornado is in your county or about to reach it" that would be fine, but any storm with winds over 60 mph or hail or a lot of lightning is "severe" and gets the alert.
So once again crying wolf causes people to disable something that might save their life someday because it isn't worth being woken up unnecessarily all the damn time.
All but a few alerts around here since the program started have been overly paranoid parents who are worried when their teenager isn't home in time for dinner without calling.
There are so many false alarms with Amber Alerts I don't want to waste my time with it. The local university sends out text alerts to all students anytime anything happens that could possibly threaten their safety. Someone reported a guy on campus they think "might have been carrying a knife", let's send an alert to tens of thousands of students, faculty and staff. If there's ever something serious here, like a school shooting, most students won't know about it because they've already opted out due to too much Chicken Little / Boy Who Cried Wolf from butt covering administration who over-alert in fear for their jobs/lawsuits if they skip an alert about something minor that turned out not to be.
I remember when I was a kid right before the 10 pm news came on there was a blurb showing the clock ticking to 10 with the message "parents, do you know where your children are?"
Do you mean that the cost of hydrofracking has fallen so much that it became economic for shale oil extraction and that it will fall further with incremental technology improvements?
It will fall further if technology improves so that a larger percentage of the oil/gas can be extracted. Given that we're only able to extract 5-10% currently, there's a lot of room to improve that. Since the cost of drilling is relatively fixed, if you were able to double the percentage extracted, you nearly halve the cost per barrel and per Mcf.
Technology will probably improve for conventional fields too, but doubling their efficiency won't happen and the initial outlay is several orders of magnitude higher so there are far fewer potential players.
The argument that you're trying to do this to prevent companies from doing it to anyone else in the future collapses when you suggest that the employees should get 90% of the loot and 10% of revenue (not profit, revenue!) in these companies is huge! Almost makes me think one of the employees in that class posted that harebrained idea...
If you want to punish them very harshly, fine, but require it as charitable contributions where the employees' class has approval of the list of charities. The damages paid to the employees should in no event rise above proven actual damages (compare salaries of hires from non-protected companies to those of the non-poachable employees) This isn't a lottery, they are trying to make things right. Where people arrived at the idea that you can get rich if you get screwed over and then claim you're doing it to prevent it happening to others I don't know. Please, let me be so "screwed" that I get a windfall of multi millions of dollars!
The idea of basing the fines on revenue is stupid, because it punishes companies very differently. Apple and Google have high margins and could pay 10% of revenue and still have profit left over. A company like Samsung that has a lot of low margin businesses like appliances would be thrown into a large loss. Not to mention an agreement not to poach that involved only high tech employees in the computer/smartphone market shouldn't have revenue/profits made in washing machines counted as well. Had Samsung been involved in this collusion, would it be fair to punish them so much more harshly?
How the heck does the manner in which El Reg writes the name imply anything about YOUR beliefs or agreement?
If you want that, fine, then stop capitalizing god and the bible too. I don't believe in either of them and have now decided I'll follow in your footsteps and narrow mindedly insist on that from all websites I visit. Still want to pursue your cause if it means your beliefs aren't given the special treatment you assume they deserve?
Sorry, as much as you might wish, you can't charge based on the sales price of the entire phone. Otherwise GM would owe them quite a bit for every car they sell with OnStar built in!
As for the "these patents aren't essential and we aren't infringing", that's a whole other argument and I have no idea who is right there, nor does anyone else here (though Apple fanboys and Apple haters alike will no doubt assume they do)
You must be the last person left who believes the method they use to measure MTBF has any sort of real world meaning. Read the data from Google, Backblaze and others about what REAL WORLD average failure rates are (around 2%, equating to a 50 month MTBF) assuming you don't get hit with one of the bad lots where MTBF is in single digit months.
A 2 million hour MTBF is worth about a much as the millions you're hoping to get from that 419 prince.
I'll bet he was set up to go through a line with a particular guy who would wave him through, but the plan fell through somehow. No way you'd do that without some reason to believe you wouldn't get caught. Even if he was dumb, who is going to try 94 phones the first time they attempt smuggling?
Someone didn't get their bribe on time, or was out sick on the wrong day.
You mean like Apple? They don't collect personal information to sell to advertisers.
Everyone has a different goal. Apple doesn't whore you out but you pay a lot for their phones. Google whores you out in exchange for cheap phones (or the option of them at least) Microsoft doesn't whore you out (too much, maybe they do a bit for Bing) but want to keep you in the Windows/Office world. Blackberry doesn't whore you out, but wants to get businesses back to paying those juicy monthly fees and having them provide Blackberries to employees.
Are there places where all channels are occupied? Would this have any negative effect anywhere, other than making some broadcasters change their RF channel number, the cost for which they could be compensated for? Or would it require some have to cease operations in big cities like London because there aren't enough channels if this spectrum is taken?
Whether they selected for iPhones or all smartphones doesn't seem to change the validity of the study for what it measured. The fact that most of the press writing about the study got it wrong and tried to claim that iPhone owners are somehow unique in this respect is not the fault of those doing the study.
Though the only reason I can think of why they selected for iPhones was for the headline grabbing potential. Sure, 80% of the potential participants had an iPhone so it was by far the dominant brand, but one would assume all but maybe one or two Luddites among the rest would have had some other brand of smartphone and would probably have had an identical reaction.
The max clock rate for regular/turbo mode are controlled by microcode on the chip which can be rewritten by Intel. The limits exist to avoid exceeding max power and maintain temperature, but if someone is willing to provide it more power and better cooling...
Amazon effectively ordered factory overclocked chips from Intel. You can too, if you're willing to order in quantities of 100K or more at a time :)
The problem with basing it on purchase price is that it is easy to game that in some circumstances. Let's say I buy your building and business, and you think your building is worth $5 million and your business is worth $1 million. Maybe I ask you if I can pay you $3 million for the building and $3 million for the business to hold down my property taxes.
Or if I buy multiple properties at once, I can allocate the values how I see fit - putting most of it onto property I expect to develop and turn over quickly, and reducing the price of property I intend to hold for a long time.
Anytime you consider taxation, you have to think about the obvious ways people will attempt to reduce that burden. If you don't address them, the idea is only worthy of academic discussion, and wouldn't pass muster for the real world.
It is possible to modify it to limit the amount the value of property (and therefore tax) can be increased year to year so long as the use remains the same.
So if you have the pensioner living in the little house he built out in the countryside in 1950, which is now in a ritzy suburb surrounded by multi-millionaires he may pay a fraction of the tax his neighbors do. If he sells it or makes significant changes (knocking down the bungalow to build a mansion) the tax is recalculated to the new norm. If he dies there would be certain criteria where his heirs might be able to maintain the favorable taxes (i.e. if they actually reside there)
Similarly for a family business, which might have started in a crappy neighborhood and be surrounded by skyscrapers a century later. Obviously there would need to be criteria for maintaining the favorable treatment - you can't change the use of your building from a ball bearing factory to a hotel and expect the same tax treatment. Determining how to handle transfers of ownership would be the most difficult. A family business that stays in the family, that's easy. What about a family business that is sold...arguments could be made either way but obviously if you owned an old building sitting on land now worth $100M, if you can't transfer the tax treatment in the sale the only buyers will be those buying it for the land, not for the building sitting on it.
This would be nice for maintaining historic districts in cities. Part of the law would be that if a building is designated as historic, the tax increases are permanently limited. Then building owners won't see historic designation as a negative that reduces the value of their property since they can't sell it to someone interested in knocking down the building. The building would be worth a lot as the tax treatment would be included in the sale, so people would be willing to pay more for it than they otherwise would, being located in an area where they'd otherwise have higher taxes.
Kept hearing how great it was that Google could update the apps separate from the OS, so the fact people were stuck on older versions of Android that weren't updated by the OEM didn't matter because Google could update them via Google Play. I guess not! Last March Apple updated iOS 6.x for the 3gs (almost five years old at the time) to fix a Safari bug. I guess we see who cares more about the security of their end users, and it sure ain't Google!
If Apple did this we'd see a post about how it is all planned obsolesence to force people to buy new phones, garnering dozens of upvotes. What is it when Google does it? I guess just an attempt to push people towards new phones that use the tighter Android license that ensures they use Chrome with its constant nags for you to login, hoping you'll use it on other devices so they can get the maximum amount of individualized tracking!
Asking for a two day extension to allow releasing the patch on your regularly scheduled patch Tuesday isn't too extreme. What if they found the fix was pretty involved and would take another month or two?
When this first surfaced and people suggested Google was trying to make Microsoft look bad I dismissed it. Based on the evidence of this and the Aviator browser I have to rethink that. I think Google is using their security team as a weapon to make others look bad.
I guess they don't care because if someone finds a bug in Google code it is either internal code where they can fix it on their own schedule and don't have to do the complicated regression testing that is required when there is a public API exposed, and if it is Android it doesn't matter because only a minority of devices that have the bug will ever receive an update that fixes it anyway.
If Google had been prepping for this for a long time they wouldn't have wasted all that effort investigating that balloon/blimp scheme.
They do have their own fiber in "some places" but if those are the only ones where they have this 3.5 GHz network, phones won't be able to receive it. It takes years to get planning permission to put up new towers in many locales, and you bet that the incumbents won't rent Google space on their towers when they're trying to undercut them.
They are talking about sharing, not owning. So Google could use it, but so could AT&T, Verizon and other carriers. Heck, Samsung or Apple could have their phones use it independent of the carriers, though I doubt either has any desire to act as a carrier.
It all depends on who is willing to put up the hundreds of thousands of towers that would be required to make it work on a nationwide or even large regional basis. Who is more likely to make that investment, someone like Google who have zero towers and zero experience in this market, or carriers like AT&T and Verizon who already have the most expensive part of the investment, towers and fiber links to them, and just need to make a comparatively tiny investment in an additional antenna to send/receive at 3.5 GHz?
This "Google makes an end-run around the carriers" meme seems to be someone's wishful thinking wet dream. Someone who hasn't taken the 10 seconds required to think about the scale of investments Google would need to make versus the investment the carriers would need to make.
If Google does this, it is FAR MORE LIKELY it will be for fixed wireless internet, not mobile, and they'll do it on a small scale in a handful markets, like Google Fiber. It'll garner a lot of press but change the lives of only a fraction of 1% of people. Phones will not be able to send/receive on 3.5 GHz because Qualcomm won't add this frequency to their chipsets because it'll have so little use. Unless the carriers decide to use it, that is.
Google would offer a little antenna you can put on your house to can get wireless internet, instead of running fiber. It'll just be another way of getting internet, available to maybe 1% of the population someday. Yawn.
The problem for Facebook is more that social networking itself is getting a bit old. It was new and cool for a while, especially back in the heady Myspace days before spammers found it. The novelty wears off after a while and most people aren't terribly active actually posting even if they still check it fairly regularly. Unfortunately for Facebook, Zuck's dream of making it into a platform died when smartphones became popular. Nobody cares about developing apps/games for Facebook any more, and no one is wanting to shop via Facebook. They do that via their phones.
I own a business that does some posts through Facebook but the payment required to get the same 'reach' of posts keeps going up, to the point where I'm about done with using Facebook in this way. I suspect a lot of other small business owners feel the same. With no more subscriber growth, fewer apps/games, future revenue declines likely as us business owners abandon it I suspect their revenue growth is already tailing off and the revenue will actually decline in another year or two. Look for the stock price to crater when that happens.
This is all part of their campaign for unlimited spying, where they claim they've stopped X number of terrorist attacks and will claim they identified the culprits behind the Sony hack. Their claims of stopping all those attacks didn't stand up when people in congress with the necessary security clearances looked into the matter, I doubt these claims would hold up either.
It is easy to lie to people when there's no way for them to either confirm or deny your statements. The "appeal to authority" by the FBI of bringing in another liar to vouch for them is like Ray Rice having Michael Vick vouch for his character (non-US readers, insert your example)
Directv fits 6 MPEG4 HD channels in a transponder that provides 39.6 Mbps using statistical multiplexing. So the average bandwidth is 6.5 Mbps, with the better quality channels getting around 10 Mbps.
That's for 720p (60 fps) and 1080i (30 fps) Since 4K has 9x the pixels of 720p and 4x the pixels of 1080i. So with HEVC reportedly getting 30-50% better compression than MPEG4 (we'll use 50% since the math is easier) you're looking at 45 Mbps for 4Kp60 and 20 Mbps for 4Kp24.
That's just for "good quality" HD as far as Directv is concerned, which is not bad compared to the other cable/satellite providers but far from what you get with a Blu Ray. Isn't the whole point of 4K to have better quality than HD, not just more pixels but the same compression artifacting? So we really need more than those figures. 4K Blu Ray will support in excess of 100 Mbps for 4Kp24...what does that tell you?
Anyone tells you you're going to get 4K with only 15 Mbps, don't get excited. A current (HD) Blu Ray will deliver far better quality than that bit starved 4K stream will.
Please....1 Gbps broadband is only practical in dense areas. What are you going to do about the more rural areas where a significant portion of the US population lives? Say, "too bad, move to the city if you want decent broadband?" It is offered without caps because few people have any use that loads it much. If everyone was streaming 8K video for all the TV they watch instead of getting broadcast video like cable or satellite, you can be damn sure Google wouldn't offer capless 1 Gbps broadband for only $70.
It is like when AT&T offered capless cellular with the release of the iPhone. The iPhone was the only device back then that could really heavily utilize a lot of data, so it was great for selling iPhones. Unfortunately for AT&T the millions of iPhones, and the millions of Androids that came later, eventually overwhelmed their network. It was great when only a few people could use it, but when everyone could it didn't work so well. Don't be fooled into thinking Google is somehow exempt from capacity constraints when they have like three cities in the whole US and fewer broadband customers than dozens of regional ISPs you've never even heard of!
Net neutrality has absolutely NOTHING to do with usage caps. If you had caps that said "you get x GB to other sources but you can have unlimited data to Netflix because they paid us", that's something Net Neutrality would prevent. That would allow competitors to Netflix to spring up that don't have the deep pockets to pay for priority access or bypassing the normal usage caps.
The big worry of course is that Comcast or Verizon offers OTT video and makes their service capless, but enforces usage caps on competing services. Pretty much assuring that anyone who uses them for broadband (and in some places they may be the only viable option, and in most places are one of only two viable options) also uses them for video and effectively kills not only Netflix, but also Directv, Dish, Amazon Instant, and so on.
As this right doesn't exist in Saudi Arabia, this sort of punishment isn't all that surprising. You either need to leave, keep quiet, or if you are exceptionally brave like I assume this guy was, you risk the punishment to spread your mind and hope it results in change.
This is only need if you want the TV to directly play content. If you want to use it as TVs traditionally have, until there are broadcast standards for HEVC (which will require updates of ATSC and probably for DVB-T though I'm not sure there) there's no point in having the HEVC decoder.
How many devices do you need that are capable of playing Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, etc. videos? If your TV does it, when (I say WHEN, not if) it is orphaned from further OS updates, or the decoder hardware won't allow updates, bugs or performance improvements realized through replacing a $100 Roku or whatever won't be available to the TV.
I'd rather have my TV be a monitor with speakers. Sure, throw in a tuner, though once there is no clear QAM in the US in a few years if will only be useful for OTA. Even today most clear QAM is SD only, the only HD clear QAM I have is my local channels.
Worse is the fact Samsung's smart TVs put up the occasional pop up ad. It seems it is only when that ad is playing on the TV itself so maybe it isn't too terrible, but as most people skip ads on their DVR I imagine advertisers will view this as a way to force people to see their ads, and Samsung will be happy to take their money to show ads on them. Do you really want to see a pop up ad for Ford cars during a movie when they get into a Ford? That might be the future for smart TV owners. I'll stick with the dumbest TV possible, thanks!
They said SHIPMENTS of tablets went up 11%. If Samsung has 300,000 unsold tablets in the UK alone, how many did they have worldwide? How many did other OEMs have? It is possible actual tablet sales didn't grow or even shrunk last year, depending on how many shipped versus how many sold.
We never needed a kitchen sink. We really didn't even need faster boot, and while no one is complaining about that, we certainly didn't need the whole kitchen sink of UEFI brought in just to get faster boot.
What problems did the BIOS have that we DID need solve? How about a standard interface for one thing - make it so you ALWAYS use the same key to access the settings, and you do so by HOLDING DOWN that key rather than trying to press it during the small window (ever shrinking as boot gets faster) when that keypress is accept?
How about standard menus, for all the functions that all systems need. All the standard and common optional items are put into the same place so you don't need to go looking around or figure out what goofy name this OEM or motherboard maker decided to call it? Specialty stuff can go into an 'OEM' menu where they can deal with oddball items that aren't common on a PC/laptop but would be used on other types of devices like say an ATM.
I could go on, but these are the problems the BIOS had. Lack of speed as I said could be done without all the crap UEFI layered on. Secure boot should have been done with a more modular approach that left the security sensitive part of the code small enough to formally verify. Then this type of bug wouldn't happen.
Oh, and being open in the development process rather than working mostly in secret would have helped too. Not that "many eyes" guarantees a lack of bugs, but it makes it makes it a lot harder for a basic mistake like a buffer overflow to ship in tens or hundreds of millions of devices.
Nah, use FDE so they can see that password but as you say use a dummy account. Your real partition has another layer of encryption so even if they do copy your encrypted disk while you're sleeping and use pinhole cameras to steal your password, you'll be long gone before they decrypt their stolen copy of your drive and login to your dummy account and find it is bog standard unmodified and unpatched (why bother?) Windows 7, but there's a lot of space left on the hard drive that wasn't accounted for...
At least when I was looking to replace one of my Honeywell programmable units the other ones I looked at all did the same thing which the original one from 2005 did. If you set it to 70* at noon, and previously it was set to 65* at 8AM, it will figure out how long it took previously to warm up from 65 to 70 and start warming up so that it has reached 70* by noon.
I ended up finding a used one of the same model on Ebay for $30, so I didn't have to also replace the remote sensor.
I don't think Nest ever tried to claim that figuring out how long it takes to get to temperature was any sort of major innovation, since Honeywell at least was doing it years before Nest was invented. I thought it was supposed to learn your habits by having you change it when you want it warmer or colder at different times and eventually it figures it out "hey I always get the heat turned down from 68 to 62 around 7:30AM and turned up from 62 to 68 around 5:30pm M-F so I'll just do that automatically from now on"
I highly doubt Apple wishes to be an MVNO. They just want to reduce the friction for carrier moves as much as possible by making it easy to switch.
They have talked about a software SIM and have been working with GSMA trying to push that, but the carriers obviously are very resistant to this as it takes away some of their control over consumers. The best they can do for now is the SIM they offer that allows switching carriers, though apparently it isn't foolproof as the example you give of AT&T not letting you switch to another carrier once you've selected AT&T.
It is a standard SIM that can be replaced with a carrier SIM so Apple is giving the consumer additional power, not adding any sort of Apple lock-in.
Obviously if you can "check out that possible factory site in the Bahamas" so your business pays for your vacation instead of using taxed money to do it that's great, but you aren't going to spend money unnecessarily to avoid taxes.
Wasted money is equivalent to a 100% tax rate, and I think most of us pay quite a bit less than that :)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019