Re: Intel Inside...
PC Specialist stopped being my go to around 3 years ago unfortunately, as the choices were becoming too restrictive. If I knew of a company as good as they once were, I'd throw business at them any day of the week!
56 posts • joined 15 May 2011
I'm genuinely confused here...
You're suggesting that battery powered cars aren't viable long term, right?
But Hydrogen might be okay, except only a few people are looking at it..
Question: Which kind of hydrogen system are you talking about?
Do you mean hydrogen cells or hydrogen combustion engines? these are reasonably different systems. Hydrogen cells are batteries (with all the implied dangers of a battery) insofar as chemical to electrical energy storage is concerned. Hydrogen combustion engines have a lot going for them (like their similarity to a traditional combustion engine) but also involve storing a highly combustible element in much greater concentration, even compared with petrol or diesel.
I think battery technology is a field which still has a long way to progress. Until the full utility of a technology is required, there's no push for it to be reached; in the last 15 years the importance of the battery has sky rocketed, but it still takes time to develop functional market ready products which can achieve the requirements we have now.
You can and will be judged by your stated actions. I've never heard an argument which suggests that having headphones on improves the situational awareness a cyclist would have, and ambient wind noise exists with or without headphones (making it completely irrelevant).
If your own situational awareness is completely indifferent to aural cues, I'm torn between commending and condemning you. Good for you, you're either incredibly aware without hearing other vehicles or incredibly lucky not to be dead already. Either way, I'll trust to using all my senses to their fullest to keep myself safe on the road. Boredom is bad, but being dead is ...probably worse.
As somebody who uses a bicycle as their main form of transport, I've always had an issue with those who cycle with headphones on. I also suspect those reading this don't need me to list the reasons it's not wise; in a sense my biggest gripe is that those who cycle with headphones on are detrimental to the respect and consideration that entirely sensible, safe and conscientious cyclists receive.
Having said that, a Bluetooth ear bud in one ear, which only makes sound when required (ie every few minutes "Take left filter" or "Turn on Rosemary Lane") is a likely safety improvement in my view. The cyclist's awareness could be marginally impacted because of the lack of hearing clarity, but in a situation where keeping your eyes on the vehicles around you is integral to your safety, a vocal cue could ensure that cyclists can respond with confidence - and a lack of confidence (or inversely, respect from other road users) is often the most dangerous situation a rider can find themselves in.
As a musician (I've done it as a job although nowadays I do it for fun) I find the idea of unpaid work of that kind horrific. I've gladly donated my services as a musician for events for charities, community groups and gigs with great exposure and have always been happy to go to jams (where usually only the house band is paid).
I'm all for personal choice, if any backing musician was offered union rate but said "nah I'll do it for free" then good for them!
But professional entertainment isn't free. Professional accountants aren't free, professional footballers aren't free, professional musicians aren't free. Any one of those groups may include an individual who may volunteer their personal services for free, but no group is free by default.
It seems somewhat shameful to me that Palmer essentially had to be bullied into paying her backing musicians. She's no better than those pub landlord types who expect a professional band to play two hour long sets for a beer each, nevermind the fact that a few beers doesn't even match the cost in petrol to move a band and their gear to the venue.
What a depressingly insipid post. Not only is the underlying content poor, but the dodgy maths is badly expressed and almost entirely unexplained.
As for the prerequisites,
1. Many non- apple products are as (if not more) expensive than the iphone, making this argument both nonsensical and pointlessly materialistic - after all, if it's more expensive it's better, regardless of your requirements, right?
2. I have no idea how the original poster came by the maturity argument nor do I see how it actually has the slightest bearing on objective differences between devices.
3. "Social Education" (or it's apparent lack of) reeks of the incredibly stereotypical high-horse bourgeoisie image associated with apple products which I'd have assumed most normative apple users would prefer to avoid.
I'm not even taking a side, but I hope that post was a troll because if someone actually believes that then I'm genuinely worried for their mental health,
I think the 7-inch tablet size is an excellent one, myself.
It's portable enough to whip out of a pocket, check something and put back within 15 seconds - as accessible and transportable as a phone - where as I find a full 10-inch screen too big for any of my pockets - digging the larger tablet out the bag is fine but it's simply not as accessible as a smaller tablet.
I think there's a good place for a 10-inch tablet in the home (as a living-room device, say) but I feel the 7-inch form factor has greater utility for travel. If I was travelling and felt a need for the screen-real estate, processing power, etc offered by a 10-inch tablet, I'd use my laptop instead and do it properly. I'd have to dig that out my bag just as I would with a 10-inch tablet, anyway!
I was thinking submarine patents should be dealt with by creating a law which binds them to the FRAND agreement already created - at minimal rates - if they are brought up after the creation and agreement of a standard.
So that it's actually better financially for these would-be submarine patents to be submitted during the standard creation process rather than popping up later, as long as the "minimal rates" were truly minimal.
We can't fix the patent system just with stick, we also have to use some carrot.
Trains are constrained on tracks and weigh a hell of a lot - having a minimal contact point on the top of a train doesn't pose much in terms of danger because the contact doesn't provide much friction and trains have a pretty uniform upper height.
How do you fit in an above-road electrical system which can accommodate a mini as well as a 12 tonne truck? The height above the road the electrical cables would have to be would make it difficult to fit a system large enough atop a mini, for example.
It makes more sense to me to have electrified rails on the ground (as stupidly dangerous as that probably is) because all motor vehicles touch the ground with a much smaller difference in the distance between the undercarriage and ground. a deployable arm that slaps down a feeder on an electrical rail seems much more practical and deployable to me, but then I'm not an engineer...
Even the "climate change is killing us" BBC are pointing at the once every few years change in the jetstream and are NOT blaming the current flooding events on climate change.
The thing strangely overlooked by the likes of the BBC is that our actions do lead to greater flooding of our cities, but it's not inherently anything to do with the weather itself.
To be more precise: the gulf stream changes are dependant on other weather systems around it. It can change direction (within reason) quite normally.
This impact of this - rain hitting our towns, our rivers and their tributaries in the hills in larger amounts than is "normal" - has not inherently changed in the last x hundred years.
What has changed however, is the amount of green space in our cities - notably we have less of it. Green spaces are capable of absorbing great volumes of water. Take them away and where does the water go?
We've also tightened the corsets on our rivers, building ever closer to these "scenic" attractions - in the past these rivers could burst their primary banks and this would be less inconvenient because the nearest buildings would be further back, allowing the usually sloping land around a river to contain the flow. Now we have buildings which share a wall with the primary river bank with windows facing the river side!
The increase in tarmac and non draining surfaces (because they contain utilities under them) has also ensured that when rain does hit us in greater volumes than expected, it has nowehere natrual to go
And we wonder why we're experiencing more floods? It's because we've built our cities like bloody great fools! We can't simply impose our most convenient experience upon nature and expect there to be no clashes when nature doesn't follow the rules we'd like it to.
I feel your post is somewhat narrow minded in it's approach.
Many small businesses are running XP, running home made or small dev-made scripts and/or applications which support their businesses (that could be hosting, productivity, production or administrative, for example). Changing the core platform is the smallest part of the upgrade for companies that size - adapting, rewriting or even commissioning new scripts, applications and processes to either match the old or take advantage of the new core platform is the largest part of the cost.
Linux is not a golden bullet to the problem of changing away from a heavily entrenched platform and the transformational costs incurred exist for XP to ANY other platform.
The harsh reality is that XP is so entrenched because business owners and operators clearly believe it is more cost effective to retain than to replace. to say "it won't be missed" is simply untrue on that basis.
I'm not arguing which is better in terms of running costs, reliability or any other factor because I would be agreeing with you over most of them, but you clearly haven't tried costing a SME IT upgrade during a recession. It's not something most owners/shareholders are at all interested in if the current system is delivering on it's core duties vaguely competently.
As a small fact here, which aims nothing more than to represent one small viewpoint in the wider view, a relative of mine is registered with the PRS and receives about £2.50 a year from them (in cheques)
Tunes he performed on, and is listed as a co-composer are played fairly regularly up here on Scottish radio stations (I'd be surprised if a song he performed on isn't played once a day in Scotland, if you include local radio stations)
As I said, merely one example which I know to be true, not trying to represent a wider situation, but that's the long and short of it for him.
For all I know that might be a fair contribution? It seems unlikely though.
I can't see the sense in this either.
Even if Facebook developed a completely new hardware line and made it very distinct, the patents held on handheld devices are vague and ambiguous to say the least. The big players in mobile tech really don't want another competitor and they have control of enough IP to ensure it's an uphill struggle the whole way.
But more importantly, I can't see the logical gain Facebook would make from entering the mobile market directly. They run a platform independent online service, they have no previous experience in direct mobile tech, their service is already available on the devices that would become their competitors.
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to throw their weight behind one of the giants like Google, since the potential link up for data mining users would offer them both huge advantages?
I don't approve of the idea personally, but from a business standpoint it would link up two companies who make a lot of money by profiling you and using targeting advertisements.
Surely if you linked google and facebook user data in profiling, you could capture 95% of a user's data available to be mined online. How many people use their PC/Laptop as a "facebook and emails" machine?
That's actually quite scary.
Hold on a second...
Would it be surprising that google's own services appear on the top of their search functions even if the algorithms used to dictate the page rank were completely honest?
By which I mean: when people use google searches, aren't they more likely to use google services?
Here's my example that I'm guilty of. I'll put a street address into a google search, let it autocorrect it and immediately hit "maps" up at the top to view the address in google maps. I'm not actually clicking on the search result, though?
The thing here that's essentially an issue is that finding the answer to a query in google is almost always going to require less clicks/page loads/typing than using another search engine. The integration of their services is something that other sites genuinely can't battle against more than the pagerank stuff, I think...
What's better, Google paying money to NASA directly for use of (presumably empty) hangars, or google paying for access in another private airfield somewhere else? Would the government receive more money in total if Google were somewhere else? I'm quite doubtful.
Google have enough money to build their own private airfield if they want, why do something likely to make them leave? If the point was ensuring they paid a fair amount I would fully back up anyone who questioned it (not because I believe it's inherently nefarious, but because it's always good to check).
Is this just contrariness for contrariness' sake?
The SpaceX guys seem to be hyper-sensitive to the prospective issues that would suddenly appear in their faces if they launched a rocket which didn't make it to orbit. Governments can get away with it on occasion but it'd be pretty bad news for the private sector to have their gear blowing up overhead, if only because it seems like a lot of folk at Congress are itching for an excuse to shoot SpaceX down and a nice spectacular failure would be as good an excuse as they're likely to get.
It doesn't surprise me that their automatic safeties are quite severe sounding in those circumstances, and I'm happy to wait and see a great launch.
I think the idea is to give the operators some experience in how instructions sent to Curiosity will be carried out when it arrives.
I'm sure NASA will have considered something as simple as dust getting into motors, man. If they hadn't bothered to think it through to such a basic degree I doubt they would have got Curiosity off the ground.
I think ensuring the operators have a very concrete idea of how an instruction sent to a vehicle on a sand dune would be carried out (regardless of if it's here or Mars) is a very useful thing, and will reduce the chances of them sending an instruction which causes Curiosity to lose control and roll down a sand dune and probably explode 'cause of the nuclear reactor.
Last thing we need is making the aliens on Mars mad at us for causing some nuclear pollution in their back garden!
Judge Green lights blocks in February, three months later it's processed through the courts.
A week later ISPs put Domain level blocks in place.
Two days later TPB has bypassed these blocks through minimal reconfig or anyone who wishes to bypass the block has looked it up and done so themselves.
I'm not coming down on either side of the piracy argument here, but what a complete waste of court time.
How the hell did the school know it was his account anyway?
Jesus if my school had known the stuff I used to write when I was his age they'd have went ballistic, but they would have found it incredibly difficult to prove any account was tied to me. People do need to remember that in any school or workplace machine that you log onto, all subsequent actions are potentially recorded and known to be you.
not that it excuses the insane behaviour of the school, but why not just post from his mobile? don't all the kids have huge smart phones nowadays? it seemed to be going that way when I left.
That is indeed the case. He did get shafted even compared to his contemporaries but it's not massively uncommon in my experience (I am a performing musician as well, I do it part time, more than a hobby but not a job) and there's a lot of bad blood on the circuit here between the guys I know who have been signed or worked with labels in the past.
As for the historics:
After the 1980 album the band split somewhat acrimoniously (changing the legal status from band ownership to individual ownership), followed by the death of two members in a car crash and a third from a drug overdose - the legal small print was that in such an event the royalties/ownership reverted to the record company, reducing the royalties/payback to 20%. It was mainly that and a promotions budget my father had to threaten legal action to get reduced that caused the situation.
I have no first hand experience, I grant you.
However, my father was a drummer in a reasonably successful band. If you heard one of their hits (and you are over the age of 30) you would recognise it.
My figures are based upon his experience. It was a 5 man band - he received 10% of the 50% allocated to the band, and the other figures are as best he remembers (he signed with a record company in 1977)
They finally worked off the debt back in about 2004, the albums he played on were 1979 and 1980 - it only took 24 years for him to see a penny of his work.
Feel free to criticize me without any knowledge of my experiences, however.
I must respectfully disagree with several points in your post.
The issue here is generally about percentages. You sign to a label; they front you £20k to get an album going (through their preferred and partially owned studio...) and have a smash hit. Great.
Now; they'll be having that £20k back, thanks. So the 40% of royalties you get for each play is null and void until it's paid back the £20k. This is essentially therefore a loan; the interest is their 50% of royalties earned... until you consider that they earn this for the lifetime of the song. 10 years after you've paid them for everything they did for you, they're earning a massive amount of money for no discernible services rendered. That's the issue.
A comparable example: You get a bank loan to buy a complex piece of hardware for your factory. A percentage of the profits created by this machine go to paying off the loan. When the loan is repaid... you continue to pay a percentage of the profits to the company who gave you the loan for the lifetime of the hardware.
In any normal business sphere this would be considered insanity.
My second point: a vastly larger group of musicians make money by playing their instrument live (as a dep, session musician or part of a gigging band) than ever make their money through being signed to a record label. The assertion that the industry is in any way synonymous with widespread awareness or a position in the top 10 is a lie entirely peddled by the record labels themselves because they don't profit from unsigned acts gigging and making money.
third: Record Labels do indeed act as gatekeepers for that top 10 aspect of music, and I think the current state of popular music speaks volumes for exactly how incompetent they are at that job. Bland uninspiring music, X Factor winners, "old classic" music... such as boybands from the 90's, etc. This is neither progressive or representative of music being created or performed around the world right now.
Record Labels are not good for the music industry as a whole. merely for a very small proportion of musicians and themselves.
What are you rambling about? Soap Operas are traditionally marketed at women! It's less prevalent now than the 80's and 90's but certainly in my own personal experience the vast majority of people I know who watch soaps are women. If they depict chauvinistic fantasies then why would women watch them at all? If anything one of the reasons I dislike soap operas is the misandry that quite often can be found in the plot lines.
Isn't this entirely dependant upon the supplier, based upon the local governance/laws for procurement?
Since most states/countries/regions have different procurement methods your BS call is moot. I'm in the UK (specifically Scotland) and I've never experienced an "all green" situation - the only exceptional situation I've seen with lights has been all red with local police managing the traffic flow manually.
I don't expect the inner workings of the systems in place in Scotland to be the same as those in America, Japan, Germany or any other country, other than perhaps the wider UK...
With the QuickTake series being decommissioned in 1997 and the first major product of Apple's after that (Which I'm aware of) which utilized camera technology being the iphone (2007), I think the argument that any IP Kodak has could be linked to Apple would be somewhat tenuous, surely?
If we take the dates 1997 (the Quicktake decommission) and 2007 for the iphone, don't we have 10 years of Kodak doing their own thing away from any partnership with Apple in the field of consumer photography products?
Would Kodak be a patent troll? If they actually developed the vast majority of their IP themselves (as I would imagine, Kodak have been in the business of photography and image processing for a long time) then if they chose to defend their IP aren't they actually using the patent system much more how we'd like to see people use it, rather than what is possibly an attempt at a smash and grab of Kodak's IP by Apple?
I can't really understand the Steam hatred here!
For one, people buying physical disks only to be told it's got to be installed through steam - you do seriously need to learn to read the instructions on the back of the box if you have a huge problem with steam and want to avoid it at all costs. It's not Steam's fault you don't read the sign on the back stating it's a steam activated game, it's yours.
For two, if Steam dies, you still retain: The game data installed on your machine and your game keys (if you're worried enough about steam to copy your game keys from Steam into a word doc) ; On the off chance Valve don't release a community patch to allow people to play, you have all the required stuff to legally install nocd cracks.
Last but not least: Steam has really beneficial features, it maintains game patching, it has a good community system, it sorts out legacy games to work on newer systems, and it has some mental sales well above and beyond anything you will find in a physical shop.
I just don't get why it's Steam's fault if you don't read the back of the box to see it's a Steam platform game. I sure as hell think Steam is better than 99% of the other DRM options out there - sure no DRM would be nice but unfortunately I don't think you'll have an easy time of it convincing publishers or developers to drop DRM completely.
Games is a tricky one, 'specially PC games. I think Steam as a form of DRM is one I can live with happily because it supplies many advantageous features to me as a user (centralized and well stored game keys! auto patching! best of all: legacy games adapted to work on newer systems without spending two hours looking up advice!)
Here's the kicker; very few PC games have demos nowadays, and I don't blame people for pirating a game on the basis that they want to try the product before paying the full price*. The problem is obviously that by the time people have pirated the game in order to try it out, the principle of buying it if they like it often drops by the wayside.
*Consumer rights for gamers, what a novel idea.
You know, I've always wondered why no bricks and mortar shops have changed to embrace a physical shop to sell digital products; I think I would still have use for a shop where I could wander in with my mp3 player of choice, find music arranged competently* by genre, etc and be able to purchase said music for an appropriate** price, having the transfer to the digital device as part of that process.
I fully appreciate that the concept of multiple devices, formats and connectivity would not be the easiest thing in the world to set up, but I certainly don't think it's insurmountable, indeed you could probably ensure it's largely automated to prevent incorrect file formats being purchased.
*Music shop employees are, on average, quite competent, able to suggest appropriate other artists (if you want) and quite capable of assisting in the buying process, which I feel is sometimes lacking in the online methods of song purchasing we have today.
*An Appropriate price would be say, more than itunes of spotify (since they're running a shop) but less than CD's (as there is no physical product)
You know if something like this was created I would buy things there, just as I do with other music.
I would like to clarify that I was trying to say that censorship and control of the internet isn't the answer; it's got to be about tracking down the people doing these things in real life.
Is there such a thing as an internet crime? is there any crime that cannot be committed in real life that the internet makes possible? About the only one I can think of is hacking, but only on the basis that physical access to a machine may be considered too improbable to be considered a real life root example.
I can only reinforce your point with a single point of my own:
Web sites can be created and hosted in very small amounts of time, they can be mirrored around the world and they are prolific beyond the ability of a web-filter system to deal with adequately, especially one maintained by a third party and "voluntarily" followed by ISPs.
Shutting down the sites is like fighting the symptoms of disease while letting the disease itself run rampant. What I want to see is investigations where identities or information are uncovered and passed on to the police, so that the people producing child pornography can be caught and hauled to jail. Their actions are the crime we need to solve here, getting caught up in online this-and-that will not stop these people abusing children, only finding these people will stop them abusing children.
We need to forget the block lists, we need to invest our time and our money in ensuring that these people are caught and brought to justice.
And I respect Rockstar for having the courage to make each game feel quite different, considering the underlying idea has basically stayed the same since the original GTA. All the people who decry GTA IV as being boring and too serious and brown coloured would have been screaming rockstar down for a lack of originality had they retained the style present in San Andreas.
The fact that I live 10 minutes away from Rockstar North's offices here in Edinburgh or that I managed to gatecrash their launch party for The Lost and Damned and drank my own bodyweight in free booze does not make me biased!
Comparing Gary McKinnon to Magrahi is ridiculous. One is a mentally damaged shut in who admits to hacking a system that should have been inaccessible, the other is a man who was charged with the destruction of an aeroplane and the death of 270 people.
And even at that, and as a Scottish person myself - there's no way Magrahi was the mastermind behind the whole thing. An attack of that size would require intensive planning and logistics and expertise which it's pretty widely accepted Mahrai does not and did not possess. The real criminals are long gone - what's the point in holding a man dying of cancer? The Scottish justice system is one based around compassion as well as judgement, and I'll tell you this - I'm proud of it, but I don't see anything to be proud about in the vindictive extradition of a mentally confused man.
Choose one of the following:
1. Retain status quo of hydrocarbon based energy along with a minority of nuclear power and subsidized green power sources. Rising prices will first cause disadvantaged people to go without power or heating, then presumably eventually blackouts, potentially leading to a shortfall in industry and commerce and a ruined economy. (what's left of it) eventually enough green power would become available to meet demand, this may happen over ~50 years.
2. Increase use of Nuclear power, dodging the worst of the price rises as dependency on hydrocarbons will be lower. Limited brownouts or blackouts, less damage to the economy. Nuclear would (I would expect) be phased out to green power or other clean technologies within the ~50 year period. We have a larger volume of radioactive waste which must be disposed of, however we have a stronger economy and higher quality of life throughout this period.
Might get flamed for it but that's the way I look at it.
There has been some speculation that the bid was dropped in an effort to allow News Corp to come back at a later date when this has all blown over and push the bid through; essentially waiting it out until they are in a better position to make and win the bid.
How would OFCOM's decision influence this future potential bid? If they find them unsuitable (which I'd imagine is the public feeling) then how exactly would News Corp make a new bid in the future? and considering BskyB is partly owned by news corp, would it be possible for there be an impact upon their current part-ownership?
I don't know the answers to these questions, however there is indeed potential ramifications for News Corp should they be found unfit, I'd imagine.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019