W.r.t. foreign programmes from more ad-supported networks the biggest annoyance is those infernal shows with forty-five second recaps every five or seven minutes. It is crazily annoying watching them edited ad-free on Netflix.
36 posts • joined 26 Mar 2012
Re: Not Entirely Fair
Your second paragraph is incorrect. If you do not use your television as a television but only as a monitor then you do not need a licence. Even if you use your television as a television but only for Netflix et al (from your computer) you do not need a licence. If you prefer your PET or Amiga experience on a CRT rather than through an emulator you are still free to do so at no charge.
The only (recent) difference is you now may no longer avoid the fee through the bizarre anomaly of iPlayer.
Where contempt for the BBC is valid is their despicable introduction of visible watermarks on their broadcasts. It is annoying that now even licence players have to wait for Blu-ray rips to be torrented to watch new content. That is a horrendous practice.
Re: The right way around!
"Surely if the headphone socket is at the bottom, then when it's in your pocket the headphone lead needs to go down then up to get to your ears? And the 3.5mm jack gets stressed as it's taking some of the weight? And if the lead gets caught there's little chance of just the plug popping out before the whole phone goes airborne?"
Eh? When the phone is in your pocket you want the top facing down so when you pull it out it ends up the right way up in your palm - this seems most natural when it is upside-down. As such headphone sockets should be at the bottom of the phone.
Power is more variable - if recharging via cable then socket should be at the top so that cable is not stressed or gets in the way when you glance at it or use it when sitting down. (I know, what a lazy weakling, having to rest my wrist on my thigh.) But for docks you want it at the bottom. Because of this interface should always be flippable as docks require upside-down use.
I promise I am not just being contrarian. I think Tom Baker's was the worst. Tom Baker is a great charismatic person - but he is Tom Baker. He played Tom Baker not the Doctor.
Who [ ] buys a laptop [ ] high resolution [ ] .screen - in order to use the command line?
Plenty of people. If you are staring at rows of text all day you don't want jaggies.
Salmond forces 50% increase in costs to businesses for online presence
Is how some will happily headline this news.
Call me imaginatively challenged
Is this the radio version? You have to use your imagination to provide illustrations.
Unsimple as A B C
For 'pimps up' read 'reduces usability'.
The A-Z listing is now wholly useless. Displaying lists of thirty to sixty programmes only three or four to the screen is bonkers. How is that supposed to help?
Re: A quick correction
Quick correction - if you spend £6,000 or maybe £3,000 in Tesco they will bundle a tablet for an extra £59.
Re: Quality gets overlooked these days
SACD bombed because they used it to bump up "nice price" back catalogue prices by 50%. If they had continued to sell one album at £9.99 or £10.99 instead of two with one at £15.99 then more customers would have bothered to change their player when buying a new one.
Re: Best Tablet in the World?
It's the "who" not the "that" that matters.
Re: It's not upside down
That is not the issue mentioned in this review - I agree a headphone socket on the bottom can be preferable. With this phone the socket is on the side - so phone may not slide out cleanly, particularly if your headphones don't have an L-shaped connector.
I was planning to rewatch the previous series (not sic) through Netflix before watching the final episodes. Only got as far as the very first episode when I noticed that Jesse's girlfriend was wearing a bra. Goodness knows what other ridiculous bowdlerisations the studio made to the version they give to Netflix UK.
1080 vs 1200
If you are drafting a royal birth announcement for foolscap there is not much difference in useability but for those targeting A4 the 120 pixels make a very surprising difference. Of course, affordable 1440 would be better. Indeed, for many uses, a 17" pivoted to portrait would be an acceptable option. (Sorry about the non-laptop aside.)
Re: Bizarro Price Rise
Yes, it is a price rise to everyone except commuters. From £1.10 per single to £1.40. Although £12 per week is cheap for commuters Glasgow is small and the Subway even smaller and very few Subway users need return tickets each and every trip. With the random weather the carnet was useful for when it rained and useful for taking home shopping (without having to pay to go into town).
Re: Too cheap
No, it is not cheap. Bus travel is expensive - £1.90 single or £4 for a day pass in Glasgow. More expensive than when London offfered bus-only passes (Boris has now banned bus-passes, you now have to pay for trains as well).
The Subway in Glasgow is very small, a single circuit and only serves a small part of the City. And a ticket costs £1.40 (single) - not all that cheap bearing in mind its range.
The advantage of the old 20 journal tickets is that they do not expire and they can be used by anyone. For those who do not need a daily (or weekdaily) usage prices are now going up 27% from £1.10 to £1.40. For the weekday commuters prices are going up from £1,10 to £1.20 (though that is with a seven day pass for £12)
It is ridiculous to suggest the use of non-renewable back-up generators is 'disingenuous'.
first they come for the...
So it isn't just their phones - now Samsung fridges can be banned!
Never mind the smartphone - where are you able to buy a beer for a single token?
Depends what you mean by 'sympathetic'.
Re: Just a thought
Tesco's customers will be spending two to five hundred pounds per month every month on other goods. Of course they can afford to cross-subsidise (just as they can offer cheaper petrol or Sky can offer 'free' broadband (if you commit to spend £65 or £75 every month)).
And the reason why an online store that also has a high street presence can't have a large price differential - uhm. surely that is self-evident?
A $100 difference on an £1100 purchase (and with duty still to be removed from that $100) is hardly extreme. And is as nothing compared to the gouge you face if you only want a better disk drive or graphics.
Re: Not again
Yes it happened before. I did not know they had even fixed the previous breakfast - I have been rejecting updates on restarts for months.
By the way, as something similar happened before then that feeling you had was not deja vu. You appear to misunderstand the whole bleeding point of deja vu. 'Deja vu' is now used 'correctly' as often as 'literally' and 'ironically'. Auntie would not be pleased. (And, yes, I do know that usage trumps pedantry. That is why 'correctly' is in quotes.)
"fanbois and fangrrls across the world "
Boyish lesbians and punk feminists? Well, some of the women in the queue may have been of that persuasion but, at least where I am, they seemed to be outnumbered by the straight and the straights (not, of course, that this is something that can be categorised by such a superficial examination as a glance).
I don't know, I'm getting old. I can't keep up with this new-fangled argot. When did bois start having to share their name? What was wrong with calling fans 'fans' and 'fanboys'?
Re: Dredd 3D
I abhor 3D but think your example of The Hole is unfair. At least, being a children's film, it was widely screened in 2D. It was also one of the best horror films that year. It may have had a gloss of 3D turd deglossing it but is was not a turd that had been polished, iyswim.
As to Dredd, every 2D screening (only one screening per day!) was sold out. Despite this the cinema stopped showing the film after one week. 3D version still being shown. Whether it is the distributors or cinema that is responsible I don't care. It is bonkers.
Oh well. At least it was possible to see it in twod. Most 18/15 genre films are not given that small break (Underworld, Resident Evil, Piranha, Fright Night).
Get tae <preserve our sensibilities>
The most bizarre example of censorship I have seen recently is this week on Breaking Bad (don't panic, not spoiling) where a verbal use of 'fuck' is cleaned out. They can show a tortoise like that, they can show that character showing the other side of his face, they can focus on a drug kingpin as a 'sympathetic' antihero but you can't show a single 'fuck off'???
Perhaps I've ahem'ed the Walmart version? Serves (intended) me right, I suppose. I wonder how much I've inadvertently missed from previous episodes. How many versions do they have?
surely some mistake
"Iterate. Then iterate again."
A typical governmental waste of taxes - using a redundant tautology
Not a tablet
It is a laptop with a touchscreen.
A tablet demands portrait mode. What is the point of another 16:9 laptop?
Oh well. At least it is not that resolution and 15"! At 10.6" a 1366x768 is a retina display.
Re: I don't get the fuss
"Lower storage: uhh... you can buy a 768GB SSD for these things... that's more than apple have ever offered on any laptop (including as a spinning platter)."
Yes. Only £900 for the 512 extra GB. Bargain.
Re: Will it be a chinless wonder?
But instead of shaving off the chin the screen should encroach the jaw-line. More vertical pixels - it's a computer not a television... oh, what's the point...
Gouging for all
To be fair, this gouging is not unique to the 'elite' and 'professional'. A home user who just wants a neat one-box entry level iMac will have to pay an extra £370 if they have the temerity to need a bog-standard 2TB hard disk.
You couldn't make it up
NomNomNom: "Snakes and ladders: a particularly sickening game..."
Too late. Snakes and Ladders is already 'banned' in America. The scary snakes have been replaced with slides and the game is renamed Chutes and Ladders.
Not just a flight of whimsy.
It is not a whim. It takes longer to toilet train a Japanese child than a Western one. All that pixellation means they can not see where their bits are exactly so it takes far longer for them to blindly develop accurate hand-to-bits co-ordination based solely on touch.
A decrease in cover price. A DECREASE in cover price? Of physcial paperbacks? My ar$$.
And even if, statistically, that is true... perhaps if publishers bothered to accommodate adequate gutters so you could read without destroying the spine. Perhaps if they did not print an inflated cover price that presupposed a multi-buy discount...
I hate the destruction of the nasty commie net book cartel. Pardon me for preferring the days of only having to make a binary choice between a £1.95 mass market Grafton or a £2.95 King Penguin and today's wonderful freedom of getting an X-Factor's wannabee biography from Asda for £3 and a literary novel where the £13 softcover is more expensive than the remaindered hardback. Thank you, free market. Fuck.