Clothing generated electricity
That would be the combination of my shoes together with the "antistatic" floor tiles in our electronics lab, I suppose.
700 posts • joined 2 Nov 2012
"Well in all fairness it's more like someone saw the handbag, got out their quantum duplicator, made an exact copy and made off with their copy, leaving the original exactly where it was before."
There are so many personal items in a handbag, that you'd be in big trouble, anyway.
Was there cash inside? Oops, you are looking for twenty years in the cooler.
For some items you can't get a permission to copy them.
Any chance we can get an Old-Fuddy-Duddy package on our vehicle that uses metal keys without computer chips and old-fashioned mechanical interlocks?
No, because a reliable mechanical keyswitch costs way more than a cheap button. And the computer chips are needed anyway to make your insurance company happy.
A few years younger, but similar story. After graduation I applied for IBM, HP and Nokia as they had development centers close to my home town and were considered prime employers at the time.
I'm so happy none of them considered me good enough. Now working happily since 20 years at another company that may not pay top dollar but has a good working climate and our HR is populated by human beings (allegedly).
Can't say I dodged the bullet. It's more like I stumbled out of the way.
If I copy all my failed clinical trial data to Borat-istan and then claim I can't say how many patients died because that would be against Borat-istan data privacy laws - you can bet the FDA is going to take a dim view.
The case is a bit different, however. It is not Google's data we are talking about. It is someone else's data that the Irish branch of Google stores for a third party.
The sensible move would be to force the data owner to hand over his data. If the owner cannot be forced for whatever reasons, then the US court should request the Irish authorities to support in this case.
The US is trying to use the market power of their multinational companies as a lever to support their policies and circumvent proper procedure.
No there isn't because the average person is too stupid to make the connection, and You Can't Fix Stupid.
Problem is - even relatively intelligent non-techie people have no clue about the risks of connected devices. They see the convenience and shrug away the risks.
On a personal note - Last week wifey bought a creepy connected talking teddy for our toddler. I told her the thing is nothing else than an unsecured bluetooth headset connecting to a dodgy app. Anyone around can connect to it. The app can probably hacked as well and the Android tablet it runs on hasn't seen a security update for the last one and a half year.
Wifey shrugged it away and meant that there is nothing interesting any listener could hear in our house, anyway. The depressing truth is - she is probably right.
Maybe I should just reserve Meeting Room A in the central building as usual.
Or just use Lync, er, Skype for Business, erm Microsoft Teams, ... oh well, whatever it is called now, as long as it is still supported. And perhaps they will finally implement a microphone gain adjustment that actually works. (See icon)
Edit: Wow - not even 30 seconds up and already the first downvote. Looks like Microsoft is using downvote bots these days. Of course if you have a solution to turn on the automatic gain control on Lync (or however you call it) I'd be really happy. Feel free to post.
Hmm, a short search of the microsoft website shows that there is at least a mechanism for microsoft to update the microcode. They seem to deliver it via windows update.
Perhaps Intel can persuade them to deliver this specific update quickly and with a comprehensive description?
Current Linux distros (Ubuntu from at least 15.04 on) have a "3rd party driver" feature to update the CPU microcode. Both, for AMD and Intel.
Does this solve the problem? If so, enabling that driver would be a simple workaround.
I wonder, if a similar feature is available for Windows, too.
Edit: See also:
ITT estimates it owes $177,466.46 on an agreement that runs until May 31.
Quite a rough estimation, it seems.
It reminds me of the presentation our VP gave regarding the efficiency gains of "lean" introduction.
18.42%. I wanted to ask if it is not rather 18.41 or 18.43, but kept my mouth shut. I had the feeling I was not alone.
You would think that a company with the resources and the research power of IBM would be able to innovate, grow with new products and generally thrive.
Instead they cut the research, abandoned products and tried to shift to services, where they are just a "me too". In my opinion they were only successful with services in the past, because they had the products in the first place.
I wonder how long the tail can wag the dog until it breaks.
Clones pretty much almost killed Apple last time. Why would they go down that same road again?"
It's about market segmentation. While it makes no sense to allow low cost hackintosh clones, it would make a lot of sense to sell OS licenses to the professional crowd, that prefers to have their hardware build to spec and doesn't care so much about the price, if they can get what they want.
Some licensing model based on CPU cores, together with a nice service contract can be very profitable. It would open a high profit market segment that Apple cannot reach with their current strategy. Investment would be minimal. Kind of win-win for everyone.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019