Re: I can wait.
I'm waiting for a PI that can do HEVC at 4K with HDR with a reasonable framerate.
1476 posts • joined 14 Aug 2014
I'm waiting for a PI that can do HEVC at 4K with HDR with a reasonable framerate.
Just as I was thinking of upgrading my early 4K TV to 4K+HDR, something new comes along.
They're ~minimum wage sales assistants, not technical experts.
I mean, it's more expensive. You don't want the cheapo one when you're spending hundreds on that fancy new TV, do you?
BT phone boxes?
Don't they only exist in Gibraltar now? That would be one hell of a battery drain.
That's my choice. Also due to the competition laws, I can subscribe to Sky Sports through BT or Virgin without subscribing to Sky at all.
The problem isn't a lack of right wing comedians, it's a lack of comedians that don't make a constant stream of jabs at the right and make their leftness part of their act.
None of the top stand-ups do it, A: because why piss off half your audience, B: they are funnier than cheap anti-conservative jokes.
The second rate comedians the BBC has on spend their time making cheap, lazy and unfunny jokes. See Russel Howard as a "fine" example of that.
Most watchers of BBC panel shows are presumably either apolitical or left wing, perpetuating the view that it's acceptable for BBC panel shows to be firmly left wing.
Stop saying that the positive results of the falling pound is "despite brexit", for a start.
I'm not saying don't report stuff, but for example have a read of the breakdown of Question Time panelists by leave/remain. They over overwhelmingly remain supporters/campaigners. It isn't a small margin, it's enormous.
There is plenty of competition already without the BBC purposefully spending money demanded with menaces on programmes which directly compete with the private sector.
It serves a useful purpose. Chasing ratings isn't it.
There's a sizeable gap between BBC liberal and your far right caricature of Farage.
You think that only BBC can do tasteful ( SCD )? The switch from BBC2 to BBC1 was the worst thing that ever happened to Bake Off. They tried to make it more Bake Off.
Although you've already agreed with me on Eastenders, Corrie is less over the top. I can be in the same room as Corrie. I can't put up with the shouting and screaming in Eastenders - I literally have to leave the room. Another soap ( not sure which, Brookside? Emmerdale?, who knows? ) is apparently one of the big ones now too. Another non-BBC programme competing adequately with Eastenders.
There are a hell of a lot more broadcasters now than there were when Only Fools first started. A new programme like that could flog itself around to BBC, ITV, C4, C5, Sky, UKTV Gold, Dave, Netflix, Amazon,
and probably more. They're all commissioning programmes. On that basis I'd say the need for BBC to give the next Only Fools its chance is completely gone.
I did say the BBC should do more education - Attenborough would be a big part of that.
I think we should have a BBC funded from public taxation or a dedicated tax ( as now ). I just don't believe that it should be doing things that are perfectly well served by the private sector and demanding that we pay for it.
That's been said to death.
However you should read the Guardian's comments section ( not too much, the stupid might rub off ).
There, you will learn that the Guardian is a right wing newspaper. All of your misconceptions about it being a left wing newspaper will be revealed to be false.
I'm not arguing the BBC is left wing as such - I'm arguing it's metropolitan liberal and as such anti-conservative more than pro-labour.
SCD is excellent. I don't watch it myself, except for the results ( it's not worth going to the pub for an hour ), and I've watched the Saturday night programme when I've been ill, and it is really well made good quality entertainment.
Not my cup of tea, but objectively it is very good.
However not something we should be funding from a mandatory TV tax.
That's not for the BBC to decide.
Brillo does quite a good job, although I'm very disappointed he didn't immolate Corbyn before the last election. The ammo was there and it was a disservice to the electorate that he didn't.
In my view, the BBC's bias is as much about what it doesn't report at all. Take Brexit - I know there has been bad news, but good news is either not reported or reported as "despite brexit".
The implication being from the BBC that brexit is bad and that it is surprising that anything good can happen while we're leaving. That isn't neutrality. It's well documented and outrageous.
You are unlikely to hear the story on BBC news tonight about Corbyn's and Momentum's support for Slobodan Milosevic, which has been reported elsewhere this morning.
BBC doesn't have a political party bias, it has a metropolitan liberal bias. That needs to be fixed. Not hiring most of its staff from the Graun would be a good start. Banning things like the BBC news's infamous "tory cuts" billboard.
However the BBC license fee should be cut down from ~£150 to £50/year. One TV channel with a vastly reduced budget for entertainment, more news, more educational, more "things that the private sector won't do".
Strictly, as much as it is loved, is not necessary to be paid for by a television tax. Neither is (well, was) Bake Off or Eastenders.
If you want programmes like that you should have to subscribe. I'd pay more than I do now for the extra entertainment stuff. It's quite good. The fee would have to be more than the £100 shortfall I'm proposing as not everybody would subscribe. Fine. But we shouldn't be forced to pay for it *.
* Before somebody says it, don't pay isn't an option. I subscribe to Sky Sports, therefore I need to pay for Eastenders. Bizarre, but true.
Do we really need that many "comedy" panel shows stuffed with left wing comedians.
Well I'll show the government by pissing in my own petrol tank. That'll show 'em.
That's bollocks. When I put squishy pancakes in the frying pan, they don't go spherical, do they?
Is the Flat Earth Society not some sort of joke? I assumed it was some sort of science believing rational society with an attempt at an amusing name?
You need to quit smoking and start exercising.
Timescales like this really does highlight the futility of everything, including retyping the word 'exercising' until spell check can work out what I could possibly mean.
At renewal would certainly be reasonable. But that wasn't what the original poster was proposing.
Or because stealing something without cause from the private sector would be seen as hostile by said private sector.
Such a government would quickly find that foreign investment dries up and companies run a mile.
I rounded to 250m / 250k.
But yes, it is.
~£100/device isn't bad at all.
Oh here we go. A "We don't need trident because of terrorism" nutcase.
Or a compromise. Do we need state of the art warfighting ships to deter a group of Somali's armed with a couple of AK47's?
Recent decades have shown us that we need to be able to fight, eg: the Falklands war, contribute to multilateral invasions of places like Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq*, protect shipping lanes, rescue smuggled people sinking in the Med, provide assistance to natural disasters, deter Russian aggression, etc.
* I'm talking capability, not whether we should have done it or not
A one-size fits all armed forces isn't going to fit all requirements.
( We also need to be able to invade France when the time comes. The time will come, obviously. )
I had a great idea at an old job. We ran our software for clients on our own kit. One potential client didn't want to switch to us because they'd spent a shit-ton of money on their own (single) server and paid a firm to write a basic service. Our software was by far the best in the (niche) industry but the clients software did work, it just didn't help them make as much money ( without going into detail, in that industry, better software = much more profit ).
I suggest that we offer to buy the server from them - it would pay itself back in the long run, and we'd get another server to add to our pool that we'd end up buying at a few months down the line anyway. "That's a good idea." I was told.
A few days later my boss returned from a trip to the pub/bookies/wherever he always disappeared to and proclaimed "I've had a great idea....".
( it was a tiny firm, boss was the owner, I don't believe he nicked it on purpose, but still.... )
Sadiq "I'm an uber man. I've never used an Uber" Kahn once again protecting the interests of his union
You start admiring distros who stay with long term releases as soon as you need to do anything important.
Wake me up when I can drive a car to the pub and legally have it run me home.
My guess is the temperance movement will want that to be banned regardless so as not to promote drinking. If that obstacle ever gets surmounted, let me know.
Ha. Even better!
So you don't even lose the bureaucracy of the welfare state!
El Reg and its commentards moved swiftly to the left at the start of this year. Remember they got rid of Warstall and others. The commentards followed suit.
Either its enough to live on ( and enough for the disabled to live on, and those who can't afford a home to pay their rent with ), or it's pointless.
If it's going to be big enough for that, then it's unaffordable.
The tax allowance isn't a handout. It's progressive taxation. By that logic, the 80% tax the state doesn't collect after £12.5k is a handout too. It's not.
I'm not arguing that everybody would sit around doing nothing voluntarily. But I am arguing that a system that would be worth implementing would be so unaffordable that it would be impossible to implement.
I didn't give you an alternative because the stupidity of what you said distracted me from doing so.
Firstly, we are at full employment. 4.2% (if I remember correctly) unemployment is roughly zero when accounting for people who are literally between jobs. Lost one, will get another next week, that sort of thing.
You then imply that sick and disabled is a scam to reduce unemployment, but then in the very same sentence, point out that people are being sanctioned to get them off the states teat.
"In education" has never counted toward unemployment. Are you suggesting it should not. Should we push kids down the dole office at age 5? Do away with that useless book learning? They should be down the pits like their great-great-grandad was at their age.
The better system to UI is broadly what we have now. A safety net that provides for people who are temporarily out of work, provides for those who are unable to work due to disability and an old age pension to provide for those who are too old to work. Housing benefit to make sure that we don't have any (excluding addicts and the insane who throw away chance after chance ) homelessness at all.
You can argue around the edges, say we should spend more on disability benefits or change the rules for housing benefit or whatever, but throwing out the system because you don't like some of the variables is pathetic.
Universal income would do many things, none of them positive. It would give too much to those who don't need it or it would give too little to people who do need it - are you going to replace housing benefit and disability benefit with UI? It's going to be a large payment to everybody in the country, isn't it?
So you've got a bill of literally hundreds of billions, including giving hundreds of pounds per week to people who currently receive no cash from the government at all.
Hundreds of billions of pounds. How much do we have to increase taxes by? Well we'd have to do away with the personal allowance and raise the 20% rate significantly.
But I'm guessing that you think it's fine - we'll just soak the rich. Those fuckers are always avoiding tax and murdering babies, or whatever. The rich just don't have that much money - even if they were inclined to allow your hypothetical government to take it all. They'd bugger straight off to the nearest airport.
And then after that, who would start a business? Well everybody would be a dog groomer or a window cleaner for a bit of extra cash. But I mean who would borrow and take a big risk trying to make themselves a lot of money? Say building a factory? What's the point? The state's just going to steal all your profits anyway.
It's not really being trialled. It got a few weeks in (I think Finland ) with a tiny population of people. It was an academic study, not a test by a government to see whether or not it should bankrupt itself. There was also a study in California with private money. The same again - no policy implications.
Who's saying send babies up chimneys? You're the one suggesting that education not being counted towards unemployment is a statistical fudge.
The assumption that capitalism will eat itself was alway the hope of the Marx's of the world. It's hopelessly naive though.
If wages or conditions are terrible working for Uber, people will leave. If people like the flexibility of spending an hour after work making a few extra beer tokens and they see it as worth it, they'll do it.
The best thing about capitalism is that all of this is voluntary.
We don't have people with nothing to do. We are at full employment.
Just because I have more sensible political ideas than giving out literally hundreds of billions of pounds a year for people to do nothing doesn't mean I read the Daily Mail.
That seems to be the go-to insult for you people. You disagree with my stupid idea or my misunderstanding of the situation, then you must read the Mail. Get a grip.
( I read The Times. I wouldn't wipe my arse with your copy of the Guardian - the Daily Mail of the left ).
I was with you until you said "universal income".
He's on about the future. So hydrogen compressed to 7000 bar, or unobtanium gas. Mr Fusion, etc.
Jet packs could work, but only with fuels or tank materials that we haven't discovered yet.
I think the compact Jet Pack is a bit daft, but perhaps it would be more of a reasonable aspiration if it was a frame you strapped yourself into - a large overhead area storing fuel and a parachute, a seat and rockets attached to the bottom of the seat.
However if you're going there, you're basically building an inefficient one man helicopter.
That and they set the backs of your trousers on fire.
One of the things I love about El Reg is that this article has been posted for the sole purpose of the "bashing bishops" double entendre.
Why did the readership of the Morning Star take over my beloved El Reg forums?
Couldn't they just stick to taking over the Labour party?
I love the acronym STONITH for that, and no.
Hey look, a fan of the hard left blaming everything on Jews!
Good tip though - watch out for Fiat 500's and the newish Mini's. They usually have good looking female drivers.
I don't know why, but it's true about 80% of the time.
Sky have split their sports into individual channels now, so you can subscribe to the tiddlywinks channel without paying for Football ( or vice versa ).
Personally I watch enough different sports to just get the lot.
That reminds me of a street doughnut seller in Greece I encountered. He put a doughnut in the hand of every member of my family, we thought "how nice, a free sample". Then he said "Ten Euro".
Thank to the EU, we now have choice in which provider we use to watch the football.
Unfortunately that choice is only whether to shell out twice as much money as we used to or not.
Bonsai oak Tree?
If it's so lucrative, you'd think boffins would have found a way to simulate the conditions by now.
Obviously not. I do find it interesting that evolution has produced species that suck so much at reproducing.
If they are so bloody expensive, does anybody know why people don't grow them in greenhouses?
If they could be grown densely, I'd happily give up my shed in exchange for £1k/kg.
I don't know how you lug all that around. It annoys me that I have a separate fob and key for my car.
I was thinking that FAT can store files larger than the size of that disk, so what's the problem?
I've not had an Iphone since the 4, but I liked the glass back.
Also you can't have wireless charging with a metal back - a minor irritation with my current phone ( Nokia 6 ) is that it doesn't have wireless charging.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018