Simple solution for Andy Hudson
Be less crap.
1596 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Nov 2007
Maggie was elected. By the 3rd time the Electorate knew *exactly* what they were voting for so there can be no excuses. Irrespective of whether her policies were good or bad, she *did* have a mandate from the Electorate.
Mandy, on the other hand, is an unelected stooge who twice disgraced himself when he *was* an elected representative.
A number of years ago Mrs Cowherd and I were holidaying on St Lucia. During the requisite limbo competition one young lady was *most* reluctant to join in. The reason became glaringly obvious when, after much haranguing by the host she eventually did.
The *really* funny bit was the bloke next to us filming it all on his camcorder. He didn't bat an eyelid, just kept on filming. I assume the viewfinder didn't have the resolution to show what had been revealed, and as there were no TVs in the rooms he wouldn't see her in all her glory until he got home.
I get this image of him inviting all of his friends and elderly relatives round to look at his holiday vid......
Yet again Microsoft has been caught with its pants around its corporate ankles.
Remember Bill Gate's opinion of the WWW? MS got out of that one because it really only had Netscape as a competitor when it finally woke up.
Then there was MS playing catch-up when Java came along and people realised there was something better than MS' offering of VC++ and VB. They dug themselves out of that one, too.
Now they have been caught with their trousers down *again*, but this time they are an also-ran with the offerings from the likes of Apple, Google, Palm, Blackberry and Nokia *far* in the lead and with the muscle (unlike Netscape, Sun, etc) to ensure they trip over them and fall flat on their face.
The Android market is stuffed full of dodgy apps and dodgy developers. Any Android user will be aware of the usual suspects and their dodgy tactics....
Updates that do nothing but bump apps (usually ad infested) to the top of the "most recent" list.
Crude web wrappers that merely link to the mobile version of a web site ( that you could just as easily visit with the standard browser ) but ask for phone, location and personal info permissions to install.
Then there is all of the non-malicious crap. "Sound Boards", fart machines, flashlights. Hell, there was even one joker with a "mirror" app that turned the screen black so you could see your reflection in it. The muppet even posted a screen shot of the blank screen!!!
There are, of course, a lot of very good and useful apps, but having to trawl through the piles and piles of excrement to find them is a real pain.
A far better bet is a similar spec computer in a small box, but a wireless keyboard and mouse. OK, it'll add £50 or so to the price but would be so much more usable.
Having said that, the thing as it stands with Linux and GCompris would make a superb kiddy computer for not much more than one of those awful vTech toy "laptops".
than suffer more "I'm a celebretards big brother" or "Strictly come Ice Dancing" or "Britain's X Idol Fame Academy" or "East Emmerdale Street" or "Police, Camera, whack-a-chav" or "Real Helicopter Hero Rescue Cops".
This incessant bandwagoning by the TV companies is ridiculous. One comes up with a "winning" format the rest copy it and then they all do the format to its death.
I see the latest "victim" is the early evening magazine show. The BBC decide to revive the old "Nationwide" format and, surprise, surprise, Five copy it with "Live from Studio Five".
But that's what mates are for.
I'm good with tech. Its what I'm paid for, so I should be good.
However I'm crap at plumbing, building, general DIY and motor maintainance, but I know people who *are* very good at those things.
I fix and provide help for their computers, networks, etc, they return the favour.
No money changes hands and we all benefit from help and advice from people we known and trust.
Job done, and no semi-literate help-desk chimps needed.
Beer also accepted in payment.
I'm guessing The Register is in a more precarious position with regard to this than the Murdoch empire given that the average Reg reader is probably considerably more tech-savvy than the average Sun reader. If The Register did go for the subscription model I *might* sign up depending on how much it costs.
IIRC, web sites are paid for displaying ads per impression or per click-through. My ad blocking won't ever affect click-through payments because I never, ever, click on ads (I'm quite capable of finding what I want by myself). However I can see it disadvantages sites like The Register who have little control over the crap the ad men push to them when I consume their content without racking up ad impressions.
So, If there was an ad-blocker that generated the impression but didn't display the ad (ie, downloads the image but doesn't display it) then I'd be happy ( I don't see the ad), the web site would be happy (they get paid) and even the ad-men would be happy as they would be paid as well until their customers leave because they don't get the click-through rate they desire ( you can't click on something you can't see)
Too late. The horse is already over the next hill.
Web advertisers have had in excess of 10 *years* to grasp the idea that the web is *not* like papers, TV or radio and that they can't force us to view any brain-rotting, eyeball-straining crap they like.
Yet still they persist with this attitude.
No. Ad people won't *ever* learn. They will continue trying to ram their crap at us and will continue to be blocked. "Equilibrium" will be reached, not when the advertisers see sense (they won't, ever, they are *way* too arrogant and stupid for that) but when everyone has an ad-blocker and *nobody* sees their annoying crap.
How, in any definition of the phrase, is the Samsung Jet "high end"?
The defining feature of "high end" phones is the ability to install and run 3rd party apps (and I don't mean cruddy J2ME apps) and the availability of tools to allow them to be developed.
Neither are available for the Samsung, which places it firmly in the mid-range category.
That pretty much describes the iPhone. Its popularity is more down to label appeal than anything else. When compared to other offerings (various Android phones and the Pre) it doesn't stand out. In some areas it is better, in others its worse, but people still buy into £stupid-per-month contracts to get one when there are alternatives which offer similar (or better) functionality for a fraction of the cost.
And that's purely down to its bling value. Its a product of, and for, the "look at me, look at meeeee" generation, where the label is more important than the thing its on.
There is a *HUGE* difference between the "biometrics" in the current passport and those envisioned for the NIR / ID cards. The biometrics on the current passport, and all that is required by the US, are just a digital version of your picture so the immigration flunky can compare the digital pic with the printed pic and your own fizzog.
The US passport reqs are here:-
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_new/visa/niv/mrp_bio.html
UK Gov doesn't need the NIR to comply with US immigration rules, but will add privacy invading fingerprints to your next Passport merely to get you onto the NIR (because they failed to do it with ID cards) . It is the NIR and the centralised storage of your biometrics with reverse-lookup capability (meaning you can be ID'd from your prints) that is the real evil. Once your prints are on the NIR, your passport and/or ID card are irrelevant as their only role was to get you onto the NIR in the first place.
***"@AC : Why? - Why would anybody pay that much money to experience zero G for a few seconds?
Because it's not "a few seconds" - it's 6 minutes of weightlessness."****
Which is a mere 360 seconds. That's pretty close to "a few" in my book. And those seconds cost around $550 each.
***"@multipharious : It doesn't even go into space...
Yes it does, space officially starts at 100Km - SS2 reaches 110 Km apogee."***
Even though SS2 barely reaches the "official" limit of space. It is incapable of staying there, which is, I would suggest, something you would expect a "space ship" to be able to do. Its like jumping off a table and claiming you can fly.
Or throwing a brick and claiming you've built an aeroplane.
Yes Space Ship 2 is very clever, but it is really only a thrill ride for the (extremely) wealthy, and can never be anything more.
It would take a *lot* more effort to gain orbit . IIRC about 18,000MPH. SS2 will only just top 2000mph, and that's almost straight up, you have to do the 18,0000 MPH *around* the Earth to gain orbit.
Even if you did get the thing into obit, it wouldn't make it back down again. In fact there would be almost nothing left. Hitting the atmosphere at around 16,000MPH from orbit is a *lot* different to re-entering from one of Space Ship 2's glorified thrill ride hops, which is why the shuttle is covered in all of those ceramic tiles.
Only seems to work when the image contains text or barcode *and* it manages to correctly recognise it (which is hit and miss). Complete failure on any*thing* I've tried, including what I assumed to be easily recognisable shapes (cars, bicycles, telephones, cups, etc).The only thing it recognised was a (computer) keyboard.
Interesting idea, and fun to play with, but currently almost useless.
Do you have a voluntary UK ID card? (yes / no):
If the applicant answers "yes" then the application should be rejected immediately. They have no regard for their own security or privacy, so cannot be trusted with yours. They are also quite likely to be of below average intelligence as they fell for the Government's ID card bullsh*t.
Big Brother. He's useful for filtering out job applications from *really* stupid people.
***"Since we're about to get a Tory government in the UK, we make as well be used to emotionally adolescant, bullying, patriarchal idiots deciding what you can see hear, and think"***
Ah, irony.
Don't you just love it.
You *were* being ironic, weren't you?
Mine's the one with the No2ID badge on the lapel.
Since shortly after the birth of the World Wide Web, advertisers have been falling over themselves to shove the fruits of their labours in front of us by any and every means possible. In-page ads, irrespective of how "eye catching" they were, weren't doing the job, so they came up with the idea of pop-ups. Unsurprisingly (unsurprising, that is, for anyone who *isn't* an advertising executive) people found these intensely irritating and, unsurprisingly (again, if you aren't an ad exec) started to block them.
Did the ad muppets get the message? Did they think "If we stick to *subtle* advertising people won't mind"? Of course they didn't. They just upped the ante and devised more methods of ramming their crap in front of our eyeballs and ad-blockers became more sophisticated to deal with them.
The ad-blocker is a kind of advertising atom-bomb. It was born of an inconsiderate and irresponsible web advertising industry and has been used, successfully, to nuke adverts whenever and wherever they appear. Like other "weapons of mass destruction", once invented (out of necessity) , it cannot, and will not, be un-invented.
The ad-blocker is here to stay. It has killed web advertising, and the ad men only have themselves to blame.
Paris, she looks dumb enough to be an ad-exec.
***"The problem was that the information was lost in a sea of irrelevance."***
And the real criminals / terrorists, knowing IMP exists, will take measures (encryption, darknets, etc) to ensure they cannot be snooped on, making the ratio between valid intelligence and noise even greater.
There is a large (100+ posts) thread on the BBC iPlayer message boards:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbiplayer/F13735683?thread=6893890
The current BBC position on the Wii iPlayer was given by one of the "Hosts" on that forum earlier today:-
"We still aim to have an improved version of BBC iPlayer for the Wii this year so hope to have some further news soon."
No info on *what* this "improved" iPlayer will be (Flash, "Channel" or WiiWare) or what the current state of development is.
Which is, IMHO, taking the term "noncommittal" to ridiculous extremes.
***"The software developer's kit for version two of Google's Android platform is now available, with handsets coming soon, but upgrades for existing users less certain."***
If existing Android handsets are "cast adrift" and won't be offered updates it will badly impact the platform's appeal. Many owners of 1.x Android phones bought them with the tacit understanding that the platform's deficiencies (Bluetooth, lack of multi-touch, etc) would be remedied in later releases. If those releases are not rolled out to G1, Magic, Hero, etc then it will certainly put off owners of those phones from getting another Android device.
I suppose the handset manufacturers might take the short-sighted view that this might encourage people to physically "upgrade" to a 2.0 phone and will have to learn the hard way that kicking customers in the teeth isn't a good way to gain brand loyalty.
Given that I can't change my Magic for another 12 months, the failure of HTC / Vodafone to roll out Android 2.0 to me will merely result in me rooting (with 2.0) my phone and moving to another manufacturer / network when my contract expires.
The "biometrics" in an e-passport are merely an electronic version of your passport photo, and the rest is merely an electronic version of what is visibly printed. That's it. That's all it is. All that happens is Mr US Immigration Official compares the printed info and photo with the electronic version and your own live face. All three match and you're good to go.
This is *not* biometrics in the UK ID / NIR sense of the word, where your ID card is linked to the database and you can be *directly* identified by the ID card biometrics (fingerprints, etc). The information on your passport still just *confirms* who you are. The biometric information you will have to provide for your ID card can be used to *discover* who you are.
BIG difference.
That Disney are griping that the characters are an obvious parody of *their* interpretation of Snow White & the Seven Vertically Challenged Individuals.
Dreamworks parodied a number of fairytale characters in the Shrek movies, but none of them looked much like their Disney versions. I assume this was to avoid being sued by Disney.
Then again, Dreamworks didn't intimate that Snow White was a dirty little slapper, either.....