Posts by Oninoshiko 1937 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Oct 2008
If it weren't easier to charge the thing all the time then not, the unbelievably low battery life (compared to my old phones) would be unbearable. With Qi charging it's not an issue...
I guess that's kinda a backhanded complement, isn't it?
"If you think bugs should not occur then I challenge you to write a million lines of code with ZERO bugs in it from day one."
That's the problem, 1M LoC is completely unauditable. That's why, when security and stability really matter, microkernels containing less then 2k LoC are used.
I'm pretty sure the answer is, "no, some have not."
The reality is, this would require modifying all existing weapons (a gargantuan task, in and of itself), making sure the weapons cannot be "demodified," (yeah, right), making sure noone just machines themselves a new gun (*giggle-snort*), the system has to be completely unhackable (Imagine the plod having their weapons locked out), and (considering that weapons are often for personal defense) it would have to fail to a fireable state (otherwise you're not getting the political backing for it).
There's just no way that can work.
It's Latin, literally "God from the machine."
It comes from the classic plays where when the hero would get into an impossible situation, one of the gods would drop down and help them out of it. The actor playing the god would be literally lowered onto the stage with a machine.
It's come to mean any kind of "divine intervention," "hand of fate," or other completely blind-siding "solution" to the problem. Generally, it's considered bad story-telling.
"Much as it tries and thinks otherwise. This is nothing to do with US law my friend."
The Chicago Convention has as much to do with US law as the Kyoto Accord has to do with Japanese law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_International_Civil_Aviation
I think that's a large part of the point. You shouldn't BE explaining the slide, the slide should express what you're explaining, and it should be doing so in a way that words can't. If a slide doesn't meet those two criteria, your presentation is suffering from it's presence.
The focus of the presentation should be on the presenter, and what they are saying, not on the wall of text on the... err.... wall.
The law requiring a license (or paying the statutory license fee) applies to Google, they just negotiated a license independently of the fee.
As it turns out, Google is providing a service to the news agencies that is of equal (or greater!) value as the blurbs they use. Once Google pointed this out (by discontinuing to provide that service), the news services where falling over themselves to license their content.
What I want to know is how they 'make the law “unrenounceable”.' Do they require google to publish blubs or do they not permit media to negotiate licenses anymore. I have no idea how they would enforce the former, and the latter would just screw the Spanish media.
Thanks I wasn't sure if it was that logo or this one:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-S2kF4mVmJVQ/TZar74kKtKI/AAAAAAAAAFE/85NGWCKOdBE/s1600/vans-logo.jpg
or maybe this
http://logodatabases.com/vans-logo.html/vans-shoes-logo
That said, while I didn't recognise them, they all look to me like they should qualify as distinctive.
What needs to happen is every IPv4 IP that is being used for non-server work loads get revoked.
ISPs should be advised to provide access to the IPv4 network via 6to4 gateways.
IPv6 address should then be practically given away.
This plan would leave no downsides for hosters to migrate over, no downsides for ISPs to migrate, and an economic incentive. A stick and carrot, if you will.
The problem is, it's only the right device for a staggeringly small number of users.
They went with AMD's mobile video adapter, it's a bloody laptop card. Sure, that's shiny-shiny if you need little more then a framebuffer, but that card can't push any serious polys at 4k, let alone 5k.
It's a nice screen that you can't attach to a powerful enough machine to really USE it.
So if I personally analyze it, it's all good, but when a program does it, HORRORS!!!11!!eleven!
When you choose to make a public statement, that can be analyzed by anyone, there is nothing you can do about it.
You have a right to privacy, but you also have the right to free speech, and the right to choose which is more important to you. Where you put yourself on the continuum between the two is your choice, but when you choose to post every innane set of 140 characters you can come up with for the entire world to read, your loss of privacy is your choice, not a violation of your rights.
"Is there some sort of organisation that dictates this or are you the sole arbiter of what software can and can't do?"
As the consumer of software, it turns out, I AM the sole arbiter of what software on my system will do. Funny that. I do not need a program to do some unified search of the web and my machine, it's something I would never want.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
