Posts by Dr. Mouse

Re: ow!

That was my thought, too.

As long as MS is only investing, all is well and good. If they start sticking their oar in....

Re: Is Microsoft watching this case?

it is expressly legal to implement an API for the purposes of compatibility, which is exactly what Android does

I think this is stretching the definition to breaking point.

Android doesn't implement the API for compatibility. They implement the API because it is easier than writing their own from scratch, and easier for developers (many of whom know Java in some form, so can pick it up easier). It is not done so that Android apps are compatible with existing JVMs (they aren't) or so that existing Java apps would be compatible with Android (again, they aren't).

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not siding with Oracle on this. I don't think APIs should be copyrightable.

Re: Unconvincing hype

"Bumbling about spending billions justifying sending a craft to Mars by comparing pictures that confirm a bias is not science."

Again, that is not what is happening.

She has postulated a hypothesis. This is one, possible explanation.

What you are suggesting is saying "it was probably just erosion, so it's not worth looking". That is not science.

She has suggested her hypothesis and outlined how to test it. There is no bias in it. The tests can be run by the craft which is already there, which will provide data which could support or contradict her hypothesis. This is science.

Occam's razor is a good starting point, but is not the be-all-and-end-all. You cannot hear hoof beats and immediately say "it is definitely a horse". There is a possibility of a zebra, so looking at what is there is a good plan. If you see a horse, great. If you see a zebra, also great. You are no longer guessing.

Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST

"In this particular case, merely asserting that something must be true because photographs of different things appear to indicate a similarity between them does not make it true, let alone a proven scientific fact."

Which is exactly what she is NOT doing.

In the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, design some method of testing the hypothesis, do said test, and analyse the results to see if it matches. Here, she has done the first 2.

Let's take a simple one I remember from an early school experiment. The teacher suggested the hypothesis, showing anecdotal evidence (very often the basis for any hypothesis), that sugar dissolves more quickly in warmer water. We designed an experiment, involving heating water to different temperatures, adding equal amounts of sugar, and seeing how long it took to dissolve. We then analysed the results, and concluded that they supported the original hypothesis: Sugar does disolve more quickly in warmer water.

In this case, she has suggested a hypothesis (microbial life existed on Mars) based on anecdotal evidence (the pictures look remarkably similar to pictures of earth structures created by microbial life). She has suggested methods to test this hypothesis. Now, NASA need to carry out those experiments to determine whether they support her hypothesis.

Sounds like science to me.

Re: Je suis Charlie...

that this man is a public figure who can influence

Many people in public positions can loose their jobs, and even careers, for something completely unrelated to their job.

Even had he been found not guilty, there would still be a chance the club would ask him to resign or pay him out to get rid of him. A company/club etc. has to look at their image. Anything which would bring the entity into disrepute has to be viewed seriously. A CEO of a large multinational can loose his job over the most trivial of things if they reflect badly on the company. In the end, our actions can reflect (for good or bad) on our employer, and the employer must take into account those reflections.

While I agree that, under the law, once a sentence is served that should be the end of it, this does not extend into the public conciousness. If you know your next door neighbour was convicted of rape/murder/child abuse, the fact he has paid for his crime will not be much reassurance.

Re: "right to freedom of expression"

A right, granted by the government, can be taken away by the government, and it is thus, not a right, it is a privilege.

While I do agree very strongly with the "right" to free speech, and many others, they are very new concepts, and I would guess that the majority of the populations are not legally or physically entitled to them. To most of the world, these are privileges, ideals to wish for, or pipe-dreams, if they are thought of at all.

We see them in "the West" as rights, but this is only because of the last few hundred years they have become enshrined as such. In fact, these are not rights. Go to a war torn country in Africa, or to China, or to North Korea and you will see this. Hell, we do not even truly have the right to free speech in the UK: Even without looking at the laws on terrorism and religious hatred, look at the laws on slander etc. (and many other areas) and you will see that the "right" is limited.

Many of the "human rights" we hold so dear are privileges granted by our governments, society and moral code. I believe they should be universal rights, but they are not for all but the privileged few in "Western Democracies"(TM).

Re: Android upgrades

I have to agree.

Personally, with hindsight, I believe the design of Android is a little out. What should have been done is have a pure HAL, with a forward compatible API, which the manufacturer makes for the phone, and the OS sits on top of that, compatible back to a certain version of the HAL API. When a new version of Android is released, it can be (almost) immediately installed on any phone with at least a minimum version of that API (albeit possible missing some features due to level of HAL).

This would allow the following process:

* Google releases a new update to Android

* Manufacturers run a set of tests against their current HALs which are compatible

* Manufacturer releases OTA

* If required (e.g. for newer models, or older ones they still wish to support) manufacturer develops and releases upgraded HAL.

This would also engineer in a point of obsolescence. The manufacturer will likely only upgrade the HALs for newish devices, just as they currently only develop OTAs for the newish devices. Therefore, Android would eventually move beyond that HAL version, at which point no upgrades can be performed. However, it would push that date out into the future (as long as Android was maintained with as much backwards compatibility as possible).

Re: Could be useful

no advantage over batteries

I would beg to differ, on this point alone.

The one major advantage is that you can use a large tank for longer range, without it costing the world. Just as with hybrids. Add to that the speed of refuelling vs recharging, and the advantages are clear. I know battery swap tech would mitigate this, but it needs standardising to work across a range of vehicles, which is not at all easy given the different shapes/sizes/specifications of the vehicles.

I do, however, agree with you on all the downsides. Hydrogen is a very impractical fuel. We would be better off developing hydrocarbon fuel cells, particularly ones which would run on a variety of fuels. At some point, that would allow an easy switch from oil-based fuels to synthetic fuels.

Or building nuclear cars.

Re: Push-button gear change? Really?

a button activated handbrake on manual which will work only if you put your foot on the footbrake so you can no longer "start off handbrake uphill"

I drove for Audi for a while after leaving university. Some of their models featured this. However, they also included a hill-start setup whereby you could just use the throttle (and clutch if manual) to set off. Once the car realise you were setting off (putting enough torque down to the wheels) the handbrake released.

Seemed like a brilliant idea. It seemed well designed. Most of the ones I drove were manual, and so you needed the car to be in gear, have high enough revs, and slip the clutch for it to work. I can't remember how it worked on autos.

I can see, though, that it could end up being dangerous in automatics. Left in drive with handbrake on, reach over to get something from the glove box and accidentally press the throttle enough for it to disengage, and you end up either shooting forward or rolling back.

Re: They arent a serious party..

And I suppose you think 60% of voters in clacton are racists/homophones/whatever?

Or just maybe there is a problem with massive immigration onto a small island with already overstretched resources and thats reflected in the rise of a party that a large proportion of the population feels reflects their views.

I do not say that all UKIP voters are racist (although I do believe a significant number are, just like my father-in-law and my wife's grandfather, although they kid themselves that they are not). But I believe the party, itself, to be such.

There is a problem with mass migration, although I do not believe it is as big a problem as some make out.

But then anyone with a brain knows that the london metro liberal view is no longer an intellectual viewpoint but more of a religion nowadays that must not be questioned, and anyone who thinks differently must be lambasted, vilified and generally treated as a pariah for going against the holy texts of The Guardian and Independent.

My views are my own, and quite open to change given a persuasive argument. I do not read any newspapers. To put it succinctly, I do believe mass migration is causing a problem, but I do not agree with UKIP's solution, policies, agenda, or principals. And I think there is plenty of evidence that UKIP, the political party, and many of it's members are bigoted, in one way or another.

Re: They arent a serious party..

FYI Ukip is currently the only party to ban former BNP members from joining.

This is to present a friendly front. They are BNP-lite. They know how unpopular the BNP are, so want to copy them without the bits which upset people, but as seen in "slip-ups" from members, they hold the same views. They just keep them hidden.

I (unfortunately) know of several former BNP members who now vote UKIP, and they want to join the party. UKIP know that their views appeal to the BNP crowd, because they are practically the same, but need to put distance between them to avoid alienating voters.

Re: assuming he's in it up to his scrawny neck, by now...

I always find it horrifying that people laugh and joke about being raped in prison, seemingly with the attitude that they deserve it. While I get the gallows humour, I don't see how it's really any different to laughing about rapes in general, or excusing them. It's a problem, and a crime, and something which we should be working to put a stop to (like murders in prison), not something to laugh about or threaten people with. Granted, it's a difficult task. Prisons are filled with the scum of the earth, who think they can do whatever they want.

Re: Drink and drive, a simple rule:

I think you should be done for a minimum of involuntary manslaughter if you hit someone - you made that choice when you got into the car.

I would agree with this, in fact I would go a step further. I think it should be looked at in the same way as "felony murder" in the US: You made the decision to drive drunk, which is a crime. All consequences of that crime should be considered intentional. So if you kill someone, it should be murder. If you crash into another car, it should be treated the same as if you had set out and planned to ram your car into theirs.

It could be taken a stage further than that, even, although I think this one probably goes too far. The fact you have driven drunk means you are accepting the possibility of killing someone, so it could be seen as attempted murder even if you are just pulled over by the cops.

Re: UK

I've always been advised roughly 1 hour per unit consumed after you finish drinking. However, I did come across an (I think) Excel spreadsheet which calculated it all for you, given details about your drinks, timing, and your weight etc. It was very interesting, but I've not been able to find it again.

I would not trust it, though. I would not normally drink heavily if I know I have to drive the next day, and have used a taxi to get to work before now when "a couple" turns into "stumble in at 2am with a kebab".

Assuming you set off for work at 7am and finish drinking around midnight, I would stick to 2-3 pints at most. On 8 pints, finishing at 2am, you shouldn't expect to be fit to drive till the next evening. You may be fine sooner, but I wouldn't count on it.

Re: cheap fun BAC readers too inaccurate

Cheaper might be time release alcohol-filled nanoparticles.

I think the point would be that you actually get drunk at the pub, then activate the nanobots when you need to drive. They sober you up, you drive home, then can release the alcohol and get instantly drunk again.

To be honest, I think taxis are a better idea. Drink what you want, and someone else drives you home. One very good idea, though, would be something you could ingest before you go to bed, which aids in clearing the alcohol from your system somehow. This could be by speeding up the bodies own systems to break it down, or some other method. I have no idea how (or if) this could be done...

make sure you have an unopened bottle of something in the trunk

I saw this one on CSI. Sara's dad, I think, was involved in an accident while over the limit, and she told him to find the nearest bar and down some shots. He would be able to say he drank because he was so shaken up, and the cops would not be able to prove he was drunk while driving.

Of course, I certainly do not advocate this. Just don't drink and drive. I, personally, don't have any if I am driving, and drink conservatively if I have to drive the next morning. I would also have no problem reporting someone to the police if I was reasonably sure they had drunk too much and got in a car, even friends or family if I failed to convince them not to (including threatening to report them). Luckily I have very few friends or family who would be stupid enough, and have never had to do this.

Re: Money hungry bastards

I'm just back from Goa. The hotel we stayed at used to charge for Wifi. It wasn't too expensive, and was a great service.

They have recently changed this to free. The service quality has gone down the toilet. I struggled to load a web page or check email most of the time (unfortunately my boss needed me to check in in case of urgent problems). In addition to this, they allowed only one device at a time, whereas when you paid for it you could pay for several devices. When I needed the net, I had to ask my wife to log out.

So personally, I would rather choose a hotel with reasonably-priced, good quality wifi over one with free, crap wifi. It's the reasonably-priced bit that Marriot seem to be getting wrong.

Re: Jammers ???

While I do think they are doing this for the money, I can see it from a network management point of view as well. We attended a (non-technical) trade show a couple of years ago, and every man and his dog had their own Wifi set up for their own stand. This made wifi unusable, both for the exhibitors and for the visitors.

The next year, the show operator said no individual wifi. They invested a lot in decent wireless comms, and told everyone they must use that. They would even set it up so it dropped directly into your own stand's network. Things went a lot more smoothly.

The difference here is that they offered it free, both to guests and to exhibitors. If these hotels did the same (or at least charged a reasonable amount) they wouldn't need to de-auth people.

Re: "period table"

Or a table about the menstrual cycle?