Dude, if you want a "girl" to see that rig of yours, you need to get her into your house first!!! (Oh, and dont think about flashing the iBook either!).
Seriously, anyone who thinks a computer can pick up girls, are seriously mistaken. In my experience, the most important things have also been (in descreasing order) 1. Smile 2. Humour 3. Personality 4. Looks 5. Money (Though can be a negative too) 6. Car (though can be a double edged sword.. I have a jag, some love it, some hate it) 7. Job 8. Family 9. Home. . . . . 103. Flash computer.
actually he said the calls were RECEIVED (incoming). if i called someone, and can tell that a person "accidently" answered the phone (whilst it was in their pocket) I would hang up, and try ringing again. I woudl not hold the call for an hour!
To be honest, it looks like his partner probably had another "partner".. who called that line "number witheld", and was just fobbing him off, sayign that his phone may be cloned. That seems the most likely situation.
(the fact the calls were INCOMMING, and the number was unavailable are the biggest clues)
Whereas you do make valid points which are very possibly true, you dont say why my point is nonsense. It is perfectly possible that both of us are right!
I told you, I worked for LogicaCMG, we provide manufacture Mobile Network equipment (Logica Mobile Networks). If you dont know who LogicaCMG is and the size of its involvement in Telecoms, well back in 2003, 75% of the worlds SMS all went through LogicaCMG Software. So now you know my experience, and expertise, let me continue.
WHen a plane that is so high up crosses a densely populated city with a high cell density A cellphone will attempt to log onto many of those cells at the same time. Both the phone and the cells on the network will see almost equal "signal strengths" (distance between plane and ground is greater than distqance between cells, litttle bit of elementary geometry required here.. sorry I dont have a picture decribing the phemonenom). As such the netowrk does some form of conflict resolution which is communication and processor intensive.
s the plane is flying at a high speed, its possibel the phone is connecting on and off to many cells in a short time (signals are weaker too), this causes a lot of strain on the network, sometimes causing it to go down temporarily as its automatically restarted.
Multiply this by 100 or more phones on a single plane, and you can see how much of a strain this can be on the network.
A network glitch like this looks bad to the operator, as customers on the ground are cut off their calls for a few seconds (there are some SLAs that operators have to publish here in regards to call disconnections)
Our reasearch was actually contracted by Orange, and O2 in 1997 to helpfind ways to improve the ability to deal with mobiles on planes affecting cells on the ground.
We have tested this phenomenon in our test labs many times to try and improve the systems.
Together with better switching algoritms on the cells, and also the use of PICO trancievers located on the plane itself, we believe we have found some solutions for operators.
But it is TRUE that the mobile networks were imforming the FAA and other airline bodies about this problem. Face it, they woudl me most happy for the extra income created when thier phones are used in the air, but currently their systems can break when they are.
Before anyone informs me that cells were being used in one of the 9/11 planes. The plane was flying low over an area with much lower cell density.
Yes, this was something I found shocking about the Cell Systems in USA, Canada (and even Sri Lanka). You have to pay to recieve a call or a text message (SriLanka doesnt charge to recieve a SMS). At one time there were many online systems where you can send a text for free, it really annoyed our USA friends no end, and we never understood why until we found out they were paying! We suddenly found some respect for our predatory telecoms companies here!
In Europe, additionally calling a typically costs mobile costs more, whilst in the US and Canada it can be a "local call". So the caller can call for free, and the reciever ends up paying, again an incentive for longer phone calls, with greater costs, and more profits!
it is possible, and indeed within the spec to have two SIMs attached to a phone number. When a call is recieved, both phone are alerted, and whoever "picks up" answers.
Each SIM NUMBER has to be unique. if two physical phones with the same SIM number connects, the system will not be abel to tell them apart, and will fault.
If a SIM is cloned in such a way that two different SIMs with different numbers have the same phone number, that "clone" would have to be created by the phone company (which would need to adjust their database), and therefore is an inside job, not by Mr Joe down the street.
Well, contacting the company they may be able to resolve the immeadiate problem of the bills, and issue a replacement SIM. The can only deal with abuse of the system, but not with a crime. Only the authorities can do that.
Here is a good example of a call I did very recently with T-Mobile, and BT. I started recieving abusive calls on both my Mobile, and my landline, with an anonymous number. I reported to both companies, who noted down the call, and ensured that evidence will be kept. then they asked me to contact the police with my details to take it further. They were unable to tell me who was doing it, without police intervention. hey both offered to change my number if I wished.
I contacted the police, and as part of the investigation, the POlice authorised a line monitor on both my lane line and my mobile, as well as records on the lines. I was then contacted by BT and T-Mobile seperately explaining how the line monitor works.
in some cases, BT may be able to respond to certain abuses quicker directly, as they own the entire network, including the lines going into your house. But with regard to a crime (which is what cloning/makign abusive calls are) they refer you to the police as well.
PS. I dont understand what part of my original post is "flamebait", as someone has modded it.
No. He shoudl contact the POLICE. I dont know how you do things in US. But in UK, thats the first point of call to ANY fraudulant or criminal use of a phone system.
If its a GSM phone, I very much doubt any cloning has occured for the following reasons.
BTW, I used to work for Logica, in the telecoms division, and have a LOT of knowledge of GSM systems, and how they work. I am also a T-Mobile (UK) customer.
Remember these facts:
- A GSM phone has a unique IMEI number. - Each GSM phone has a unique SIM card with a unique SIM number. This SIM number is attacted on a central computer to your account. - Although the SIM card does contain your number, it is many for informative, and not operational purposes.
When you switch on your phone and it logs onto your network, it sends its IMEI number, and its SIM number to the network. The network then looks up the SIM number and associates it with a number. As it stands, only one SIM number can ever be associated with a phone number. When i tried getting a new SIM to replace my aging SIM, the old one was disconnected before the new SIM was issued, as it is simply not possible to associate a number with two SIMs. You can associate a SIM with two or more numbers, but not the other way round.
If someone HAS cloned your SIM, and both phones are attached at the same time, the network would register a fault, as a SINGLE sim number is assiciated at two different locations. It woudl create a fault in the system which would prevent both yours and the clone SIM from working. This is actually one of the main reasons why Cellphones are not usable on Planes (even if it is prooven to be safe to the electronics). The phone woudl try to log onto multiple cells at the same time, causing a lot of strain on the network, or even malfunction.
A SIM can only be "effectively" cloned if the original was never used afterwards. If both the Original SIM and the Clone was used at the same time, the network will try and continuesly switch between the two cells its registered to, unless both are on the same cell. if both are on the same cell, further issues would happen.
I am not sayign that cloning is impossible, its just extremely unlikely.
I woudl think the most likely causes of this situation are: - Are you *sure* your partner is not recieving the calls? Really sure? - Maybe, if you visited another country (or performed roaming) there might be some residual temporary numbers assigned to your phone.
However, the way the records are kept, you shoudl find that its pretty easy for the phone company to determine what happend. Who made the phone call, what handset was in use, where the call was recieved.
Finally I do not know the laws of the US, but here in the UK, the first point of call if you think your phone has been cloned or if your believe that a crime has been committed regarding your phone is the POLICE.
In UK, if we recieve am abusive call, calling the phone company will not be any help. They will rightly ask you to contact the police first, and they will work with the police to resolve the matter.
This is somewhat happening in Europe. Here in UK we get charged tax based on how polluting our cars are. The more CO2 (and other factors), the more tax you pay.
This has caused a renewed intrest in Deisel, which has always been traditionally lower in its CO2 emmissions, and with Petrol Pumps now also using BioDeisel blends in their fuel, as a pilot (They cannot use 100% biodiesel, as most cars are not adjusted for that)
This policy means that you are not penalised for driving a desirable car, just penalised for driving a polluting car.
To give you an example, I own a Jaguar X-Type Deisel, a very desirable, and pretty powerfull, responsive car. Yet I pay less tax than some people who have a fairly ordinary car, simply because my car pollutes less than theirs.
Bad use of language. I did an "Al Gore", I am sorry.
I meant to say that, When microsoft started attacking Linux, it helped raise the awareness of Linux across many business. Not as a name, but what it does. For example when Microsoft said in their "get the facts" campaign that "Although Linux is 'free', it has higher TCO.....", A lot of companies didnt even KNOW that Linux is freely obtainable, and it helped achieve some thought put towards it.
At the place where I work, We use Linux for a lot of our servers, switching from NT/Solaris, with full support from Management. Management were only aware of Linux thanks to the Microsoft Get The Facts campaign, which led to further analysis, which prooved to them, that in OUR case, going with Linux/OpenSource results in LOWER TCO.
I am not a "Microsoft Apologist", but the argument you gave is not a fair comparison. I dont think Bill Gates has murdered anyone, or any other serious crime as such. They are a highly agreessive (probably tooo agressive) company, following Bill Gates original vision of "Microsoft on every computer". They may be a convicted monopolist, but please put it in context when comparing against Carnagie. I do not wish to hear a joke about Chairs here, please.
Secondly his donations for AIDS IS important. I like most "M$ Bashers" tried to see if there was any catches, or somethingin the money he has donated. But try as I might, I cannot see anythign that is beyond reasonable. He has donated money to help fight a terrible desease. Also looking at the donations it does go beyond just drugs, but also looks at the education required to actually help preventing it from occurring.
Sorry, but AIDS is a greater evil, and regardless of who, I am glad someone is providing some much needed funds and publicity to achieve that.
We can arguably critisize Microsoft regarding the quality and security of their products, and decisions. But we should not critisize the contribution of the donations.
In the long past, businesses in the United Kingdom, where I live, was responsible for starting the Slave Trade, transportign many africans to the Americas. Eventually when they realised that it was wrong (thanks to also some effective campaigns at home) They were the first to actively work on banning it.
People can change. And without sounding like a religious preacher, many people sin, not many people try to put it right.
He is a good businesman, and he has done a lot. Microsoft has become the leading Software company and OS. And made himself a lot of money. Yes he may have had monopoly advantage. Yes things are not cut and straight. But Micrsoft is not Enron. Rememeber that.
When Microsoft started, our current "friend", IBM, was considered evil.
Microsoft has done some strange businness practices, but has also helped spawn Linux, Opensource, Firefox, etc. I dont think Opensource would have got even half the amount of exposure had Microsoft not attacked it so vigorously.
SO in the future, in hindsight, we may even THANK Microsoft.
Finally Bill Gates may have gotten most of his fortune through Monopolistic Practises, but hhe has already pledges to give away 90% or more to charity, and as funds. If he does indeed do that, well woudlnt that be equal to the amount of money that he gained from being monopolistic?
If Microsoft were more "fair" as we wish, his fortune would be probably 10% of what it is. So in a way, he is giving away for good causes, exactly what he got through ill gotten gains?
Actually even a professional 8 Megapixel camera (Canon DSLRs) can get "better fidelity" IN PRACTICE than certain 35mm films, due to film issues such as grain at higher ISOs and better color dynamics. Notice I used the term IN PRACTICE. (read up on recent tests, where they have compared the latest CMOS based Sensors to various normal 35mm Film). There will be certain brands/types of film where 35mm will easily exceed a 16 Megapixel DSLR, but at the expense of very low ISO (ISO50).
I woudl like to see this technology with the Canon CMOS sensor, instead of CCD,as Canon's CMOS technology has certain advantages over CCD (very low noise, night photography)
Yes.. you just reflash it with the original firmware. there are many places which does it for you, or you may be able to do it, with the right equipement.
Sony Ericsson phones are technically ERICSSON phones (just have a bit of sony marketing).
SonyEricsson is a joint ventur between Sony, and ERicsson, Headquatered in London UK. Sony provides the money, Ericsson provides the tech.
This actually shows up a lot. SE phones (even the walkman brands) are the only "Sony" named Music Players, that does NOT support ATRAC, but does support MP3s, MP4 (AAC). and PROVIDED the phoen has not been buggered by Vodafone, et al, they are actually quite open in design. No excessive use of DRM (its there, but not REQUIRED for most things). No dumb ass "music locker" systems.. you simply copy MP3/AAC files into the folder, when you connect the phone to yoru computer as a USB mass storage device, or via Bluetooth/Infrared
Haha.. sorry i didnt mean we all drive jags! But i was tryign to say we tend to drive more effiecient cars.. which are still very powerfull! Actually i was thinking of getting the Passat, or the Skoda Octavia.. but my wife told me that she woudlnt get in one of those to save her life.. which is why i got the Jag..... she is ex wife now...
The base price of a Jaguar X-Type diesel is actually pretty much comparable to the other family cars there.... its not that much more.. I dont knwo the prices in USA. but the X-Type does start at £18k for the deisel.
and you can get cheaper deisel cars too. The point i was trying to make is.. you can get Reasonably Luxury/reasonably fast/reasonably powerfull/status.. whilst still being pretty economical and good for the environment.
There is no excuse to make cars that HAVE to consume tremendous amounts of fuel.
The engine is a Ford/Pegout/Citroen Duratorq Engine slightly modified by Jaguar, and has the following specs. Diesel Straight four Engine Direct Common Rail Injection 152 bhp, with an overboost up to 160bp in transient situations 2198cc Max Torque = 270lb/in2 of which 266 is available from 1800rpm 0-60 = 8.5secs Top Speed = 137mph Extra urban = 60mpg combined = 47.1mpg CO2 emmissions = 159 g/km (compared to 234 on 2.5l petrol)
As I said on another site:
I think as an economic environmentalist. That is, I believe the environment should be protected via economics. Pollute or otherwise damage the environment? Pay a tax based on the damage done. Generate clean power? No additional tax. That would apply to automobiles too; buy a clean-burning, efficient vehicle, and you should pay less tax than the guy in the 9 mpg H2. Coal plants would pay based on the pollution they put out; nuke plants for the cost of storing the nuclear waste. If this could be followed with reasonably accurate evaluations, then if nuke plants really are the way to go, economics should work to encourage their building. If wind is the big winner, money should flow that way. Don't have the government try to pick favorites (ethanol, hydrogen, hybrids, etc.)
Actually this already happens in the UK, and parts of europe. Previously we were taxed accoring to the size of the engine. That was initially "a good idea".
The previous system consisted of charging based on the size of the engine starting from £80 until you get to a 1600cc engine at the maximum £160. But this philosophy didnt really work, newer engines became more efficent, and an older 1600cc engine is far more polluting and less efficient than a newer one. And to be honest, a 1.6 is the mimum you would need for a reasonable family car, the old system was flawed. Secondly the old system seriously penalised you if you used a deisel engine, as they then to have higher cc, but are more effiecient.
So a few years ago, the rules were changed for new cars, that the Tax is based on CO2 emmissions. The more you emit, the more you pay (up to a fixed maximum). And the emmissions are checked on the yearly MOT roadworthiness tests that all owners of cars older than 3 years are legally required to do. This particular change has really fueled the demand for less polluting cars, especially deisels. But it doesnt nessasarily penalise you for desiring a nice car, just penalise you for having a polluting car. For example, I own a Jaguar X-Type Sports Saloon, with a 2.2l deisel engine. My sister owns a Mercedes A-Class 1.6 Petrol. I pay £130 in Road tax, my sister has to pay the full £172, simply because my car is far more efficient than hers in almost all ways, yet is a better performing car (higher MPG, less CO2 emmisions, higher power/HP).
Although i Love Pascal (i have been a Pascal programmer for years, starting with Turbo Pascal and moving to delphi). I am also equally a Java programmer..
Pascal is safer than C and can achieve equivelent performance. However, delphi, and its ancesters did allow you to override most checks. This is not possible in Java. Also Delphi (except the.net version) is NOT garbage collected for all objects, only strings. You do get the impression of garbage collection from the way Delphi works, but its only because the VCL uses a good heiracial model for its objects, to ensure objects are removed eventually, but if you do not use the VCL model, you will get memory leaks.
Finally Java uses soem run time optimisation that very few if any native code can implement. For example bounds checking is NOT always done if there is no need for it. For example where a counter exists and the counter only goes up, no lower bounds checking is done. If the JIT compiler can determine that the loop value will always be in the bounds of the array, NO bounds checking will be done at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, if you want a "girl" to see that rig of yours, you need to get her into your house first!!! (Oh, and dont think about flashing the iBook either!).
Seriously, anyone who thinks a computer can pick up girls, are seriously mistaken. In my experience, the most important things have also been (in descreasing order)
1. Smile
2. Humour
3. Personality
4. Looks
5. Money (Though can be a negative too)
6. Car (though can be a double edged sword.. I have a jag, some love it, some hate it)
7. Job
8. Family
9. Home.
.
.
.
.
103. Flash computer.
actually he said the calls were RECEIVED (incoming). if i called someone, and can tell that a person "accidently" answered the phone (whilst it was in their pocket) I would hang up, and try ringing again. I woudl not hold the call for an hour!
To be honest, it looks like his partner probably had another "partner".. who called that line "number witheld", and was just fobbing him off, sayign that his phone may be cloned. That seems the most likely situation.
(the fact the calls were INCOMMING, and the number was unavailable are the biggest clues)
Whereas you do make valid points which are very possibly true, you dont say why my point is nonsense. It is perfectly possible that both of us are right!
I told you, I worked for LogicaCMG, we provide manufacture Mobile Network equipment (Logica Mobile Networks). If you dont know who LogicaCMG is and the size of its involvement in Telecoms, well back in 2003, 75% of the worlds SMS all went through LogicaCMG Software. So now you know my experience, and expertise, let me continue.
WHen a plane that is so high up crosses a densely populated city with a high cell density A cellphone will attempt to log onto many of those cells at the same time. Both the phone and the cells on the network will see almost equal "signal strengths" (distance between plane and ground is greater than distqance between cells, litttle bit of elementary geometry required here.. sorry I dont have a picture decribing the phemonenom). As such the netowrk does some form of conflict resolution which is communication and processor intensive.
s the plane is flying at a high speed, its possibel the phone is connecting on and off to many cells in a short time (signals are weaker too), this causes a lot of strain on the network, sometimes causing it to go down temporarily as its automatically restarted.
Multiply this by 100 or more phones on a single plane, and you can see how much of a strain this can be on the network.
A network glitch like this looks bad to the operator, as customers on the ground are cut off their calls for a few seconds (there are some SLAs that operators have to publish here in regards to call disconnections)
Our reasearch was actually contracted by Orange, and O2 in 1997 to helpfind ways to improve the ability to deal with mobiles on planes affecting cells on the ground.
We have tested this phenomenon in our test labs many times to try and improve the systems.
Together with better switching algoritms on the cells, and also the use of PICO trancievers located on the plane itself, we believe we have found some solutions for operators.
But it is TRUE that the mobile networks were imforming the FAA and other airline bodies about this problem. Face it, they woudl me most happy for the extra income created when thier phones are used in the air, but currently their systems can break when they are.
Before anyone informs me that cells were being used in one of the 9/11 planes. The plane was flying low over an area with much lower cell density.
Yes, this was something I found shocking about the Cell Systems in USA, Canada (and even Sri Lanka). You have to pay to recieve a call or a text message (SriLanka doesnt charge to recieve a SMS). At one time there were many online systems where you can send a text for free, it really annoyed our USA friends no end, and we never understood why until we found out they were paying! We suddenly found some respect for our predatory telecoms companies here!
In Europe, additionally calling a typically costs mobile costs more, whilst in the US and Canada it can be a "local call". So the caller can call for free, and the reciever ends up paying, again an incentive for longer phone calls, with greater costs, and more profits!
Note i said SIM NUMBER.. not SIM ;)
it is possible, and indeed within the spec to have two SIMs attached to a phone number. When a call is recieved, both phone are alerted, and whoever "picks up" answers.
Each SIM NUMBER has to be unique. if two physical phones with the same SIM number connects, the system will not be abel to tell them apart, and will fault.
If a SIM is cloned in such a way that two different SIMs with different numbers have the same phone number, that "clone" would have to be created by the phone company (which would need to adjust their database), and therefore is an inside job, not by Mr Joe down the street.
Well, contacting the company they may be able to resolve the immeadiate problem of the bills, and issue a replacement SIM. The can only deal with abuse of the system, but not with a crime. Only the authorities can do that.
Here is a good example of a call I did very recently with T-Mobile, and BT. I started recieving abusive calls on both my Mobile, and my landline, with an anonymous number. I reported to both companies, who noted down the call, and ensured that evidence will be kept. then they asked me to contact the police with my details to take it further. They were unable to tell me who was doing it, without police intervention. hey both offered to change my number if I wished.
I contacted the police, and as part of the investigation, the POlice authorised a line monitor on both my lane line and my mobile, as well as records on the lines. I was then contacted by BT and T-Mobile seperately explaining how the line monitor works.
in some cases, BT may be able to respond to certain abuses quicker directly, as they own the entire network, including the lines going into your house. But with regard to a crime (which is what cloning/makign abusive calls are) they refer you to the police as well.
PS. I dont understand what part of my original post is "flamebait", as someone has modded it.
No. He shoudl contact the POLICE. I dont know how you do things in US. But in UK, thats the first point of call to ANY fraudulant or criminal use of a phone system.
If its a GSM phone, I very much doubt any cloning has occured for the following reasons.
BTW, I used to work for Logica, in the telecoms division, and have a LOT of knowledge of GSM systems, and how they work. I am also a T-Mobile (UK) customer.
Remember these facts:
- A GSM phone has a unique IMEI number.
- Each GSM phone has a unique SIM card with a unique SIM number. This SIM number is attacted on a central computer to your account.
- Although the SIM card does contain your number, it is many for informative, and not operational purposes.
When you switch on your phone and it logs onto your network, it sends its IMEI number, and its SIM number to the network. The network then looks up the SIM number and associates it with a number. As it stands, only one SIM number can ever be associated with a phone number. When i tried getting a new SIM to replace my aging SIM, the old one was disconnected before the new SIM was issued, as it is simply not possible to associate a number with two SIMs. You can associate a SIM with two or more numbers, but not the other way round.
If someone HAS cloned your SIM, and both phones are attached at the same time, the network would register a fault, as a SINGLE sim number is assiciated at two different locations. It woudl create a fault in the system which would prevent both yours and the clone SIM from working. This is actually one of the main reasons why Cellphones are not usable on Planes (even if it is prooven to be safe to the electronics). The phone woudl try to log onto multiple cells at the same time, causing a lot of strain on the network, or even malfunction.
A SIM can only be "effectively" cloned if the original was never used afterwards. If both the Original SIM and the Clone was used at the same time, the network will try and continuesly switch between the two cells its registered to, unless both are on the same cell. if both are on the same cell, further issues would happen.
I am not sayign that cloning is impossible, its just extremely unlikely.
I woudl think the most likely causes of this situation are:
- Are you *sure* your partner is not recieving the calls? Really sure?
- Maybe, if you visited another country (or performed roaming) there might be some residual temporary numbers assigned to your phone.
However, the way the records are kept, you shoudl find that its pretty easy for the phone company to determine what happend. Who made the phone call, what handset was in use, where the call was recieved.
Finally I do not know the laws of the US, but here in the UK, the first point of call if you think your phone has been cloned or if your believe that a crime has been committed regarding your phone is the POLICE.
In UK, if we recieve am abusive call, calling the phone company will not be any help. They will rightly ask you to contact the police first, and they will work with the police to resolve the matter.
I agree with everythign you have said.. and your logic is good. Yes we should react, otherwise we will wait forever.
The only problem is. The oil industry / Polluters are also applying the same logic, but for their means.
This is somewhat happening in Europe. Here in UK we get charged tax based on how polluting our cars are. The more CO2 (and other factors), the more tax you pay.
This has caused a renewed intrest in Deisel, which has always been traditionally lower in its CO2 emmissions, and with Petrol Pumps now also using BioDeisel blends in their fuel, as a pilot (They cannot use 100% biodiesel, as most cars are not adjusted for that)
This policy means that you are not penalised for driving a desirable car, just penalised for driving a polluting car.
To give you an example, I own a Jaguar X-Type Deisel, a very desirable, and pretty powerfull, responsive car. Yet I pay less tax than some people who have a fairly ordinary car, simply because my car pollutes less than theirs.
Bad use of language. I did an "Al Gore", I am sorry.
I meant to say that, When microsoft started attacking Linux, it helped raise the awareness of Linux across many business. Not as a name, but what it does. For example when Microsoft said in their "get the facts" campaign that "Although Linux is 'free', it has higher TCO.....", A lot of companies didnt even KNOW that Linux is freely obtainable, and it helped achieve some thought put towards it.
At the place where I work, We use Linux for a lot of our servers, switching from NT/Solaris, with full support from Management. Management were only aware of Linux thanks to the Microsoft Get The Facts campaign, which led to further analysis, which prooved to them, that in OUR case, going with Linux/OpenSource results in LOWER TCO.
I am not a "Microsoft Apologist", but the argument you gave is not a fair comparison. I dont think Bill Gates has murdered anyone, or any other serious crime as such. They are a highly agreessive (probably tooo agressive) company, following Bill Gates original vision of "Microsoft on every computer". They may be a convicted monopolist, but please put it in context when comparing against Carnagie. I do not wish to hear a joke about Chairs here, please.
Secondly his donations for AIDS IS important. I like most "M$ Bashers" tried to see if there was any catches, or somethingin the money he has donated. But try as I might, I cannot see anythign that is beyond reasonable. He has donated money to help fight a terrible desease. Also looking at the donations it does go beyond just drugs, but also looks at the education required to actually help preventing it from occurring.
Sorry, but AIDS is a greater evil, and regardless of who, I am glad someone is providing some much needed funds and publicity to achieve that.
We can arguably critisize Microsoft regarding the quality and security of their products, and decisions. But we should not critisize the contribution of the donations.
In the long past, businesses in the United Kingdom, where I live, was responsible for starting the Slave Trade, transportign many africans to the Americas. Eventually when they realised that it was wrong (thanks to also some effective campaigns at home) They were the first to actively work on banning it.
People can change. And without sounding like a religious preacher, many people sin, not many people try to put it right.
He is a good businesman, and he has done a lot. Microsoft has become the leading Software company and OS. And made himself a lot of money. Yes he may have had monopoly advantage. Yes things are not cut and straight. But Micrsoft is not Enron. Rememeber that.
When Microsoft started, our current "friend", IBM, was considered evil.
Microsoft has done some strange businness practices, but has also helped spawn Linux, Opensource, Firefox, etc. I dont think Opensource would have got even half the amount of exposure had Microsoft not attacked it so vigorously.
SO in the future, in hindsight, we may even THANK Microsoft.
Finally Bill Gates may have gotten most of his fortune through Monopolistic Practises, but hhe has already pledges to give away 90% or more to charity, and as funds. If he does indeed do that, well woudlnt that be equal to the amount of money that he gained from being monopolistic?
If Microsoft were more "fair" as we wish, his fortune would be probably 10% of what it is. So in a way, he is giving away for good causes, exactly what he got through ill gotten gains?
Points to consider
Actually even a professional 8 Megapixel camera (Canon DSLRs) can get "better fidelity" IN PRACTICE than certain 35mm films, due to film issues such as grain at higher ISOs and better color dynamics. Notice I used the term IN PRACTICE. (read up on recent tests, where they have compared the latest CMOS based Sensors to various normal 35mm Film). There will be certain brands/types of film where 35mm will easily exceed a 16 Megapixel DSLR, but at the expense of very low ISO (ISO50).
I woudl like to see this technology with the Canon CMOS sensor, instead of CCD,as Canon's CMOS technology has certain advantages over CCD (very low noise, night photography)
Yes.. you just reflash it with the original firmware. there are many places which does it for you, or you may be able to do it, with the right equipement.
erm.. no..
Sony Ericsson phones are technically ERICSSON phones (just have a bit of sony marketing).
SonyEricsson is a joint ventur between Sony, and ERicsson, Headquatered in London UK. Sony provides the money, Ericsson provides the tech.
This actually shows up a lot. SE phones (even the walkman brands) are the only "Sony" named Music Players, that does NOT support ATRAC, but does support MP3s, MP4 (AAC). and PROVIDED the phoen has not been buggered by Vodafone, et al, they are actually quite open in design. No excessive use of DRM (its there, but not REQUIRED for most things). No dumb ass "music locker" systems.. you simply copy MP3/AAC files into the folder, when you connect the phone to yoru computer as a USB mass storage device, or via Bluetooth/Infrared
Haha.. sorry i didnt mean we all drive jags! But i was tryign to say we tend to drive more effiecient cars.. which are still very powerfull! Actually i was thinking of getting the Passat, or the Skoda Octavia.. but my wife told me that she woudlnt get in one of those to save her life.. which is why i got the Jag.. ... she is ex wife now...
The base price of a Jaguar X-Type diesel is actually pretty much comparable to the other family cars there.... its not that much more.. I dont knwo the prices in USA. but the X-Type does start at £18k for the deisel.
and you can get cheaper deisel cars too. The point i was trying to make is.. you can get Reasonably Luxury/reasonably fast/reasonably powerfull/status.. whilst still being pretty economical and good for the environment.
There is no excuse to make cars that HAVE to consume tremendous amounts of fuel.
Well.. even better is my Jaguar X-Type 2.2l Diesel (Jaguar is also owned by Ford)
c s/performance_economy.htmc s/engine_technical.htm
;)
;)
Specs from:
http://www.jaguar.co.uk/uk/en/vehicles/x-type/spe
&
http://www.jaguar.co.uk/uk/en/vehicles/x-type/spe
The engine is a Ford/Pegout/Citroen Duratorq Engine slightly modified by Jaguar, and has the following specs.
Diesel Straight four Engine
Direct Common Rail Injection
152 bhp, with an overboost up to 160bp in transient situations
2198cc
Max Torque = 270lb/in2 of which 266 is available from 1800rpm
0-60 = 8.5secs
Top Speed = 137mph
Extra urban = 60mpg
combined = 47.1mpg
CO2 emmissions = 159 g/km (compared to 234 on 2.5l petrol)
This is what we drive in Europe!
Oh and did i say its a Jaguar
Actually this already happens in the UK, and parts of europe. Previously we were taxed accoring to the size of the engine. That was initially "a good idea".
The previous system consisted of charging based on the size of the engine starting from £80 until you get to a 1600cc engine at the maximum £160. But this philosophy didnt really work, newer engines became more efficent, and an older 1600cc engine is far more polluting and less efficient than a newer one. And to be honest, a 1.6 is the mimum you would need for a reasonable family car, the old system was flawed. Secondly the old system seriously penalised you if you used a deisel engine, as they then to have higher cc, but are more effiecient.
So a few years ago, the rules were changed for new cars, that the Tax is based on CO2 emmissions. The more you emit, the more you pay (up to a fixed maximum). And the emmissions are checked on the yearly MOT roadworthiness tests that all owners of cars older than 3 years are legally required to do. This particular change has really fueled the demand for less polluting cars, especially deisels. But it doesnt nessasarily penalise you for desiring a nice car, just penalise you for having a polluting car. For example, I own a Jaguar X-Type Sports Saloon, with a 2.2l deisel engine. My sister owns a Mercedes A-Class 1.6 Petrol. I pay £130 in Road tax, my sister has to pay the full £172, simply because my car is far more efficient than hers in almost all ways, yet is a better performing car (higher MPG, less CO2 emmisions, higher power/HP).
Maybe america shoudl adopt a similar approach?
Mac users ARE affected. I have seen it running on a MacOSX box running safari.
That was the pun. To sound like german
Although i Love Pascal (i have been a Pascal programmer for years, starting with Turbo Pascal and moving to delphi). I am also equally a Java programmer..
.net version) is NOT garbage collected for all objects, only strings. You do get the impression of garbage collection from the way Delphi works, but its only because the VCL uses a good heiracial model for its objects, to ensure objects are removed eventually, but if you do not use the VCL model, you will get memory leaks.
Pascal is safer than C and can achieve equivelent performance. However, delphi, and its ancesters did allow you to override most checks. This is not possible in Java. Also Delphi (except the
Finally Java uses soem run time optimisation that very few if any native code can implement. For example bounds checking is NOT always done if there is no need for it. For example where a counter exists and the counter only goes up, no lower bounds checking is done. If the JIT compiler can determine that the loop value will always be in the bounds of the array, NO bounds checking will be done at all.
Its funny, but us native "english" (ie those from england) actually can still read that even without havign to pause!
Maybe us english are more aware of other peoples use of spelling that other users of english?
Because maybe "restart the computer" is not as good an idea in Linux and is Windows?