7.8 million households, representing 6.8 percent of homes with television, have not upgraded any of their television sets for the transition. Those homes would be unable to receive any TV signals after the switch.
and
Subscribers to cable or satellite television will not be affected by the transition.
which would suggest 100 million (ish) households with terrestrial TV and the tiny remainder (I'm guessing) on cable.
Wikipedia links to some numbers from 2006 that suggest 60% of "homes" subscribe to basic cable and an effective 100% cable coverage ratio.
The number of homes seems low (I'd have expected ~160 million and the cable coverage way too high (the numbers actually suggest > 100%, which must mean that apples and oranges are being compared somewhere).
... from companies that are likely to survive the depression...
There's your problem right there, guvnor! I'm sure that there'll be something called "GM" in 10 years time but I bet it's the result of someone buying up what's profitable at a liquidation sale.
You're not, but it won't stop the "Youtube is better than the BBC" brigade from whinging about it.
It's not too surprising when almost all of the coverage online has been of an "extra BBC tax", which isn't what Rose said at all (but which he probably should have made clearer that he wasn't saying). The register's summary was among the more balanced ones.
What hasn't been thought through would be how that extra bandwidth could be delivered. Where I live, even the cheapest ADSL deal will get me the fastest possible connection given the infrastructure currently in place. Something better than that would need something else, such as someone laying cable to where I live, building something like a Wimax network locally, or replacing existing telephone cables with something a bit more 21st century (actually - late 20th would be nice).
None of these things are going to happen for an extra tenner a month from the couple of dozen people locally who might care.
The answer to the first point (as already noted) is "yes it does". Whether there's ENOUGH information in there to route you from where you are to where you want to go depends on OSM's coverage of where you are, but there are ways to represent the necessary TYPEs of data.
The pat answer to the second is that you're free to set up your own mapping project with data available under whatever licence you choose. There's a reason why OSM's founders chose to licence it as they do - some people agree with that and some don't. If you don't; don't worry, collect your own data and you can do what you like with it.
Non-trolls that have read this far might want to have a look at these two pages which attempt to explain the current situation:
I've done some (as an example, one was "printing 4 photos to a page"), but they've always been very specific to a particular person / computer / range of installed software, so unfortunately I think that you'll need to create your own.
The next time that you get asked to "fix the computer again" try and put some notes together around the task that they're trying to accomplish. Print them out (title at the top, few words, big font, no formatting necessary) before you go, and keep a copy yourself for reference.
(in XP) CD writing is actually fine; it's DVDs that are the problem. Whilst it could be an "anti copying" mechanism I suspect it was just that they didn't get it finished in time, or it was an "anti compete" issue the same as MS not releasing AV software for Windows XP at its launch was.
From what I remember, ripping music in Windows Media Player not only defaults to their own.wma format, it also rips it with the "copy protection" flag enabled.
It's been a long time since I've used Windows Media Player (there are better alternatives even on Windows), but that sounds familiar. The trouble is, the likes of Apple and Real can be just as bad - they've got incentives to keep you on their formats too.
Like everything else in Windows, a third party program will always give you a better solution than the native Windows one.
Agreed - and if you set up media applications up front properly they won't keep fighting with each other. Just don't click "yes" on any "odd messages"!
That's a serious case of arrogance that you've got right there. Do you know what all "senior citizens" want? Perhaps you've asked them all? Shouldn't they make their own decisions?
What if they want to do a bit more than "check their mail/internet"? What if they want to use application XYZ that their friends do?
Sure there'll be something similar (and in many cases different but actually better) in the "free" world, but if it's not "exactly the same" won't you get the "why can't I run application XYZ" question?
The reason that I ask is that I've never seen a "senior" newbie user who doesn't have a requirement (or a perceived requirement) for the elusive "application XYZ", be it some crappy game, or some brand of technical software, or a bit of fluff that came with some hardware.
Actually, I wouldn't mess with the fonts but scale the desktop bigger by increasing the DPI setting (don't try and use 800*600; it'll just look rubbish).
...so much as all the garbage that gets installed by default when a machine leaves the shop (antivirus and ISP trials, and so on). Three of the last four "friends and family" housecalls I've done have been due to things like antivirus trials expiring (the other for what it's worth was "DVD writing is a bit crap in Windows XP" which was something that I couldn't do much about*).
Make sensible choices for web and email, ensure that plugins are properly installed for any media that they're going to use, make sure the text on the screen is BIG, and make sure that they know how to get a copy of anything that they want OFF the computer (not in case they press the wrong button, but because "pictures aren't pictures until they're printed out").
It's worth mentioning that the dodgier corners of the web do exist (if only because it tends not to be documented in mainstream "how-to" books, and they're going to find out sooner or later when they use an "innocent" search term that actually means something quite different now).
With the three or four genuinely "senior" PCs that I've set up over the years non-Windows has never been an option, either because there's always some Windows application or other that is "needed", or because all of their other friends and family use it and they're part of the support group too. If they were really just using email, office-type documents and a web browser, then some sort of "kiosk-mode" would be an option, but a suitable candidate hasn't appeared yet.
* this would have been a genuine "I'd use another OS to do that if I were you" opportunity, if it hadn't been for the "other needed software" on the machine as well.
Some (many?) large supermarkets in the UK still do use pneumatic tubes for shifting high-value paper notes from the tills quickly to a safe central area.
Just because an idea's an antique doesn't mean it's a bad one.
The way that he phrased the summary suggested not to me.
It read like he's got a central VPN server at the "corporate office" with the shops connecting to that. I would guess that shops can route to each other, but it's not going to help corporate office bandwidth if shop A can only get to shop B via the centre.
Don't knock the AC for being illiterate; at least he has grasped the basics of how energy transfer works, which is something that most of the "turn X off and save Y" brigade haven't.
I'd also be interested to know how a computer (or, ultimately, anything) could be "inefficient" at turned energy into heat. Perhaps it makes a lot of noise and emits energy that way, or has a chimney poking outside from one of the hot air vents? If a heater ultimately emits all of the energy put into it as heat, it's 100% efficient at doing so. What varies is the cost of the fuel used to convert into that heat.
o That the people trying to censor net access in this country are not just idiots, they're incompetent idiots.
o That the "blocks" that the major ISPs have in place are effectively useless; either they're incompetent as well, or (more likely) are paying lip-service to the whole idea by saying "yes, we subscribe to the IWF block-list" while using mechanisms a five-year-old could bypass.
o That Chris Morris was right.
Sometimes (as in the case of dodgy 70s album covers), this seems just a bit of a joke; but sometimes it isn't. During the early 90s spokesmen for the political wings of the terrorist organisations in the North of Ireland had to be re-voiced by actors, making interviews essentially impossible. I remember one occasion, after a particular gruesome bombing (many innocent people killed) when the spokesman concerned was able to hide behind the actor to get his message across without answering WHY his organisation supported this indiscriminate slaughter - the "censorship" rules had the exact opposite effect to what was intended.
For info (I'm in the UK and on one of the ISPs affected), it is possible to edit anonymously from an affected ISP via the HTTPS route.
Also (in case it isn't clear to anyone reading) access isn't blocked, so the regular main page comes up just fine - you just won't be able to edit other pages anonymously.
I really can't see what the ISPs/IWF are trying to achieve here - if it was to piss off lots of people and to suggest that an IWF block on a site can be easily circumvented, they've succeeded.
The "official" answer is that a current version of something like Ulysses is going to have lots of notes at the back trying to explain what on earth the author was on about, and that the text of these notes will have been added recently.
If you want to read the pre-1923 version of e.g. Ulysses, feel free:
And the relationship of an SCM system that no-one uses because it isn't finished to "online market share" (which changed largely because more people were at home rather than at work) was what exactly?
or now, "exam standards", the RSC has been busily putting its name around. Whichever news story happens next, you can bet the RSC will have a press release out about it (e.g. "Margaret Thatcher dies; petition for new Ice Cream flavour to be named after her").
If there are lots of people applying for one job, then there are always plenty of people equally able to do that job, and there is a need to remove some people from the list before interview.
In my experience, people who can't spell or are unaware of basic grammar get filtered out first. Some people are good at spelling; some bad, but when they've had a chance to check it bad spelling means "not only do I not know how to spell basic words, but I thought that you were so unimportant that I couldn't be bothered to check the spelling in my message".
Slashdot Mirror
Something doesn't add up here. The article says:
7.8 million households, representing 6.8 percent of homes with television, have not upgraded any of their television sets for the transition. Those homes would be unable to receive any TV signals after the switch.
and
Subscribers to cable or satellite television will not be affected by the transition.
which would suggest 100 million (ish) households with terrestrial TV and the tiny remainder (I'm guessing) on cable.
Wikipedia links to some numbers from 2006 that suggest 60% of "homes" subscribe to basic cable and an effective 100% cable coverage ratio.
The number of homes seems low (I'd have expected ~160 million and the cable coverage way too high (the numbers actually suggest > 100%, which must mean that apples and oranges are being compared somewhere).
So what are the real numbers?
... from companies that are likely to survive the depression ...
There's your problem right there, guvnor! I'm sure that there'll be something called "GM" in 10 years time but I bet it's the result of someone buying up what's profitable at a liquidation sale.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're not, but it won't stop the "Youtube is better than the BBC" brigade from whinging about it.
It's not too surprising when almost all of the coverage online has been of an "extra BBC tax", which isn't what Rose said at all (but which he probably should have made clearer that he wasn't saying). The register's summary was among the more balanced ones.
What hasn't been thought through would be how that extra bandwidth could be delivered. Where I live, even the cheapest ADSL deal will get me the fastest possible connection given the infrastructure currently in place. Something better than that would need something else, such as someone laying cable to where I live, building something like a Wimax network locally, or replacing existing telephone cables with something a bit more 21st century (actually - late 20th would be nice).
None of these things are going to happen for an extra tenner a month from the couple of dozen people locally who might care.
About the same number of people are watching highlight "event" broadcasts as before - topping out at about 14 million (of about 60) in the UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/26/wallace-and-gromit-lead-bbc-to-christmas-ratings-victory
That's not a hugely different number to any time in the last 20 years. The death of broadcast TV has been greatly exaggerated.
I read it, and what I saw was "Company A buys company B, after date C punters need to collect ISP email from mail.a.com instead of mail.b.com".
Doesn't seem like a "net neutrality" story (or indeed a story at all) to me.
Even by the standard of press releases it seemed to be a particularly rubbish and arrogant press release (and I'm someone who actually uses last.fm).
I'm not sure what it was doing here. What do the editors think this is - the BBC technology pages or something?
The answer to the first point (as already noted) is "yes it does". Whether there's ENOUGH information in there to route you from where you are to where you want to go depends on OSM's coverage of where you are, but there are ways to represent the necessary TYPEs of data.
The pat answer to the second is that you're free to set up your own mapping project with data available under whatever licence you choose. There's a reason why OSM's founders chose to licence it as they do - some people agree with that and some don't. If you don't; don't worry, collect your own data and you can do what you like with it.
Non-trolls that have read this far might want to have a look at these two pages which attempt to explain the current situation:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations
I've done some (as an example, one was "printing 4 photos to a page"), but they've always been very specific to a particular person / computer / range of installed software, so unfortunately I think that you'll need to create your own.
The next time that you get asked to "fix the computer again" try and put some notes together around the task that they're trying to accomplish. Print them out (title at the top, few words, big font, no formatting necessary) before you go, and keep a copy yourself for reference.
(in XP) CD writing is actually fine; it's DVDs that are the problem. Whilst it could be an "anti copying" mechanism I suspect it was just that they didn't get it finished in time, or it was an "anti compete" issue the same as MS not releasing AV software for Windows XP at its launch was.
From what I remember, ripping music in Windows Media Player not only defaults to their own .wma format, it also rips it with the "copy protection" flag enabled.
It's been a long time since I've used Windows Media Player (there are better alternatives even on Windows), but that sounds familiar. The trouble is, the likes of Apple and Real can be just as bad - they've got incentives to keep you on their formats too.
Like everything else in Windows, a third party program will always give you a better solution than the native Windows one.
Agreed - and if you set up media applications up front properly they won't keep fighting with each other. Just don't click "yes" on any "odd messages"!
That's you out of the will, then!
That's a serious case of arrogance that you've got right there. Do you know what all "senior citizens" want? Perhaps you've asked them all? Shouldn't they make their own decisions?
What if they want to do a bit more than "check their mail/internet"? What if they want to use application XYZ that their friends do?
Sure there'll be something similar (and in many cases different but actually better) in the "free" world, but if it's not "exactly the same" won't you get the "why can't I run application XYZ" question?
The reason that I ask is that I've never seen a "senior" newbie user who doesn't have a requirement (or a perceived requirement) for the elusive "application XYZ", be it some crappy game, or some brand of technical software, or a bit of fluff that came with some hardware.
+1 what he said.
Actually, I wouldn't mess with the fonts but scale the desktop bigger by increasing the DPI setting (don't try and use 800*600; it'll just look rubbish).
...so much as all the garbage that gets installed by default when a machine leaves the shop (antivirus and ISP trials, and so on). Three of the last four "friends and family" housecalls I've done have been due to things like antivirus trials expiring (the other for what it's worth was "DVD writing is a bit crap in Windows XP" which was something that I couldn't do much about*).
Make sensible choices for web and email, ensure that plugins are properly installed for any media that they're going to use, make sure the text on the screen is BIG, and make sure that they know how to get a copy of anything that they want OFF the computer (not in case they press the wrong button, but because "pictures aren't pictures until they're printed out").
It's worth mentioning that the dodgier corners of the web do exist (if only because it tends not to be documented in mainstream "how-to" books, and they're going to find out sooner or later when they use an "innocent" search term that actually means something quite different now).
With the three or four genuinely "senior" PCs that I've set up over the years non-Windows has never been an option, either because there's always some Windows application or other that is "needed", or because all of their other friends and family use it and they're part of the support group too. If they were really just using email, office-type documents and a web browser, then some sort of "kiosk-mode" would be an option, but a suitable candidate hasn't appeared yet.
* this would have been a genuine "I'd use another OS to do that if I were you" opportunity, if it hadn't been for the "other needed software" on the machine as well.
So it's genuine fast food then?
(sorry...)
Some (many?) large supermarkets in the UK still do use pneumatic tubes for shifting high-value paper notes from the tills quickly to a safe central area.
Just because an idea's an antique doesn't mean it's a bad one.
The way that he phrased the summary suggested not to me.
It read like he's got a central VPN server at the "corporate office" with the shops connecting to that. I would guess that shops can route to each other, but it's not going to help corporate office bandwidth if shop A can only get to shop B via the centre.
Don't knock the AC for being illiterate; at least he has grasped the basics of how energy transfer works, which is something that most of the "turn X off and save Y" brigade haven't.
I'd also be interested to know how a computer (or, ultimately, anything) could be "inefficient" at turned energy into heat. Perhaps it makes a lot of noise and emits energy that way, or has a chimney poking outside from one of the hot air vents? If a heater ultimately emits all of the energy put into it as heat, it's 100% efficient at doing so. What varies is the cost of the fuel used to convert into that heat.
Extend the hyperlink one word to the left (across "Britain's ...") and it makes sense.
FWIW, pictures!:
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/pressreleases/brainscan_images.htm
and the Uni press release:
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/pressreleases/skull.htm
o That the people trying to censor net access in this country are not just idiots, they're incompetent idiots.
o That the "blocks" that the major ISPs have in place are effectively useless; either they're incompetent as well, or (more likely) are paying lip-service to the whole idea by saying "yes, we subscribe to the IWF block-list" while using mechanisms a five-year-old could bypass.
o That Chris Morris was right.
Sometimes (as in the case of dodgy 70s album covers), this seems just a bit of a joke; but sometimes it isn't. During the early 90s spokesmen for the political wings of the terrorist organisations in the North of Ireland had to be re-voiced by actors, making interviews essentially impossible. I remember one occasion, after a particular gruesome bombing (many innocent people killed) when the spokesman concerned was able to hide behind the actor to get his message across without answering WHY his organisation supported this indiscriminate slaughter - the "censorship" rules had the exact opposite effect to what was intended.
For info (I'm in the UK and on one of the ISPs affected), it is possible to edit anonymously from an affected ISP via the HTTPS route.
Also (in case it isn't clear to anyone reading) access isn't blocked, so the regular main page comes up just fine - you just won't be able to edit other pages anonymously.
I really can't see what the ISPs/IWF are trying to achieve here - if it was to piss off lots of people and to suggest that an IWF block on a site can be easily circumvented, they've succeeded.
The "official" answer is that a current version of something like Ulysses is going to have lots of notes at the back trying to explain what on earth the author was on about, and that the text of these notes will have been added recently.
If you want to read the pre-1923 version of e.g. Ulysses, feel free:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4300
And the relationship of an SCM system that no-one uses because it isn't finished to "online market share" (which changed largely because more people were at home rather than at work) was what exactly?
It is as if Jeffrey Archer or Robert Maxwell got to be prime minister of Britain.
Jeffrey Archer probably says that he did.
All it means is that the RSC have got some new, rather active, PR people.
Whether it's Yorkshire Puddings:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/13/perfect_yorkshire_pud/
the ending of the Italian Job:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7756288.stm
or now, "exam standards", the RSC has been busily putting its name around. Whichever news story happens next, you can bet the RSC will have a press release out about it (e.g. "Margaret Thatcher dies; petition for new Ice Cream flavour to be named after her").
If there are lots of people applying for one job, then there are always plenty of people equally able to do that job, and there is a need to remove some people from the list before interview.
In my experience, people who can't spell or are unaware of basic grammar get filtered out first. Some people are good at spelling; some bad, but when they've had a chance to check it bad spelling means "not only do I not know how to spell basic words, but I thought that you were so unimportant that I couldn't be bothered to check the spelling in my message".