I think it's more the irrationality of your argument that's the problem.
You're making Sony out to be somewhat competent in taking their time bringing this all back up and taking longer discovering further intrusion their systems, when the real incompetence lies in the fact that somewhat got so deep into their systems in the first place without them even batting an eyelid.
It doesn't matter how careful they are about bringing things back up slowly (although I disagree, I do not believe it need take as long as it is- it can be done far quicker with just as much certainty regardless), it should never have got that bad in the first place.
My bet? Their disaster recovery plan and implementation is as fucking useless as their security policies and procedures. That's what there is absolutely no excuse for other than sheer and outright incompetence. I've never worked anywhere where a disaster recovery plan that can take weeks in even the worst case scenario to get things back up and running would ever be remotely acceptable, even for just internal company use, let alone to paying customers. No, I don't think they even have considered disaster recovery prior to this happening at all in fact.
That and whilst the iPhone overtook the Blackberry in marketshare early last year, Blackberrys pulled back ahead of the iPhone again a month or two later and held the lead until year end. The iPhone may have pulled ahead again now, but either way, being able to pull back ahead of Apple and hold that lead for around 9 months isn't really the sign of a dying company.
3D is just a scam, I didn't really watch Avatar in 3D and enjoy it far more than when I watched it in 2D, nope, that was all just part of my imagination.
Really, this is one of the more fucking retarded Slashdot stories I've seen in a while, the article can be summed up entirely as:
"3D is a scam, because I, Mr Random Nobody, says so. End of."
Sure 3D isn't brilliant everywhere, some attempts at it are pretty naff, sure sometimes it's misused, but so is audio particularly the likes of surround sound, so are special effects, so is colour. It's a tool, and like any tool, when used right, it can be pretty effective. But a scam? That's like saying a hammer is a scam because you can't screw screws into the wall with it when you try. It'd help if there was anything in the article other than his mere reiteration of his personal opinion that it's a scam and absolutely nothing more than that backing up his point.
The guy is a douche of the highest order, but the Slashdot editors moreso for letting such utter shite through. If someone is going to suggest something is a scam, they at least need to explain why. People spouting unfounded shite without an ounce of evidence to back up their point is what I expect from the comments, not the story... I know, I must be new here.
Did you actually read the post I was replying to? -
"But yet still has the fire power to destroy the world several times over... Not to mention they have been creating larger and larger conventional weapons that rival that of atomic ones."
Er, so what nothing. I was just pointing out that his suggestion that conventional weapons rivalling atomic weapons is completely and utterly wrong, nothing more, nothing less. Try following the thread next time, that way you wont have to get all pissy over nothing.
On the contrary, if you read the IAEA reports you'll actually see there's not enough evidence to say that Iran is NOT making nuclear weapons because Iran has refused access to key facilities where IAEA inspectors believe nuclear weapons could be being made.
When Iran blocks access to facilities capable of producing nuclear weapons, it's not a fair assumption to believe that they may in fact be building nuclear weapons.
Sure we don't have absolute proof Iran is making nuclear weapons, but Iran's actions are most certainly not that of a state trying to demonstrate it's nuclear process is entirely peaceful as it claims. Even Mohammed El Baradei who was fairly lenient on the Iranian regime when he was in charge of the IAEA got fed up with them towards the end and started to suggest it's quite possible they could have a covert nuclear weapons programme- from someone like him who usually gives the benefit of the doubt, that's quite damning in itself and he wouldn't have made such comments without having a reasonable belief that that's the case.
But either way what is certain is that what you claim isn't true- that there is no evidence. There is evidence, it's just quite weak (it does go beyond mere refusal of access- Iran hasn't accounted for some quantities of enriched nuclear materials, and refuses to do so for example), what there also certainly isn't is evidence to the counter- that their programme is entirely peaceful.
Personally? I think Iran is in the wrong either way, if it really is entirely for civilian purposes it's nuclear programme then why be so difficult about proving it? Why not just allow inspectors full access and account for all the enriched uranium and embarass it's detractors by proving them wrong? Why create massive international tension over something as simple as allowing objective international inspectors access? It's playing on people like yourself to defend it with their naivety, often bred from anti-American sentiment that Iran is relying on to keep the pressure away from it's overly secretive nuclear programme.
I'm intrigued, what is your profession? I mean, you seem to actually believe absolute zero defect software development is always feasible, so I'm intrigued to know what your background is because obviously it's a profession that takes years to master and can be quite complex, yet, you've apparently mastered it to such an extent that you would never ever miss a problem or do it wrong.
I mean, what is this truly masterful trade of yours? Hamburger flipping perchance?
I'm from Europe, the UK in fact, and have travelled to Canada about 15 times in the last 5 years. Our currency really was strong 5 years ago, and to me even the US dollar was a joke, let alone the Canadian dollar- I think at peak I was getting around $2.40 CAD to £1.00 GBP. My girlfriend is Canadian and living in the UK with me, but still has her Canadian student loan to pay off.
Whilst the British pound is still stronger than the Euro and both Dollars, even we, as a comfortably above average income couple find Canada terribly expensive now, and certainly we haven't been able to afford to travel there in over a year, and likely wont for the rest of this year. Of course, her loan has also become more painful to pay off, because in the last 5 years, the pound has declined around 25% - 30% against the Canadian dollar, which means she has to pay that much more back in British pounds to pay off her loan now.
So if we, having family over there meaning we don't have hotel costs, and having well above average income between us struggle to justify the expense of travelling to Canada I wouldn't expect so many Europeans over there either- certainly far less than you used to get.
I love your country, and I love the people in it, but I think right now you're more likely to be travelling to places like Europe with the increased strength of your currency, rather than vice versa. In a way I wonder if perhaps I should've moved to Canada with her rather than vice versa, but as is always the case these things change, in another 5 years it could well be the other way round.
Regardless your country is very strong economically, you have a sound financial system, a ton of natural resources, vast amounts of room to grow your population and industries, and you have a lot of talent. You're well respected internationally, and you're a nation that understands well the balance between doing the right thing militarily, and not. People talk about India and China, as the next big up and comers, but I think Canada is more likely- you have the talent and resources, without any of the vast swathes of poverty and internal political strife.
I'll drink to Canada, but I think I'll have to do it from a pub over here for a few more years yet. But if I could give you any advice, it's to travel, and travel now. I travelled much across the globe during the years when the pound was at the $2+ mark and I loved it, it's only now the pound and euro has weakened I realised how much we had, and how much we've lost in terms of the ability to do that so comfortably, and so frequently. When your currency is strong, make the most of it whilst you can!
Nothing groundbreaking about it sure, but it was better than Black Ops at least, although that was largely by virtue of the fact Black Ops was by far the worst CoD game to date.
It was fairly fun to play through, the multiplayer is good though- again, much more to it than CoD's now rather dull repetitive multiplayer mode.
So sure it was certainly a CoD clone, but one that was better than CoD is nowadays, although given the series decline you may take that as you will- or in other words, to sum up, not groundbreaking, but a fun game nonetheless and certainly not a terribly game as a result either.
One thing I did like is the interesting scenarios posed in some of the in game literature and such, sometimes they were silly, other times they gave you a quick chuckle as they seemed almost eerily prophetic in terms of cause- talk of oil reaching $150 a barrel in a year or two at a time just when oil is actually heading along that kind of trend because the Libya crisis broke out just around the time of the games release.
I used to believe this too, in fact, I even went to try to argue the point, only when I did, and started sourcing my viewpoint, I discovered I was in fact wrong.
Even the largest conventional weapons don't even come close to nuclear weapons in terms of their destructive power.
So the biggest conventional weapons are still literally actually orders of magnitude smaller than even the most primitive nuclear weapons, and even when you detonate an absolute shit load of conventional explosive material by accident- so much that you could never even create a viable bomb with it due to it's size, as per those listed in my first link, you still struggle to even approach the devastation of a primitive nuclear weapon.
So no, conventional weapons don't even come close to rivalling atomic ones I'm afraid.
But that wont happen in Britain, our political parties recognise that Murdoch's media is an election ticket and so wont do anything to piss him off.
Rather than work together to slap down his horribly criminal organisation they would focus on working to please him so he might grant them the next election result.
Because yes, the British population is that fucking stupid, that is, stupid enough to read his trash in the first place.
Worse the Lib Dems were actually going to slap down his Sky takeover, but Vince Cable fucked it up by being honest to some Telegraph reporters who caught him out, and now it's in the hands of a Conservative Murdoch puppet instead, meaning it'll be authorised and his influence will only increase.
I wondered the same, but Google Video has always been much less restricted than YouTube in terms of content.
Unless it's changed one example that comes to mind is that YouTube never used to allow the raw unedited footage of the Sknyliv airshow disaster, yet Google video did.
So even if they moved it across I suspect there is some content that would be lost forever, which is bad news for anyone wanting to see what the real aftermath of a fighter jet crashing into a crowd is. You know, just in case you ever needed to. On a serious note though I suspect there are many many more things that would be lost once YouTube vastly stricter restrictions come into play.
Or in other words, YouTube is basically just a kids playground, Google videos was actually a relatively unfiltered video archive.
Well, that and the fact that just because a US judge rules a global non-compete agreement lawful doesn't mean that it is actually lawful globally.
So in other words, the "anywhere in the world" claim is utter bullshit. There are plenty of countries where such non-compete agreements are completely unenforcable such as many European countries that don't cater to these things.
In countries where non-compete agreements aren't enforcable it's done based on the concept that a company should be willing to treat people well enough to be worth them staying, and if they don't, well, that's the risk the company takes it not treating their staff well enough to keep them.
Thankfully US judges don't have global jurisdiction, and this is entirely a US only issue, not a "global ban".
It's not oversubscription, it's just poor quality lines, whilst the distance by cable is only 2km the line noise is pretty bad and BT wont replace the lines unless they break completely, ADSL2 would boost things a little to maybe 6mbps or so.
Cheers, gone up a bit from when I last had any work done then, but still not too bad, specifically I didn't realise root canal was only in the middle band.
"We just don't seem to have the culture of paying a lot of money to give our kids braces here;"
This makes no sense, dental care in the UK is free whilst you're in full time education, so usually up until the age of 18, and at worst 16, so there's no issue of paying money to give kids braces.
It's only after that you pay, but it's NHS subsidised and there are fixed costs for treatments. The most expensive treatment course bracket is IIRC around £135 and covers things like root canal and other more complex procedures. Most treatments are much cheaper than that- around £30 I believe.
This is also why I don't really understand America's obsession with British teeth- far more people here have access to good dental care than in the US proportionally. Presumably it's something from the pre-NHS days i.e. much of the 1940s or before.
"ADSL2 may go some way to bringing faster broadband, but that's years behind schedule and I doubt it'll get here until 2020 at the earliest (by which time my 7Mbps line will look quite pathetic). "
If it's any consolation my new exchange at the housing I'm moving to had no ADSL2 rollout date, just as my current address has had ADSL2 rollout completed despite being more rural, I was rather dismayed by this when just this week BT announced the new exchange I'll be on is going straight to FTTH.
If you have no ADSL2 rollout date, it seems that it's quite possible it's because you're going straight to fibre. BT seem to only be sticking ADSL2 on exchanges they have no plans to up to FTTH any time soon, so right now it seems having an ADSL2 rollout date can actually sometimes be a curse, rather than a blessing.
I do feel your pain though, ADSL2 is long overdue at our current exchange, we can only get 2mbps at the best of times on ADSL Max, and it's been that way for a while.
"but I'm not sure if it's a good idea for Fuijitsu to have no competition."
It certainly can't be any worse than BT having no competition which has been the case in the vast majority of the UK for decades now, but I agree it's not ideal.
This said, I'm just about to move to a rural region of South Yorkshire, on first glance I'd be stuck with a crappy 2mbps ADSL Max line at best, just the other day though BT announced FTTC to be installed on the new exchange I'll be on, and apparently the Digital Region project already has fibre there. Here's hoping Fujitsu lay too, Fujitsu fibre would be one thing, but 3 competing fibre providers? I do agree that'd sure as hell be better.
My parents never had wifi issues at their house but since they had an extension to extend their kitchen into a large kitchen/living area they can no longer connect to the Wifi router in another room. That room is really a wifi deadzone now, it's not really the end of the world, but it's not really ideal either and is somewhat inconvenient- the whole idea of wifi being that you can roam, and so if you have to go back to another part of the house to use it then, well, that's somewhat of a problem.
For most people it's no big deal, but I would suggest anyone wanting an extension built where this may be a problem does actually consider it at least, because it's not something simple or cheap to change afterwards and you may find yourself back to wired or with an ugly wireless extender sat around the entraince to the new room.
I think you're probably being a little unfair on Concorde, it wasn't that uncomfy, having flown on it myself.
Whilst you didn't have the space of a 1st class seat, or even an economy class seat near an emergency exit (yes, you usually get MUCH more leg room there) on classic subsonic airliner, it was certainly far comfier than your usual economy class flight, in part because the seats were just much more nicely designed than the cheap economy class crap you get to this day.
It wasn't really just the cost that was prohibitive and led to it's downfall as such, although that was certainly a contributing factor, but largely politics. From the American's bitchiness about it not being an American invention making it difficult to even fly the thing onto American soil, to the British government subsidising British Airways purchase and taking a large portion of the profits causing BA to charge more than it would otherwise need to, to BA not being willing to hand over such an icon to Virgin who wanted to keep it going through to Airbus refusing to support it preferring to try and sell more of it's more profitable newer aircraft instead. Politics gave that plane a hard life, and was really what destroyed not just Concorde's continued hopes itself, but any willingness for any other airline, government, or manufacturer to invest in a similar programme.
This said there's some truth in the points made above in response to this article that being efficient is important- in the last 10 years we've seen a massive growth in support for improved efficiency, and certainly in the last 5 years those calls have grown ever stronger. It's unlikely Concorde would've survived calls for increased efficiency anyway. This said, had Concorde not been so crippled by politics all it's life, had more money been invested into supersonic passenger jets, it's quite possible the competition would've meant we'd have had cheaper, more efficient supersonic passenger jets by now too, but this is speculation, it could've gone either way.
One thing I do know is regardless of the politics, it was a beautiful aircraft, and I'll always have fond memories of it having flown in it, and grown up around Filton where much of it's early production and later maintenance was carried out. It would be wrong to keep it flying simply for nostalgia, but I do think a valuable field of competitive engineering was quite possibly lost, largely for little more than political bickering.
It took them 10 years to make TF2 as well. This article is really quite especially retarded, Valve have long had a history of missing release dates by a matter of years well before Steam even came about.
Yep, even my CEO who is a billionaire I wouldn't say is greedy, he's a fairly decent chap, despite his fortunes he's regularly away from home working to make more money.
It's not greedy, to him it's clearly a hobby, something he enjoys, he tries to increase his wealth just like a geek in an arcade tries to increase his high score- he doesn't want the money or have any use for the money beyond simply having a nice house, nice car, and no worries, he just wants to try and earn as much as he can simply for the challenge of doing so.
Yes, and they pay more at the cinema for the pleasure too whilst 2D film costs at the cinema haven't changed so it's not as if they're having their 3D subsidised by those who can only see 2D.
The whiners just want to spoil everyone elses enjoyment simply because they can't enjoy it themselves. Tough shit, some people have medical conditions that prevent them flying, diving, walking, talking, hearing and seeing. If we built our world around the lowest subset of what people can enjoy we'd all have to be strapped to a bed unconcious like a coma patient, so that coma patients don't feel left out.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a quick job though when speed is important because you're in potentially hostile territory.
That big Ocean between Pakistan and Afghanistan you mean?
I think it's more the irrationality of your argument that's the problem.
You're making Sony out to be somewhat competent in taking their time bringing this all back up and taking longer discovering further intrusion their systems, when the real incompetence lies in the fact that somewhat got so deep into their systems in the first place without them even batting an eyelid.
It doesn't matter how careful they are about bringing things back up slowly (although I disagree, I do not believe it need take as long as it is- it can be done far quicker with just as much certainty regardless), it should never have got that bad in the first place.
My bet? Their disaster recovery plan and implementation is as fucking useless as their security policies and procedures. That's what there is absolutely no excuse for other than sheer and outright incompetence. I've never worked anywhere where a disaster recovery plan that can take weeks in even the worst case scenario to get things back up and running would ever be remotely acceptable, even for just internal company use, let alone to paying customers. No, I don't think they even have considered disaster recovery prior to this happening at all in fact.
That and whilst the iPhone overtook the Blackberry in marketshare early last year, Blackberrys pulled back ahead of the iPhone again a month or two later and held the lead until year end. The iPhone may have pulled ahead again now, but either way, being able to pull back ahead of Apple and hold that lead for around 9 months isn't really the sign of a dying company.
3D is just a scam, I didn't really watch Avatar in 3D and enjoy it far more than when I watched it in 2D, nope, that was all just part of my imagination.
Really, this is one of the more fucking retarded Slashdot stories I've seen in a while, the article can be summed up entirely as:
"3D is a scam, because I, Mr Random Nobody, says so. End of."
Sure 3D isn't brilliant everywhere, some attempts at it are pretty naff, sure sometimes it's misused, but so is audio particularly the likes of surround sound, so are special effects, so is colour. It's a tool, and like any tool, when used right, it can be pretty effective. But a scam? That's like saying a hammer is a scam because you can't screw screws into the wall with it when you try. It'd help if there was anything in the article other than his mere reiteration of his personal opinion that it's a scam and absolutely nothing more than that backing up his point.
The guy is a douche of the highest order, but the Slashdot editors moreso for letting such utter shite through. If someone is going to suggest something is a scam, they at least need to explain why. People spouting unfounded shite without an ounce of evidence to back up their point is what I expect from the comments, not the story... I know, I must be new here.
Did you actually read the post I was replying to? -
"But yet still has the fire power to destroy the world several times over... Not to mention they have been creating larger and larger conventional weapons that rival that of atomic ones."
Er, so what nothing. I was just pointing out that his suggestion that conventional weapons rivalling atomic weapons is completely and utterly wrong, nothing more, nothing less. Try following the thread next time, that way you wont have to get all pissy over nothing.
On the contrary, if you read the IAEA reports you'll actually see there's not enough evidence to say that Iran is NOT making nuclear weapons because Iran has refused access to key facilities where IAEA inspectors believe nuclear weapons could be being made.
When Iran blocks access to facilities capable of producing nuclear weapons, it's not a fair assumption to believe that they may in fact be building nuclear weapons.
Sure we don't have absolute proof Iran is making nuclear weapons, but Iran's actions are most certainly not that of a state trying to demonstrate it's nuclear process is entirely peaceful as it claims. Even Mohammed El Baradei who was fairly lenient on the Iranian regime when he was in charge of the IAEA got fed up with them towards the end and started to suggest it's quite possible they could have a covert nuclear weapons programme- from someone like him who usually gives the benefit of the doubt, that's quite damning in itself and he wouldn't have made such comments without having a reasonable belief that that's the case.
But either way what is certain is that what you claim isn't true- that there is no evidence. There is evidence, it's just quite weak (it does go beyond mere refusal of access- Iran hasn't accounted for some quantities of enriched nuclear materials, and refuses to do so for example), what there also certainly isn't is evidence to the counter- that their programme is entirely peaceful.
Personally? I think Iran is in the wrong either way, if it really is entirely for civilian purposes it's nuclear programme then why be so difficult about proving it? Why not just allow inspectors full access and account for all the enriched uranium and embarass it's detractors by proving them wrong? Why create massive international tension over something as simple as allowing objective international inspectors access? It's playing on people like yourself to defend it with their naivety, often bred from anti-American sentiment that Iran is relying on to keep the pressure away from it's overly secretive nuclear programme.
I'm intrigued, what is your profession? I mean, you seem to actually believe absolute zero defect software development is always feasible, so I'm intrigued to know what your background is because obviously it's a profession that takes years to master and can be quite complex, yet, you've apparently mastered it to such an extent that you would never ever miss a problem or do it wrong.
I mean, what is this truly masterful trade of yours? Hamburger flipping perchance?
I'm from Europe, the UK in fact, and have travelled to Canada about 15 times in the last 5 years. Our currency really was strong 5 years ago, and to me even the US dollar was a joke, let alone the Canadian dollar- I think at peak I was getting around $2.40 CAD to £1.00 GBP. My girlfriend is Canadian and living in the UK with me, but still has her Canadian student loan to pay off.
Whilst the British pound is still stronger than the Euro and both Dollars, even we, as a comfortably above average income couple find Canada terribly expensive now, and certainly we haven't been able to afford to travel there in over a year, and likely wont for the rest of this year. Of course, her loan has also become more painful to pay off, because in the last 5 years, the pound has declined around 25% - 30% against the Canadian dollar, which means she has to pay that much more back in British pounds to pay off her loan now.
So if we, having family over there meaning we don't have hotel costs, and having well above average income between us struggle to justify the expense of travelling to Canada I wouldn't expect so many Europeans over there either- certainly far less than you used to get.
I love your country, and I love the people in it, but I think right now you're more likely to be travelling to places like Europe with the increased strength of your currency, rather than vice versa. In a way I wonder if perhaps I should've moved to Canada with her rather than vice versa, but as is always the case these things change, in another 5 years it could well be the other way round.
Regardless your country is very strong economically, you have a sound financial system, a ton of natural resources, vast amounts of room to grow your population and industries, and you have a lot of talent. You're well respected internationally, and you're a nation that understands well the balance between doing the right thing militarily, and not. People talk about India and China, as the next big up and comers, but I think Canada is more likely- you have the talent and resources, without any of the vast swathes of poverty and internal political strife.
I'll drink to Canada, but I think I'll have to do it from a pub over here for a few more years yet. But if I could give you any advice, it's to travel, and travel now. I travelled much across the globe during the years when the pound was at the $2+ mark and I loved it, it's only now the pound and euro has weakened I realised how much we had, and how much we've lost in terms of the ability to do that so comfortably, and so frequently. When your currency is strong, make the most of it whilst you can!
Nothing groundbreaking about it sure, but it was better than Black Ops at least, although that was largely by virtue of the fact Black Ops was by far the worst CoD game to date.
It was fairly fun to play through, the multiplayer is good though- again, much more to it than CoD's now rather dull repetitive multiplayer mode.
So sure it was certainly a CoD clone, but one that was better than CoD is nowadays, although given the series decline you may take that as you will- or in other words, to sum up, not groundbreaking, but a fun game nonetheless and certainly not a terribly game as a result either.
One thing I did like is the interesting scenarios posed in some of the in game literature and such, sometimes they were silly, other times they gave you a quick chuckle as they seemed almost eerily prophetic in terms of cause- talk of oil reaching $150 a barrel in a year or two at a time just when oil is actually heading along that kind of trend because the Libya crisis broke out just around the time of the games release.
I used to believe this too, in fact, I even went to try to argue the point, only when I did, and started sourcing my viewpoint, I discovered I was in fact wrong.
Even the largest conventional weapons don't even come close to nuclear weapons in terms of their destructive power.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions#Rank_order_of_largest_conventional_explosions.2Fdetonations_by_magnitude
Note that the largest conventional explosion of all time sits at 6 - 7kt of TNT, in contrast, something like a MOAB sits at 11t of TNT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB
In contrast, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima- the first type of nuclear weapon around, well below the yields of modern designs yielded 13 - 18kt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
So the biggest conventional weapons are still literally actually orders of magnitude smaller than even the most primitive nuclear weapons, and even when you detonate an absolute shit load of conventional explosive material by accident- so much that you could never even create a viable bomb with it due to it's size, as per those listed in my first link, you still struggle to even approach the devastation of a primitive nuclear weapon.
So no, conventional weapons don't even come close to rivalling atomic ones I'm afraid.
But that wont happen in Britain, our political parties recognise that Murdoch's media is an election ticket and so wont do anything to piss him off.
Rather than work together to slap down his horribly criminal organisation they would focus on working to please him so he might grant them the next election result.
Because yes, the British population is that fucking stupid, that is, stupid enough to read his trash in the first place.
Worse the Lib Dems were actually going to slap down his Sky takeover, but Vince Cable fucked it up by being honest to some Telegraph reporters who caught him out, and now it's in the hands of a Conservative Murdoch puppet instead, meaning it'll be authorised and his influence will only increase.
I wondered the same, but Google Video has always been much less restricted than YouTube in terms of content.
Unless it's changed one example that comes to mind is that YouTube never used to allow the raw unedited footage of the Sknyliv airshow disaster, yet Google video did.
So even if they moved it across I suspect there is some content that would be lost forever, which is bad news for anyone wanting to see what the real aftermath of a fighter jet crashing into a crowd is. You know, just in case you ever needed to. On a serious note though I suspect there are many many more things that would be lost once YouTube vastly stricter restrictions come into play.
Or in other words, YouTube is basically just a kids playground, Google videos was actually a relatively unfiltered video archive.
"Beware younglings, for ctrl+c or cmd+c may invoke the dark ones"
Pfft, "dark ones", that's nothing, wait until you see what kind of monstrosity right click + copy invokes.
Well, that and the fact that just because a US judge rules a global non-compete agreement lawful doesn't mean that it is actually lawful globally.
So in other words, the "anywhere in the world" claim is utter bullshit. There are plenty of countries where such non-compete agreements are completely unenforcable such as many European countries that don't cater to these things.
In countries where non-compete agreements aren't enforcable it's done based on the concept that a company should be willing to treat people well enough to be worth them staying, and if they don't, well, that's the risk the company takes it not treating their staff well enough to keep them.
Thankfully US judges don't have global jurisdiction, and this is entirely a US only issue, not a "global ban".
It's not oversubscription, it's just poor quality lines, whilst the distance by cable is only 2km the line noise is pretty bad and BT wont replace the lines unless they break completely, ADSL2 would boost things a little to maybe 6mbps or so.
Cheers, gone up a bit from when I last had any work done then, but still not too bad, specifically I didn't realise root canal was only in the middle band.
Looked up the full details here:
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1781.aspx?categoryid=74&subcategoryid=742
Didn't realise the treatment course period lasted 2 months either.
"We just don't seem to have the culture of paying a lot of money to give our kids braces here;"
This makes no sense, dental care in the UK is free whilst you're in full time education, so usually up until the age of 18, and at worst 16, so there's no issue of paying money to give kids braces.
It's only after that you pay, but it's NHS subsidised and there are fixed costs for treatments. The most expensive treatment course bracket is IIRC around £135 and covers things like root canal and other more complex procedures. Most treatments are much cheaper than that- around £30 I believe.
This is also why I don't really understand America's obsession with British teeth- far more people here have access to good dental care than in the US proportionally. Presumably it's something from the pre-NHS days i.e. much of the 1940s or before.
"ADSL2 may go some way to bringing faster broadband, but that's years behind schedule and I doubt it'll get here until 2020 at the earliest (by which time my 7Mbps line will look quite pathetic). "
If it's any consolation my new exchange at the housing I'm moving to had no ADSL2 rollout date, just as my current address has had ADSL2 rollout completed despite being more rural, I was rather dismayed by this when just this week BT announced the new exchange I'll be on is going straight to FTTH.
If you have no ADSL2 rollout date, it seems that it's quite possible it's because you're going straight to fibre. BT seem to only be sticking ADSL2 on exchanges they have no plans to up to FTTH any time soon, so right now it seems having an ADSL2 rollout date can actually sometimes be a curse, rather than a blessing.
I do feel your pain though, ADSL2 is long overdue at our current exchange, we can only get 2mbps at the best of times on ADSL Max, and it's been that way for a while.
"but I'm not sure if it's a good idea for Fuijitsu to have no competition."
It certainly can't be any worse than BT having no competition which has been the case in the vast majority of the UK for decades now, but I agree it's not ideal.
This said, I'm just about to move to a rural region of South Yorkshire, on first glance I'd be stuck with a crappy 2mbps ADSL Max line at best, just the other day though BT announced FTTC to be installed on the new exchange I'll be on, and apparently the Digital Region project already has fibre there. Here's hoping Fujitsu lay too, Fujitsu fibre would be one thing, but 3 competing fibre providers? I do agree that'd sure as hell be better.
Yes it can be a real pain in the arse.
My parents never had wifi issues at their house but since they had an extension to extend their kitchen into a large kitchen/living area they can no longer connect to the Wifi router in another room. That room is really a wifi deadzone now, it's not really the end of the world, but it's not really ideal either and is somewhat inconvenient- the whole idea of wifi being that you can roam, and so if you have to go back to another part of the house to use it then, well, that's somewhat of a problem.
For most people it's no big deal, but I would suggest anyone wanting an extension built where this may be a problem does actually consider it at least, because it's not something simple or cheap to change afterwards and you may find yourself back to wired or with an ugly wireless extender sat around the entraince to the new room.
I think you're probably being a little unfair on Concorde, it wasn't that uncomfy, having flown on it myself.
Whilst you didn't have the space of a 1st class seat, or even an economy class seat near an emergency exit (yes, you usually get MUCH more leg room there) on classic subsonic airliner, it was certainly far comfier than your usual economy class flight, in part because the seats were just much more nicely designed than the cheap economy class crap you get to this day.
It wasn't really just the cost that was prohibitive and led to it's downfall as such, although that was certainly a contributing factor, but largely politics. From the American's bitchiness about it not being an American invention making it difficult to even fly the thing onto American soil, to the British government subsidising British Airways purchase and taking a large portion of the profits causing BA to charge more than it would otherwise need to, to BA not being willing to hand over such an icon to Virgin who wanted to keep it going through to Airbus refusing to support it preferring to try and sell more of it's more profitable newer aircraft instead. Politics gave that plane a hard life, and was really what destroyed not just Concorde's continued hopes itself, but any willingness for any other airline, government, or manufacturer to invest in a similar programme.
This said there's some truth in the points made above in response to this article that being efficient is important- in the last 10 years we've seen a massive growth in support for improved efficiency, and certainly in the last 5 years those calls have grown ever stronger. It's unlikely Concorde would've survived calls for increased efficiency anyway. This said, had Concorde not been so crippled by politics all it's life, had more money been invested into supersonic passenger jets, it's quite possible the competition would've meant we'd have had cheaper, more efficient supersonic passenger jets by now too, but this is speculation, it could've gone either way.
One thing I do know is regardless of the politics, it was a beautiful aircraft, and I'll always have fond memories of it having flown in it, and grown up around Filton where much of it's early production and later maintenance was carried out. It would be wrong to keep it flying simply for nostalgia, but I do think a valuable field of competitive engineering was quite possibly lost, largely for little more than political bickering.
It took them 10 years to make TF2 as well. This article is really quite especially retarded, Valve have long had a history of missing release dates by a matter of years well before Steam even came about.
Yep, even my CEO who is a billionaire I wouldn't say is greedy, he's a fairly decent chap, despite his fortunes he's regularly away from home working to make more money.
It's not greedy, to him it's clearly a hobby, something he enjoys, he tries to increase his wealth just like a geek in an arcade tries to increase his high score- he doesn't want the money or have any use for the money beyond simply having a nice house, nice car, and no worries, he just wants to try and earn as much as he can simply for the challenge of doing so.
Yes, and they pay more at the cinema for the pleasure too whilst 2D film costs at the cinema haven't changed so it's not as if they're having their 3D subsidised by those who can only see 2D.
The whiners just want to spoil everyone elses enjoyment simply because they can't enjoy it themselves. Tough shit, some people have medical conditions that prevent them flying, diving, walking, talking, hearing and seeing. If we built our world around the lowest subset of what people can enjoy we'd all have to be strapped to a bed unconcious like a coma patient, so that coma patients don't feel left out.