They didn't forget about it. FTA; "A regular class 4 or 6 card that’s capable of recording HD video will also be fast enough to play it back. The only advantage of a faster card for media is that syncing with your PC will be quicker." I don't really blame you for not making it all the way though the article though, it was at least three times as long as it needed to be to make it's point.
Thermal imaging cameras have been demonstrated to be able to see your ATM code for up to a couple of minutes after you typed it, for example. So it's not entirely infeasible to see residual heat traces from brief contact for some minutes after the event. Note I'm not saying it's possible with current technology; the drone would have to be pretty close, pretty soon after you ran through, be equipped with a pretty good thermal imaging rig, and have very compliant environmental conditions for it to be vaguely possible with today's technology, but it's far from the most outlandish tech you'll see in a movie.
P.S. according to this article, Google's self-driving car is probably considerably more expensive at around $250000 (£160000), although G don't release figures.
According to a TV report I saw on this, the point of the Oxford technology is that it's supposed to be much simpler and cheaper than existing implementations, with the development version costing only £5000, and projected price of a commercial version of just £100.
It would be nice if such the article mentioned the existence of comparable tech, such as Google's self-driving cars, and perhaps did some comparisons, but unfortunately being a science and technology journalist these days means copying and pasting press releases, so the journo in question probably actually does have such little interest in technology that he hasn't head of the Google initiative. Sad.
You come to Slashdot to complain about badly written blog posts? Have you even been here before? That's like going into a gay bar to bitch about homosexuality.
According to the article and comments on Ars Technica which I read earlier, the recovery partition can be moved to an external disk, and another fair chunk of space is supposed to be a trial of Office, which can presumably be removed. Those two things would get you to around 40GB free, which is about what you'd expect for an install of Windows on a 64GB disk.
I don't think they should be required to advertise how much space is actually available, however Microsoft should be looking to give people reasons to buy the Surface Pro; instead here's another reason not to. PR fail.
I saw this Ramen bowl with iPhone holder on The Register earlier, and I couldn't decide if it was for real or not. Thing is, if it is, I know someone I'd buy it for!
The telling thing about Windows 8 is that even the most rabidly pro-Microsoft people, when you look at their comments on Windows 8 as a desktop OS, they're basically saying "You can ignore Metro, and it's almost as good as Windows 7". I really haven't seen anybody try to claim that Windows 8 is a step forward over Windows 7 on the desktop. Since it was pretty obvious the Suface RT and it's expensive RT friends were going to be pretty niche, and not trouble the mainstream, affordable tablet market, it's a lose on the desktop and a lose on tablets, so I don't see how Microsoft can blame anyone but itself.
" By using its desktop operating system franchise as a lever, Microsoft will be able to enter the lower-specification end of the laptop market with a cost advantage which make make life difficult for former partners such as HP and Dell."
Yes, Microsoft won't have to pay for a Windows license. However since the Surface RT with keyboard is already more expensive than a low-end Ultrabook, and Microsoft will have to either keep a decent price differential between the RT and Pro, or withdraw the Surface RT from the market, I don't expect that the Surface Pro is going to be keenly priced enough to worry anybody. It will be priced up there with the mid-range 13" ultrabooks, but with worse battery life and a screen that's too small if you plan to use it primarily in laptop mode, it will be a niche purchase.
While your questions have some merit, I find it strange that with announcements like this, people always seem to assume that no thought or planning has gone into it whatsoever. Without any specific knowledge on the subject, I find it pretty likely that the answers to your questions are
a) No suitable onshore site exists. Abandoned mines have a risk of contamination if there is a leak, and would be too expensive to make safe. b) Cost-benefit analysis has been done and favoured the island over other options. Storing large amounts of electricity is a very expensive business. c) Island to be built in coastal waters outside any shipping lanes.
Agreed. It's obviously not meant to be used in the same way as an iPad or Nexus 7, as the author's comments seem to imply that he thinks (" it's way too big to easily handle" - duh), it's more a portable 20" all-in-one PC. I can think of uses for a 20" 4k tablet, whereas beyond "does it blend?" I'm coming up blank with the HapiFork.
This idea does have that "solution looking for a problem" feel to it, doesn't it? Glow-in-the-dark road markings would be nice, but in the part of the UK where I live, they seem to have trouble managing the basics like fixing pot-holes and re-profiling dangerous bends. I'd much rather they got on top of that stuff first, pothole-free roads would be plenty futuristic enough for me.
It's like they had to balance out the stupid lame, half-baked porn filter law they just announced with something that actually made a bit of sense. Although knowing our government as I do, I'll wait until I've seen the small print, before I assume that the headlines are actually in tune with the reality of the proposals.
Presumably Buffet is making the same assumptions as Murdoch did in putting The Times (UK) behind a paywall a couple of years ago, namely that a) a tiny number of paying subscribers brings in more money in fees than millions of freeloaders do in ad revenue, and b) hopefully many more major publications will follow suit sooner or later, thus making it harder for people to get quality content for free, and so increasing the chance that they'll decide to pay for their news. There is some evidence that paywalls work if done right, and are working for the New York Post, the evidence seems slightly more mixed for The Times, I guess we're a smaller market in the UK, so it will be harder to make it work here. Whether it will be true for the Washington Post remains to be seen, but it's not completely crazy.
Yes; organisations like Google are in the unenviable position of having to either a) devote a great deal of resources to looking into all these takedown requests to see if they are valid, or b) accept the takedown requests at face value, and wait to see if the person on the receiving end protest. Neither choice is good, but it might make a point to the studios if Google chose to take the latter course as far as these particular requests are concerned. And perhaps not be in too much of a hurry to restore the pages when the time comes either.
First paragraph of TFA says "We’ve written about the ridiculousness of automated Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requests before, including Microsoft asking Google to censor BBC, CBS, CNN, Wikipedia, the US government, and even its own Bing links, but this latest episode takes the cake." That would seem to imply it's an automated process in play, although there really isn't much information in the article, and it could conceivably be read another way.
It's not so much PR as reality. Germany is one of the greenest countries in Europe, yet they're building new coal plants. Why? Because they're decommissioning old nuclear plants, and they have to replace them with some suitable base-load source. Since Fukushima, new nuclear plants are practically off the cards, so coal is about it. It's cheap, it's not nuclear, and we don't have to buy it from the Arabs; what's not to love?
"As much as I dislike Apple, kudos to them for admitting the new iTunes isn't ready and postponing the release rather than pushing out potentially buggy and incomplete software. Too many software companies will just shove whatever they have finished out the door, whether it works or not."
Like that company that pushed out iOS 6 with the Maps application that everyone was so impressed by? What were they called again?
I seem to be wrong, according to wikipedia, there was demo flight in May, my memory ain't what it used to be. I guess since that is classed as a test rather than a supply mission, hence the "first" in TFA.
It's not a purple tint, it's a rose tint. Giving a rose-tinted view of everything is absolutely standard for Apple, although they seem to be taking it a bit literally this time.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't forget about it. FTA; "A regular class 4 or 6 card that’s capable of recording HD video will also be fast enough to play it back. The only advantage of a faster card for media is that syncing with your PC will be quicker." I don't really blame you for not making it all the way though the article though, it was at least three times as long as it needed to be to make it's point.
Hence my "very compliant environmental conditions" caveat, it's there for a reason.
Thermal imaging cameras have been demonstrated to be able to see your ATM code for up to a couple of minutes after you typed it, for example. So it's not entirely infeasible to see residual heat traces from brief contact for some minutes after the event. Note I'm not saying it's possible with current technology; the drone would have to be pretty close, pretty soon after you ran through, be equipped with a pretty good thermal imaging rig, and have very compliant environmental conditions for it to be vaguely possible with today's technology, but it's far from the most outlandish tech you'll see in a movie.
P.S. according to this article, Google's self-driving car is probably considerably more expensive at around $250000 (£160000), although G don't release figures.
According to a TV report I saw on this, the point of the Oxford technology is that it's supposed to be much simpler and cheaper than existing implementations, with the development version costing only £5000, and projected price of a commercial version of just £100.
It would be nice if such the article mentioned the existence of comparable tech, such as Google's self-driving cars, and perhaps did some comparisons, but unfortunately being a science and technology journalist these days means copying and pasting press releases, so the journo in question probably actually does have such little interest in technology that he hasn't head of the Google initiative. Sad.
You come to Slashdot to complain about badly written blog posts? Have you even been here before? That's like going into a gay bar to bitch about homosexuality.
Adam Ant definitely made a lot of noise. Not sure if you would class it as communication though.
I've seen many fights on slashdot in my time, but "carpenters vs. roofers" is a new one on me.
According to the article and comments on Ars Technica which I read earlier, the recovery partition can be moved to an external disk, and another fair chunk of space is supposed to be a trial of Office, which can presumably be removed. Those two things would get you to around 40GB free, which is about what you'd expect for an install of Windows on a 64GB disk.
I don't think they should be required to advertise how much space is actually available, however Microsoft should be looking to give people reasons to buy the Surface Pro; instead here's another reason not to. PR fail.
I saw this Ramen bowl with iPhone holder on The Register earlier, and I couldn't decide if it was for real or not. Thing is, if it is, I know someone I'd buy it for!
The telling thing about Windows 8 is that even the most rabidly pro-Microsoft people, when you look at their comments on Windows 8 as a desktop OS, they're basically saying "You can ignore Metro, and it's almost as good as Windows 7". I really haven't seen anybody try to claim that Windows 8 is a step forward over Windows 7 on the desktop. Since it was pretty obvious the Suface RT and it's expensive RT friends were going to be pretty niche, and not trouble the mainstream, affordable tablet market, it's a lose on the desktop and a lose on tablets, so I don't see how Microsoft can blame anyone but itself.
" By using its desktop operating system franchise as a lever, Microsoft will be able to enter the lower-specification end of the laptop market with a cost advantage which make make life difficult for former partners such as HP and Dell."
Yes, Microsoft won't have to pay for a Windows license. However since the Surface RT with keyboard is already more expensive than a low-end Ultrabook, and Microsoft will have to either keep a decent price differential between the RT and Pro, or withdraw the Surface RT from the market, I don't expect that the Surface Pro is going to be keenly priced enough to worry anybody. It will be priced up there with the mid-range 13" ultrabooks, but with worse battery life and a screen that's too small if you plan to use it primarily in laptop mode, it will be a niche purchase.
While your questions have some merit, I find it strange that with announcements like this, people always seem to assume that no thought or planning has gone into it whatsoever. Without any specific knowledge on the subject, I find it pretty likely that the answers to your questions are
a) No suitable onshore site exists. Abandoned mines have a risk of contamination if there is a leak, and would be too expensive to make safe.
b) Cost-benefit analysis has been done and favoured the island over other options. Storing large amounts of electricity is a very expensive business.
c) Island to be built in coastal waters outside any shipping lanes.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Agreed. It's obviously not meant to be used in the same way as an iPad or Nexus 7, as the author's comments seem to imply that he thinks (" it's way too big to easily handle" - duh), it's more a portable 20" all-in-one PC. I can think of uses for a 20" 4k tablet, whereas beyond "does it blend?" I'm coming up blank with the HapiFork.
This idea does have that "solution looking for a problem" feel to it, doesn't it? Glow-in-the-dark road markings would be nice, but in the part of the UK where I live, they seem to have trouble managing the basics like fixing pot-holes and re-profiling dangerous bends. I'd much rather they got on top of that stuff first, pothole-free roads would be plenty futuristic enough for me.
It's like they had to balance out the stupid lame, half-baked porn filter law they just announced with something that actually made a bit of sense. Although knowing our government as I do, I'll wait until I've seen the small print, before I assume that the headlines are actually in tune with the reality of the proposals.
Presumably Buffet is making the same assumptions as Murdoch did in putting The Times (UK) behind a paywall a couple of years ago, namely that a) a tiny number of paying subscribers brings in more money in fees than millions of freeloaders do in ad revenue, and b) hopefully many more major publications will follow suit sooner or later, thus making it harder for people to get quality content for free, and so increasing the chance that they'll decide to pay for their news. There is some evidence that paywalls work if done right, and are working for the New York Post, the evidence seems slightly more mixed for The Times, I guess we're a smaller market in the UK, so it will be harder to make it work here. Whether it will be true for the Washington Post remains to be seen, but it's not completely crazy.
Yes; organisations like Google are in the unenviable position of having to either a) devote a great deal of resources to looking into all these takedown requests to see if they are valid, or b) accept the takedown requests at face value, and wait to see if the person on the receiving end protest. Neither choice is good, but it might make a point to the studios if Google chose to take the latter course as far as these particular requests are concerned. And perhaps not be in too much of a hurry to restore the pages when the time comes either.
First paragraph of TFA says "We’ve written about the ridiculousness of automated Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requests before, including Microsoft asking Google to censor BBC, CBS, CNN, Wikipedia, the US government, and even its own Bing links, but this latest episode takes the cake." That would seem to imply it's an automated process in play, although there really isn't much information in the article, and it could conceivably be read another way.
It's not so much PR as reality. Germany is one of the greenest countries in Europe, yet they're building new coal plants. Why? Because they're decommissioning old nuclear plants, and they have to replace them with some suitable base-load source. Since Fukushima, new nuclear plants are practically off the cards, so coal is about it. It's cheap, it's not nuclear, and we don't have to buy it from the Arabs; what's not to love?
Yes.
German coal power revival poses new emissions threat
"As much as I dislike Apple, kudos to them for admitting the new iTunes isn't ready and postponing the release rather than pushing out potentially buggy and incomplete software. Too many software companies will just shove whatever they have finished out the door, whether it works or not."
Like that company that pushed out iOS 6 with the Maps application that everyone was so impressed by? What were they called again?
I seem to be wrong, according to wikipedia, there was demo flight in May, my memory ain't what it used to be. I guess since that is classed as a test rather than a supply mission, hence the "first" in TFA.
No.
It's not a purple tint, it's a rose tint. Giving a rose-tinted view of everything is absolutely standard for Apple, although they seem to be taking it a bit literally this time.