Re: Sorry, who?
Riak was and is a significant player in the data space
In the what? Codd must be turning in his grave.
12166 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Apr 2007
All this does is illustrate the imperfections of the EU.
Not really, the same effects can be viewed around the world. Some aspects may be easier in the EU because of the single market but the main problem is governments letting themselves be played off against each other by multinationals and the finance industry. Slowly the member states in the EU are coming round to the idea of closing some of the loopholes, though the pressure not to do so is immense as was clear in the hearings this week in the European parliament.
You even get tax arbitrage in the US because sales tax is charged by the states. Amazon has been using this wheeze for years to undercut bricks and mortar shops.
it's hard to argue that Apple's iPad Pro is not inspired by the Surface Pro's success
It isn't you know: many of us were using the term I-Pad Pro before there was a Surface. It was the market that Apple went after once I-Pad sales started to fall. Apple has deliberately avoided going down the same route because it wants to avoid cannibalising laptop sales and it also avoids difficult decisions on the UI.
The Surface Pros are nice computers largely because they became laptops with touch screens rather than tablets that grew keyboards. As to whether they can be considered a success would I suspect depend on sales numbers and I haven't seen anything to suggest that this is the case. They might well be the best laptops for Windows but this is a shrinking market. In the meantime it looks like Apple is doing a better job at milking its market and coming up things like Samsung's DeX look likely to eat even more of Microsoft's lunch.
but on the bright side
What? You mean you don't think he's going to do that anyway? He always reacts to anything that he feels like criticism of him or his brand in the same way. So we can expect more bluster about how great the hotels are, etc.
Emoluments…
If he had been in the UK
Maybe if he was resident in The Netherlands he wouldn't have any problems either. If he was not resident then his existing insurance in Spain should have covered him, E111 and all that.
I really don't understand why someone with such a medical condition seems to have gone overnight from Barcelone to Amsterdam without checking these things out in advance. That's what the agency is supposed to be paid to do. That said: € 60 k a year for Amsterdam isn't really enough and should have set alarm bells ringing. Money isn't everything but you should never move anywhere where rent is going to more than a third of your take home pay.
I'm not sure that Chromium is such a good example for many open source projects because of the resources that Google is prepared to devote to it.
Typical open source projects have high degrees of churn and fluctuation so a list like this is going to need maintenance and who's going to do that?
Al-Qaeda learned pretty quickly how to get off the grid and in the end Bin Laden was only caught when the relevant people in the Pakistani military decided to stop hiding him. And Four Lions highlighted how quickly current "best practices" filter down to even the biggest idiots.
Blanket surveillance of the population is at best a money pit and at worst an accident waiting to happen: all that data will have value to someone whether they're in the government or not.
But I have a feeling that, since the deal with the DUP, the security forces may soon find that they're facing a very different and better organised threat.
I'm off to put on my scrambler suit…
Assuming you don't spend all your time watching or torrenting HD video you probably don't need to worry that much but for a mobile network bandwidth is an unavoidably scarce resource.
John LeGere's (CEO T-Mobile US) talk on nudging people to watching slightly lower res vids as a way to manage bandwidth is worth watching as it covers the networks need to manage expectations.
Google conspires with App developers to selectively discriminate against certain devices.
It doesn't you know. App developers (and copyright owners) get to choose. In addition there may be API / hardware restrictions. Google is happy enough collecting payment data, and selling ads.
However, it would be nice to be able to legitimise alternative stores. Wonder if the EU investigation of Android will lead to such a recommendation.
I'd be more interested in someone explaining how in this day and age it's still possible to trivially root an OS based on oh-so-secure Linux.
Easy: just ask the user to do it. Some way to escalate permissions is always required to install software. But sideloading is disabled by default on Android and users are warned every time of the risks when they change the setting.
Elsewhere, in OS theory land, it turns out to be pretty to difficult to completely secure an OS when direct access to the hardware is required and systems like "trusted computing" have their own problems, like preventing users from using devices as they would like. But unix was never developed as a secure OS as anyone who's entered single user mode would attest to.
What kind of shenanigans are you referring to in particular?
Management of a country's domains is an aspect of sovereignty so it's important that, whoever is the actual registrar, is accountable to the electorate. The ex-Warsaw Pact countries have had very mixed experiences with the privatisation of their utilities.
Reliable? Good? As someone who uses Skype for Business on a daily basis I would very much disagree with both of those. It doesn't often take the whole OS down
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Skype for Business was any good (it used to be totally unusable, now it's just mainly unusable), just that there's a market for good and reliable VoIP stuff.
The staid business world is not a good income source.
Have to disagree there: companies will pay for good, reliable VoIP and conferencing which is why there is Skype for Business (previously called Lync) and why Google is in the market and has released separate consumer products.
But Skype got fucked once it was sold to E-Bay. It used to be simple and reliable: it just worked and even had a viable if low-margin OTT call-out business model. Then valuations got stupid. The rest is history.
But, there are plenty of people who are doing actual work in a non-BYOD environment.
No doubt, but quantify plenty and put it alongside those who will be happier with BYOD. My hunch is that the second bunch is growing even as the overall category shrinks.
An RPi is almost all you need as a media server, depending of course on the number of clients. I think we'll see more such dedicated devices at home and the odd explicitly Android PC. This will put enormous downward pressure on devices unless they have desirable specs, ie. are not PCs.
Companies are starting to move from PC purchases to rentals (CapEx to OpEx) and that is bound to put pressure on prices because the lessor will want to protect margins. There's still a business there (printers moved this way a few years ago) but it won't be driven by the faster, higher, shinier products. White label manufacturers who can deliver reliable devices are the ones who'll benefit.
I'm against the gay agenda on only one front - adding more and more fucking letters to the original LGB
This is the principle of self-selecting minorities (you can't be discriminated against if you're not in a minority) that was parodied in the "only gay in the village" sketches in Little Britain: all about attention seeking and nothing to do with human rights.
There are already, they are usually used only for display brightness, not color adjustment.
Some devices do use them to adjust the white balance of the screen but this is generally considered unnecessary as the eye will quite happily do this itself. A lot of cameras also do automatic white balancing otherwise we'd notice much greater shifts between natural and artificial lighting as you used to when working with real film.
But I think the paper is investigating more subtle effects (flowers look very different to insects than they do to us) such as IR levels.
Principles generally go out of the window as soon as VCs get involved. IPO is a way for the VCs to make their profits. There is no reason why the ethics of a company should change after an IPO as long as it has more or less positive cash flow, or reasonable growth prospects. Going public means that the accounts have to be published but this is generally a good thing. Whether or not a company's style will change has more to do with how many shares and of what kind are made available. Hence, markets have little or no influence on Google, Facebook or even Snap and have also not been able to force Twitter to adopt a credible business strategy.
After an IPO and depending on the way it was structured it's not unusual to see employees cashing in their shares and even leaving the company.
If the security services are the custodians
They never can be: quis custodet custodes.
What i do not understand, is that crime in the UK is in decline - as stated positively by the current government, so why we need IPA is an illogical requirement to meet tackling crime, which is actually in decline
Easy: governments know that passing new laws is a cheap answer to the panic they've being stirring up: this is how you manufacture consent.
There is a lot to be said for no new law without repealing an existing one.
security services then pass onto the relevant authorities
You seem to have this dangerously backwards: Only the relevant authorities (a court) may authorise the security services to do any snooping. This is why evidence that has not been obtained legally is not admissible as such in court, though it can often be used to gain the relevant authorisation.
Yes, because it's totally impossible to build a dummy screen showing a bootup sequence around a bomb.
Meanwhile, with a nod to the Sean Connery, nobody's checking the bombe surprise being loaded into the kitchen by Mr Wint and Mr Kid.
Do you think there could be another reason for doing this?
Occam's razor would suggest not. Maybe one of the scanner makers has a new machine they want to force airports around the world to buy. But I think this is probably just more useless knee-jerk policy based on a single, unverified intelligence report.
Sad thing is that we're getting conditioned to respond to vague threats with the calls for "something to be done" which leads to new laws or policies that will be at least as poorly as resourced or enforced as the existing ones. Especially in the face of evidence suggesting that existing laws and tools are more than sufficient, if only they're properly resourced. I'm thinking here particularly of the Danish research that suggested that digital snooping diverted scarce police resources from things like community policing.