ultra-filtered milk
(a) What are Coca-cola doing with milk? And
(b) Surely if you filter everything out of milk, using your ultra-filter, you get left with, er, water?
7588 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Apr 2007
Exactly. I came here to post that the whole mess would be a lot simpler if some idiot hadn't been over-influenced by the coloured-pencil brigade and let HTML into emails... straight ASCII please, or if you really must, UTF-8.
A recent rental decided on a country road in the wee small hours that I was approaching a completely unlit small village with a 30mph limit, and that I wasn't slowing as fast as it liked. So it slammed the anchors on hard enough to break traction and trigger the ALB, and simultaneously - because who needs main beams in a built up area? - ruined my vision by dipping the beams.
Truly we live in an age of wonder.
I have given up complaining (well, about smart home devices). I want none, I have none, I will have none. To me, they represent the apotheosis of widget engineering: someone has an idea that sounds good at first hearing, and the marketing team and coloured pencil department completely ruin it, overloading the design with 'features' and other addenda that end up turning a light switch into a member of a million-device botnet.
I don't disdain those who have found such devices useful or essential - but for me they're neither. I have never been inconvenienced by the inability to remotely control a radiator or change the colour of a light, and to be honest I never expect to be. Obviously, I'm not the target market.
Now... who do I talk to about removing all the 'driver assist' idiocy that goes into new cars?
I agree, but wonder how you define social media? I mean, even Youtube, if you open a browser from a link, by default has the autoplay button set on. I wouldn't really consider Youtube a social medium, although the requirement to be logged in to do anything useful with it - and in particular, contribute a comment - does tend to lean that way. (Hint: freetube).
I could not agree more. I have never understood that particular bit of logic: it's ok as far as it goes, but it really ignores the concept that a user might want to process the data represented in different ways. Ah, this is an HTML file, obviously you want me to open a browser that knows how to display its contents. You would never want to view the contents directly, or to edit them, or create them from scratch, right?
Although to be fair, they probably weren't aiming at people who understood computers, but rather those who had to use them in e.g. an office environment on a regular basis - in which case, they might see only word processing documents, spreadsheets, and email. One file type, one file handler: the word processor, the spreadsheet editor, the email client. So you end up with a very slick UI that can only do a limited number of tasks - that really nice car that can only drive on the motorway, but not the sideroads... and you can't change your own oil.
that the majority of a use case for using an 'AI' in a browser - to whit: finding what you're searching for, without being troubled by all the random crap, malware, spyware, and advertising that is delivered instead these days - would be handled faster, more simpler, probably more effectively, and certainly more efficiently if the search engine makers would restore the boolean search conditions that they originally had.
On the one hand, I use a mobile, with the location services turned off except when actually using a satnav program (itself with standalone maps so it doesn't have to talk to Google every five miles). On the other hand, when I fly my paraglider, I _want_ to be visible (Electronic Conspicuity) and in that case I use an Android based tablet which shouts out my location: FLARM and Fanet as well as my height, speed, and direction. It uses both direct RF communication and, if it can find a network path (either from fitting a local SIM card or by making my phone a hotspot), t'internet.
I don't know how much joy it gives Google to know my exact height and speed, but I'm sure they're stashing the information away somewhere... (and since you ask: it had Chrome as a default browser. Now it has Vivaldi.)
Were is the conditional in subjunctive - considering a case that has not (yet) happened, but what if it did?
I once suggested that in the days when the BBC first started trying to move people to DAB, they should make an official statement that The Archers was _not_ going to move to DAB only. The whole of middle England would have been out to buy a DAB radio that afternoon!
It's always been an issue: analogue systems degrade gracefully, digital systems work until they suddenly don't.
The original idea for DAB was (a) that it was mobile only, and (b) there would be lots and lots of low power transmitters, so the signal from one could take over as the previous moved out of range. Instead, we got DAB broadcast from major transmitters, and people put DAB radios in their kitchen and surprised that they stop working if they move them a couple of feet.
"...Paint 3D, Snip and Sketch..."
Classic cases of MS taking working software that people were used to and replacing it with something almost but not entirely unlike tea, er, I mean the application people expected.
There is a recent trend - and it applies not just to MS (and Apple? I don't use that, can't comment) but also to Android and Linux - of someone deciding they have to replace existing software with 'updated' equivalents which aren't: functionality missing, user interface apparently deliberately obscured; look and feel modified. It's as if people don't feel they're providing a useful function unless they're messing up learned muscle memory and messing with people's taste.
Certainly a more recent update can be a significant improvement - for some, or many. But is it necessary to remove the original for those who prefer it?
I have wondered how such limit reading systems cope with Germany's selection of limits, limits at certain times of day or week, different limits depending on weight, or whether it's raining, end of limit being a case of having gone past the thing that the limit was applied for (like a crossing), or passing a road junction...
The problem, then, is with the machines, not the documents?
But I'm sure some genius will come up with a scanned-image to DocLang converter? After all, the modern paradigm is that we seem to be in the business of having computers produce documents for other computers - rather than humans - to read...
... so our vessel, generally unable to 'see' anything smaller than a coastline or another large ship, failed to note the people in the lifeboat desperately waving and firing rescue flares until it was very close. Having reversed course to return to pick up any survivors, it was somewhat hampered by the inability of said people to climb a smooth vertical steel surface twenty metres high. Unfortunately, the survivors could not be assisted from the sea. Naturally, we issued a maritime emergency advisory call.
Your honour, we maintain that we did everything possible under the meaning of the treaty and should, rather than being fined, be congratulated for our efforts.