"as the CEO of eBay, she was required to purchase large amounts of hardware"
I've read about lots of hardware, does that make me qualified?
319 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Apr 2007
It was a loaded with sarcasm, but you're making assumptions that the opposite of "old hardware" automatically equals the "latest and greatest processor".
I maybe should have qualified my comment with 'obsolete', but old hardware could mean teaching students on BBC Micros, when the rest of the world is a decade on from those. Yes, basic computing principles often remain the same, but if you're on a semi-vocational course, then surely it's better to learn the principles on something you're likely to see once you get a job.
As for an old vs new lecturer, experienced is almost always way better, but not when they lack charisma, and still use teaching methods from the 19th century.
FYI, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, but if you're paying big bucks, you start to expect the best in *every* area.
Of course, with students liable for vastly increased fees in the future, is this a sign of things to come as students look to get maximum value from their money?
I was the last year of students to get my degree for free, so even if I felt it was the University's fault I only got a 2:2 (and not my own for spending all day and night playing pool in the pub), I paid nowt, so can't complain too much. However, if I was spending up to £9k per year on it, I'd be looking for... no, *expecting*... top class facilities, top class lecturers, etc, rather than old hardware, rickety buildings, geriatric lecturers, etc, which I actually got.
I'm speaking with great authority here (avid watcher of Airport, Airline, etc), and legally I believe you are correct, but I think the issue comes with what the individual airline's rules are - some may allow you on with just a drivers license, for example, but some may require a passport.
You may argue that the law says you only need official photo-ID, but the fact is it's their airline, and if their rules require a passport, you won't be granted permission to fly on their airline.
Wow, can't believe I just stuck up for the corporation. Okay, scrap that, f$&k the airlines!
Anecdotal maybe, but everyone I've spoken to hates it, and are very pleased when I tell them how it can be switched off.
Maybe it's useful if you're a slow typist, when I guess there's enough time between each keypress to let it load the "instant" results and check to see if it's found what you're looking for, before looking back down at the keys and fumbling for the next letter. For the rest of us, we just splurge the query out in one go, hit search, and then check the results.
The article is highly damning of BT, and all through it accuses it directly of cocking up. It's only once you get to the last paragraph that it apologetically says along the lines of, "actually, ignore all that we said up there, in fairness it's not directly BT's fault like we implied ALL THROUGH THE STORY"
You want it clearer...?
Quote 1: "As one of Britain's largest and most venerable technology firms, you might expect BT to have grasped the basics of email by now."
Well, as it makes clear at the end, it wasn't BT or any BT employee sending it, so that statement is nullified.
Quote 2: "It yesterday emailed about 500 members of the public who volunteered to drum up interest in the wheeze in their area."
Uhh, no, it didn't, it's (incompetent, in hindsight) PR company did on it's behalf.
Quote 3: "But BT failed to use BCC to hide the would-be campaigners' email addresses and identities from each other"
See point above.
I could go on.
Basically, the article says "BT did x, y, and z, how terrible and stupid they are for doing that?!" and then finishes with "actually, in fairness, it wasn't BT who did it, it was some incompetent company they hired on their behalf."
All BT are guilty of here, is of not having physic powers to have predicted what company was going to cock up on their behalf.
Agreed that using a PR company to manage something as simple as this is stupid though, however, perhaps in the weird world of economics, it's cheaper to pay someone else than their own staff...
"In fairness to BT, the direct blame for this latest embarrassment belongs to Porter Novelli, the public relations boutique running the Race to Infinity"
Right, so you slag off and blame BT for this tremendous cockup, and how they should be tech-savvy given they're a technology company, and how this further displays how shite they are, and then at the very bottom admit that it's actually not their fault, and it's probably some spotty non-techy work experience admin at a PR company BT has contracted to handle the work.
So the band around the outside is metal, the antenna, sure, but I'm sure they could find a way to put a tiny amount of clear lacquer or something on it, which still lets near 100% of signal through and looks the same, but crucially breaks the contact between skin and metal?
I'm going to patent that, quick!!
I got my first video-call capable phone around 2004 (SonyEricsson V800, if you're interested), and even had free minutes thrown at me each month, but in the 7 years since then, I've made a grand total of one call, for about 30 seconds.
It worked well enough, but what's the point? I don't want to be looking up someone's nose as they hold the phone in front of them as they're walking down the street, or see them in their "comfortable" slacks when relaxing at home. Voice is fine for me, thanks.
If this was a deliberate leak, it's achieved the opposite of the expected intention with me - on seeing these and believing them to be real, I see no point in waiting for the 4G, and just ditched my 3G and ordered an HTC Desire... I bought the original iPhone when it first came out, at £280, so no one can accuse me of not being dedicated, but this doesn't look revolutionary, barely evolutionary.
The iPhone is a tired dog and has lost it's way, unfortunately. Long live the iPhone.
You're shining electromagnetic radiation at an object, and picking up the reflected radiation using a sensor (camera) to produce a human readable image on a screen.
Doesn't matter what type or frequency that initial radiation is, whether it's microwave, infrared, human visible wavelengths, X-rays, etc, you're still producing an image on a screen.