I've been running windows 7 beta for ages now, and benchmarks showed my SSD hard disk running well over 10% faster than XP, even on top of the optimisations and partition alignment I did in XP.
41 posts • joined 3 May 2007
O2 you BAFFLE me.
Contract phones are supposed to be cheaper overall than pay as you go, but for O2s pricing scheme if you do the maths, its simply better value to go for pay as you go.
A payg with 15 quid topup a week works out cheaper than a contract phone that gives you the same benefits, plus you can opt out at any time. I don't use a mobile to make many calls, and the main attraction of the iphone is the internet, which you get a years worth of free with PAYG and its not really expensive after that.
I want an iphone and I will gladly sign a 1 year contract (max) if I get a better deal than PAYG, but its not the case. You'd have to be mad to even go contract. Do the maths!
SORT YOUR PRICING OUT O2.
O2 IPhone 16GB model
Initial Cost 155.61
Monthly Charge: 29.38
Total cost for 18 months: 684.45
Initial cost: 401.27
Top up 10 quid a month: 180 quid
500 free mins to a favorite place PLUS 180 quids worth of minutes (at 5p/min thats 200 free minutes standard calls per month)
6 months wifi: 60 quid (as you only get 12 months free)
TOTAL COST for 18 months: 641.27
With PAYG you get the flexibility to top up less if you don't need it, and cancel any time.
you people crack me up saying windows costs more than linux, and linux really does cut the mustard.
when something doesn't work in windows, it tells you to what menu options to press to remove it or update the driver. when it doesnt work in linux, you have to edit a bunch of files, do some stuff with your kernal, or buy new hardware.
its obvious you linux fanboys are all biased. personally i think an operating system that threatens to put people like myself out of a job by being "free" is the definition of evil.
windows xp boots on my dell mini 9 in seconds, it is lightning fast. not fast enough? what the hell? i had xp running on my 333mhz laptop with no problems (just a looooong boot time).
while ubuntu or whatever might run smoothly and nice, the second something goes wrong, it is a thousand times harder to fix for the average guy than it is in windows. i think you freetards take a lot for granted, just because you have spent years mastering console commands doesnt mean your average guy has.
I think most freetards enjoy comparing windows 98 to linux, constantly banging on about blue screens and stuff.
"Try installing most scanners and printers -- linux has drivers, windows you have to go download them"
actually, no. windows has drivers for most things, and if not, you just have to pop the CD in the drive or run windows update.
oh and anyone in charge of purchasing IT equipment for employees who chooses linux over windows is an idiot and should be fired.
I was in Japan when Vista was still in beta and I saw Vista Capable stickers on loads of laptops.
Long after it had shipped I bought a vista capable laptop with windows vista installed, and despite being a fresh install it took about 6 seconds to open My Computer. Vista ran so badly on it I was shocked they were even allowed to install it on it. It was completely unusable.
I do like Microsoft but they do need a slap on the wrist for this.
So now if you don't have one, you have to buy an entire new box and charger thus polluting the world even more...
I'm wondering why we don't make all devices charge from USB too. Just make chargers into usb sockets and you can use one charger to charge -anything-.
If nokia really cared it would do that.
"...In my opinion BOTH of those stories highlight the fundamental flaw in anti child porn laws. It's just a bit more glaring in the second one. Neither the seven men*, nor the six teens were actually abusing any children. But in the minds of many people, possessing child pornography is synonymous with abusing children. This cognitive distortion is reflected in the laws which punish child pornography as severely as, sometimes more severely than, actual child abuse..."
That's not a flaw, of course they were abusing children, by allowing lewd images of them to circulate the internet. You're trying to make it sound like a victimless crime, like file sharing - if I download a movie I wasn't going to watch anyway, that's not wrong because it doesn't harm anyone...
The victim is the kid whose photos you propagate on the internet.
Imagine if mine was the coat with nude photos of your underage daughter. Flawed? I think not.
It's still pretty much as bad as it was 10 years ago, all well and fine until one tiny thing goes wrong and then only an expert can hack through it to fix it. Can't get online ? Just chmod your .confs and add some random lines of code into some other confs and check your man pages. Or something.
Windows? Right click > repair connection would be typical of the effort involved in fixing it.
Paris, because she gets flamed as much as I'm about to be.
You can buy a CD player but look how huge it is compared to say, an ipod shuffle. It has less capacity, it has moving parts and skips if you are jogging (unless you up the power consumption), and you have to carry tons of CDs around. Chances are the songs you want to listen to are not even on the same CD!
I'm not talking about CDs failing tomorrow, but I hope they go the way the cassette tape has gone and that this is the start of it.
SD cards will be playable forever because, SD cards are all backwards compatible with each generation, SD card readers cost barely anything, and any device can be made to read them. Want stuff to be able to read CDs? You have to have a hugeeeee CD player attached to it! Impractical for most purposes.
How many people actually have portable CD players anymore? I'd wager barely anyone. It seems pointless to buy a CD then have to use a PC to get it onto your PC or MP3 player. Why not cut out the middle man? Do CDs serve any other purpose than to be a medium of transport?
As for sound quality, no-one cares. Really. They don't care. I'd wager your average guy including you couldn't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 at 192kbps, never mind the 300+ these SD cards are offering. And I'd wager the average guy couldn't give a damn either. The old MP3 being lower quality argument is really annoying because the difference is negligible.
People won't buy one album per SD card yet they will buy one album per CD? Baffling.
People are complaining about using the FAT file system seemingly because Microsoft were behind it... it always annoys me their only reason is "evil crappy Microsoft did it".
The comparison you are making by saying SD cards took 10 years to reach 32gb isn't quite valid. The first hard drive was (according to wikipedia) introduced in 1956. A brand new technology that didn't reach 32gb until the 1990s, 40 years later. SD cards are also a new technology yet have increased to 32gb four times faster, if your original figure is correct.
If you look at the speed that hard disks evolved too... 10 years ago I had a 2gb seagate hard disk in my computer. Now you can buy disks that are 1TB. Is it unreasonable to think that SD cards might go at least that same speed? That would give us say, 6 years to see them at an affordable (although expensive) price at the same rate...
The technology behind them though is vastly different. SD cards have no moving components, and far complex circuitry and tricks required to make them work. Improvements in hard disk capacities came from all kinds of different breakthrough because there were so many aspects that could be improved... but SD cards only have one or two ways in which to fit more data in them. I suspect that the expanding sizes will start to taper off much later than their hard disk counterparts. Plus, what we are forgetting is, we could easily have a new format called Big SD which is a card twice as thick and twice the size, like a credit card, which would give you 8 times the capacity at least on the spot... and that's before we consider that microSD is not that far behind SD in terms of capacity...
100GB by the end of this year? Easily. We'd have 64GB already if it weren't for the way they are handling the HCSD card spec. I reckon half a TB by the end of the year at the very least.
Optical devices are horrible, the world just needs to realise that you shouldn't have to buy a huge ass player, or several hundred quid for a blu-ray device to read media, when a five quid thing I bought off ebay will read SD cards of greater capacity, SD cards that are smaller, damage resistant, easy to store/label, and are compatible with virtually any device - you can't stick a blu-ray player in every gadget you want to read high capacity media, but an SD slot and what powers it is tiny.
I have an mp3 player in my car which plugs into the cigarette lighter, it is tiny, it takes SD cards and USB cards, as well as houses an FM transmitter, and it cost me FIVE POUNDS.
I bought a 16gb SD card for about fifteen quid. The prices are falling ridiculously fast, especially compared to say, HDD capacities which are increasing far more slowly.
I absolutely believe we will see terabyte sizes soon. Hopefully we can move on from CDs which are obselete in terms of the awful technology behind them. Perhaps the iteration after blu-ray will be simply using SD cards.
And can people stop crying about file formats? SD cards function perfectly with no issues at all and also have decent wear levelling, so what is the problem? Annoying people who hate Microsoft for no reason other than its success.
I doubt the new card will work on any existing card readers.
The question above about raiding a bunch of these together makes me think why not. Hell, why not already? Why can't I have an 8gb SSD in my laptop with windows on it, and 8 SD card slots?
Some bright spark is going to twig soon that SD cards are actually incredibly mighty and is going to make something small, simple, and devastating to a lot of companies, particularly optical media companies.
Why 2TB... why does the current spec go up to something like 128gb yet they won't make any more than I think 32gb?
So what if people encouraged it? Look at the 6th person from the top who posted a message.. "My Preferred Method " By BLoad Posted Saturday 22nd November 2008 18:12 GMT
For some reason he is hinting at suicide, but how many people have just grabbed their phone and called the police? What if I told you guys my life sucks and im gonna an hero right now?
Anyone call the police yet? Come on, seriously I am gonna do it right now, are you ready???
Did you call the now maybe?
Are you perhaps thinking "What is this tool doing posting on the register about killing himself"
Are you perhaps thinking "Either do it or shut up, christ."
If I actually did go through with it right now, and you didn't call the police would it be fair for someone to criticise you in the same way that people are doing above and in the other comments related to this case?
Incidentally, what I typed was merely to demonstrate my point, I am not going to kill myself.
You give out your password, you are essentially giving co-ownership. That person can play your characters, and modify your characters, and do whatever they want... so why shouldn't that be extended to deleting them?
I can understand if she hacked his account, but he GAVE her the password. I think they should ask him why he did that - the answer has to be to share accounts.
He got sharing and everything that came with it.
This is why you should never ever share accounts with anyone. I've been running a mud for over ten years and I have seen hundreds of incidents where one sharer decided to strip an account dry, even between married couples during stressful times in their relationship. You share, too bad is the policy a lot of MMORPGs have.
Paris because she made the same mistake with her videos.
Why can't someone make an ebook that's lightweight and not huge? I don't need wifi, I don't need RSS or browsing or a keyboard or pictures or a touchpen... just a screen, an SD slot, a power button, a left button, a right button, and an enter button.
Don't want any drm crap either. Ability to view PDF files properly a bonus.
A book doesn't weigh much but that thing probably weighs a ton!
Assuming google knew that people would revolt against it, they probably shoved it in anyway to get at least a couple of weeks of statistics out of it.
No doubt a great way to see how your new browser launch is going is to big brother the hell out of everyones life to see what they are doing etc.
Even if it only lasts two weeks I am sure it's a goldmine of information.
For all we know, they could have released it purely for a 2 week data gathering exercise! It's like installing spyware onto millions of computers.
No doubt everyone will guzzle up the "oops we didnt mean to" reason.
Paris, because she knows about guzzling.
Look up something like Rape of Nanking on wikipedia, the English version and the Japanese version are RADICALLY different, and the Japanese version is locked because foreign people keep trying to correct it and japanese people who deny the event took place change it back.
The biggest problem seems to be bias.
There has to be some truth behind the company's claims its OK.
For example, Dell got into trouble for not letting users put their own ram in by themselves without voiding the warranty.
If the petrol companies signed a deal with a big car company that said you can buy petrol but only put it in company X's cars, would that be legal? THEY are selling the petrol so surely they can do what they like with it?
Paris, because she is as clueless as I am
Took them THREE MONTHS to recognise my XPS had a problem enough to repair it! THREE MONTHS of constant harassment and calls. When they eventually replaced the GPU it worked fine (its been replaced twice). It still occasionally goes weird but works again if I close the lid and open it again.
I had to buy another laptop during that time because I needed a computer. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!! My next computer will be a mac!
I know its just a publicity stunt for firefox, that uses all kinds of tactics to coerce people to download its browser, but surely the most times a file is downloaded in 24 hours from the internet goes to www.yahoo.com/index.html or cnn.com/index.html on 9/11 or www.windowsupdate.com after that virus caused millions of people to visit that site?
CDs need to go the way of the casette tape. They are unweildy, scratch easily, and require huge music players to be played on the move.
I think its time we started moving to flash drives and ditched CDs altogether. Are there any read only flash drives out there? You don't even need a cd drive in your computer to use them.
I can't see any use for 1TB of data on a dvd unless what, I want to put encylopedia britannica on it? But wait, even the entire works of shakespeare is 6mb and all dynamic content can be read online. Flash drives have already met and exceeded the size of dvds and even blu ray itself (100 quid for a 32gb flash drive, single layer blu ray is 25gb), a price that will fall tenfold if they are mass produced and when larger drives become more popular. You could always increase the size of the module to halve the price, too.
we don't need 1tb cds! the last movie I remember having a CD in was airwolf where they put a CD into the helicopter sometimes, we've moved past that! We need data crystals and tiny things that we slot in, not more friggin cds! All my cds are scratched to hell and I don't even think I have used half of them, and they have to be stored carefully to avoid damage.
Sorry Mark! I got a bit confused it wasn't directed at you of course.
We are going round in circles here, so unless there's anything new to post it's probably wise to end this discussion soon.
In short, wireless can be set up to allow anyone to use it, or specific people to use it. The person setting it up chooses which, and cannot complain if he or she sets it to allow anyone to use it, and then anyone DOES use it. You can't advertise something for free then complain when people take it.
As for the conning thing I thought I already explained it clearly, but lets assume the definition of a con is something illegal. Then no, it's not okay to con grannies, or anyone else for that matter.
If a con is doing something to someone you feel morally objectionable, such as selling grandma some house insurance she doesn't need, then isn't every commercial on TV a con? I don't need half that junk but it tries (and sometimes succeeds) in selling me it. If someone says 'Can I borrow your credit card for 5 minutes' and I say 'duhhhhhhhh okay' who's fault is it then? Them for "conning" me? No.
I see your choice of icon fits your mood, but why do you contradict your own argument half way through?
Setting up a device to make that choice for you is exactly the same, as I tried to state with my security guard post above. To post this comment, I had to type a username and password. If the site creator never sets up such a system, so comments are available for any member of the public to post, does he have a right to complain or is he inviting anyone to go ahead and post?
He or she set up the system the way it is, public and open for all. I can hardly open a newsagents, wait for you to come inside then go HA! The welcome sign was a lie! Signs aren't human! I didn't say you could come in!, then call the police...
>Under your logic, if you you don't update your OS, you are inviting hackers into your system.
Only if they ask me first. If they ask and my computer says no, then they put a brick through my window and climb in, that is hardly consent is it? There are no ways of hacking a computer that I can think of which aren't clandestine in some way. Even if a program has a flaw (a flaw, not just you being clueless about setting it up) that if you leave your usename blank it lets you in, in court that is hardly going to save you unless you had a genuine reason for connecting in the first place. Using the internet on someone's wifi is a genuine reason... logging into someone elses account is dubious at best.
>Tell me where you live so I can play by your invite rules. Leave the car boot
>open to take the shopping inside... fair game for the rest of the shopping.
That's the part you contradict yourself. If there was a sign on my car boot saying free fruit then you'd be at liberty to help yourself.
>Under your logic too, you could rape a mute, because after all, she didn't say no.
Are you kidding me? She wouldn't say yes either so you'd be left in the same state as if you had never asked the question, and not asking someone is not consent.
>Do you think its ok for people to con grannies out of their life saving for "home repairs", after all, if they are too stupid to figure out its a scam,
This is actually completely unrelated, and you are using moral arguments to try and make things look illegal. It is not illegal for tesco to double the price of battenburg cake no matter how much I love its sugary taste. You can try a save-the-babe (the pig kind) campaign outside mcdonalds to play into our hearts but selling pork isn't illegal. Selling services to grandma isn't illegal either unless they are lying, in which case it doesn't matter who the receipient is.
>What rubbish. You may be around the back, or working near the car and could not hear my "yell", also, you do not yell "can I come in", the equivalent would be asking the owner.
I think you have gotten a bit too worked up about the issue without thinking clearly. If you are around the back and don't hear the doorbell then obviously it's not permissable for the person to enter.
Wireless doesn't work by your computer saying 'Hey im coming in ready or not!!!', it has to get permission to be able to connect.
I think Mark already covered this but I wanted to state it a bit more clearly.
As for wireless being free, well... we'd all love it to be free but free really just means comes from the lovely tax you pay the government =)
I pay a respectable 20 quid a month for fibre optic 100mbps, although I don't have a phone line cos I just use my mobile phone, which can also surf the internet for 30 quid a month albeit somewhat slower;)
> solution would indeed be for the retailers to have the default settings so that you have to turn open your wifi to others as mark says rather than drawing up excessive regulation on the subject.
No, the solution is simply for users to not operate any devices that they are not qualified to. When you buy a wireless router, read the damn manual and don't cry if you don't.
If I buy a car and leave it unlocked with a sign on the front saying please use me, and it says in the manual 'If you dont want other people using your car, lock it and remove the sign!' is it my fault or theirs? I think it's mine.
> Stealing WiFi is stealing WiFi, regardless of whether the connection is secured or not. Nothing makes it right, and you're nothing but a leach who's too cheap to buy your own connection.
Someone is a bit touchy. I imagine every single person on this page has their own connection at home. Right now I am at working and using an unsecure wireless point I found. I don't know where it is, and I've been using it for around 2 years. It could be from the government public center next door to my workplace, free and available for all, or it could be from some guy across the street who doesn't mind helping his neighbours use it. Either way I don't see a problem with using it. Sadly it's the only way I have to use internet here.
>Most of us make our money selling or fixing the computers owned by people who don't fully understand how to use them. To suggest that they don't deserve to have access to the internet is complete and utter bullshit.
Wait, so it's wrong to prey on their (possible) stupidity at not reading the manual and using their wifi, but it's not wrong to prey on their stupidity at not reading the manual and charge them to run anti-virus on their computer, or fix other problems caused by their stupidity?
>And MY issue (which is why the law doesn't make sense to assume that an IT person isn't ignorant of the law: we know more about that law than the judges do) is that how do we know if the user wants us to or not?
>How can we tell the difference between an honestly open AP and one where the luser doesn't care to close it?
This is a very good question, and in my opinion if it's open then they don't mind if people to use it. They have the choice of closing it and provided they have read the instructions should be fully informed of the "risks" of not securing it.
The device itself determines who can use it or not. By plugging the device in, you are basically giving the device the permission to say yes and no, so really you have to ask the device in court whether it intended to let people in or not. And the device will say 'yes' because that's what it has been told to do by its master.
It's rather like hiring a guard for your house to stand outside but not telling him how he judge if people can pass or not. If you hire a guard to keep only men out of your house, and the guard lets all women but accidentally one man in, it's the guards fault right? If you tell him to let anyone in though, and he does, it's not his fault if later you say hey I didnt want this man to come in, it's yours. Nor is it the fault of the people who are coming up to the door and asking if it's okay to come in.. Unless there's a big sign saying 'No Men!' and the guard forgot to check, you should know better yourself.
This is probably how the coffee guy lost his case.
I saw the network and I thought, I wonder if the person has told his router to let anyone in. So I clicked it, and it turns out he had.
And if you want to mention 'Oh it was probably default!', isn't the "default" for hiring a security guard to stand outside your house the same? Anyone can pass, until you give him or her specific instructions to the contrary?
In summary, RTFM, and don't cry if you don't. I don't see how ignorance of your actions lets you accuse people of stealing.
>so all routers should come locked down. At the very least the CD that comes with the drivers et al should have a program that turns ON the wireless point AND adds encryption.
Should they? Where do you draw the line? Should everything I buy come with instructions like this? Warning: contents may be hot on my coffee? The instructions are right there in the manual.
If you buy a saw and accidentally saw your arm off, it's your fault for not reading the instructions on how to use a saw correctly. Chances are you just whipped it out the box, plugged it in, and hoped for the best.
>You may well get off when the case comes to trial - several months later. Little consolation, I would have thought.
>Your house has been searched, you've been questioned by the police, all your computer equipment has been talen away, you've appeared before the magistrates at least once, you've been on bail ever since, and featured in the local paper as a suspected paedo..
What's more likely is the police will come knocking at your door and may ask you to come to the station or ask you some questions. If you are non co-operative it might suggest guilt, but chances are you'd go 'huh???' and after you hear the charges you'd probably say hmm it could be my wireless router? At which case you'd read the manual or turn it off. You could probably catch the guy doing it if he parks outside your house as well.
The police aren't going to come bursting down your door and stealing your computer equipment lol.
>In which case, the person using your connection is using nothing that you are using. In the same way, me watching sky through your window while on the street is using photons you aren't using. If I were standing in your way, that would be different.
>So there ain't no apples and pears, it's all apples.
Sorry I didnt include both replies together (oops)
I think it is slightly different, because listening to radio transmissions is fine, but using someones wifi is a bit like reaching over someones fence with a long stick and doing stuff. Radio is purely listening but wifi is actually interfering with your computer. However this is a seperate issue, whether its acceptable or not is not determined by the fact you can do it, but if the person is allowing you to.
>Can't prove it wasn't you? Tough. You're nicked.
A court of law has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty. If you are an average guy, with no previous convictions, no trace of porn on any of your computers, and have been running an unsecure wireless connection that people outside your house can access, I am fairly sure that there is a lot of doubt as to whether you did it or are just a victim of circumstance.
>Simon, your example is more like:
>I knock on your door, there is no answer.
>I try the handle, your forgot to lock the door.
>I come in, and take food out of your fridge and make coffee. <snip>
No it's not. There is an answer. There is a verification process for joining my network, and if I set it up to say come right in, then it's not theft.
If you break in and plug your computer into my network, THAT is unauthorised because no-one said you could plug your computer in. However with wifi, you are asking if it's permissable. The person is OPENLY advertising they have a network available (They dont HAVE to broadcast their SSID). Using your analogy this would be akin to a sign on the door saying "Welcome!". Even though there is a sign it's not guaranteed they are gonna let you in.
My wireless network is broadcasting openly, it says Welcome! and then after you step into the door it checks your credentials and says yes or no.
Consider a library, or a guy that wants to offer his wifi for free to anyone nearby (as people on this very discussion have suggested they do), or any public access point. Isn't it the same?
Are you suggesting if I open a shop and you walk in I am in my right to arrest you for tresspassing? The shop says Welcome and it's not locked, and being a shop that is advertising its services via a sign on the door you're not exactly going to expect it to be a crime to enter are you?
As for the case in the UK being a one off I suggest the actual conclusion was somewhat different, or perhaps the guy failed to bring what I have said to light and merely said 'Yeah I went in last week and it said free wifi if you buy a drink and I thought heheheh I'll park outside and use it for free'.
>Having your wireless name broadcast and unsecured is like leaving your door unlocked and having a tape player hooked up to loud speakers yelling for all those outside to hear -
>"THIS IS MY HOUSE, I AM AWAY, AND MY DOOR IS UNLOCKED - THIS IS MY HOUSE, I AM AWAY, AND MY DOOR IS UNLOCKED - THIS IS MY HOUSE, I AM AWAY, AND MY DOOR IS UNLOCKED"
Almost right, I'd actually phrase it as "I AM AWAY, BUT IF YOU WANT TO COME IN JUST ASK AND I WILL LET YOU NO PROBLEM"
which I cannot see as a crime.
> Under the computer misuse act, it is illegal to even attempt to gain access to a system that you aren't specifically authorised to use.
I don't think that applies or how could I visit the register? They never said I could connect to their site but I found their website off a mate... Oh wait, that's right my computer connects, asks if its ok, and I dont get a FORBIDDEN reply so off I go...
> Jason, how about I walk past your house and your curtains are open. I can see SkyTV Movies Plus being played. Have I now "stolen service" from you or your cable provider?
If you don't interfere in any way, I don't believe it is theft of his service (it might be illegal for spying though!). In the same way that, if you sit your laptop on listen and listen to any wifi signals it's not illegal, but if you start transmitting then it's akin to shooting your remote control through his window in an attempt to influence his choice of channel.
> Because when someone parks outside your house and uses your connection to download kiddie porn or surf terrorism sites, do you honestly believe the "unsecured wifi" defence will work in NuLabour Database Britain? All I know is, I'm not the one to be taking that chance.
Now we hit the law about the guy who ran one of those whatcha callit servers, basically an anonymous proxy. Or even google if you upload kiddie porn and google indexes it. If I use wifi at a library is the library liable for my actions? I don't know how this area of the law works but it's unlikely to cause you any trouble if sharing your connection isn't illegal and you are not deliberately trying to run a child porn ring. You might have some explaining to do mind you!
My computer asks their router if it's okay to connect. Their router either says yes, come on in, or no give me a wep key (or just straight out no).
As long as their router is configured to say yes please use me it can't possibly be theft.
If you come to my house and knock on my door and I say come in, and you come in, is that tresspassing? I don't think so...
I live in Japan and they've had talking cash machines here for years. Sadly, only in Japanese. Cash machines are in the future. Some even do retinal scans! They have live webcam feeds to staff if you have problems, built in scanners for sending information to the webcam staff while you're in a call to help sort things out, and you can do anything you can do at a cashier point (pay bills, send money internationally, pay for something you bought off amazon, etc.) as well as coming in air conditioned booths which of course stop people from robbing you, as it's only 1 person at a time in a booth.
Of course being Japan, land of the bizarre, they sometimes close, for reasons unknown, and often charge a fee out of hours (mostly to do with the fact that no-one borrows money in Japan, meaning banks do not make a profit that way).
The machine detects you enterting and says welcome, asks you to insert your card, type in your pin, take your money, don't forget your card etc. so I don't really think it's aimed at people with disabilities per se, but it's something. Perhaps it's enough. The screen is easy enough to read. I don't think using a cash machine if you're completely blind is a wise idea anyway.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022