Re: The browser is the least of the problems...
And open source.
869 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jun 2009
And open source.
@Mahatma Coat did that "proper demo material" consist of slowly moving serene mountainscapes etc, rather than fast-moving sports, for instance? They wouldn't want to show up the headline pixel count figure hides a multitude of sins such as that if you don't increase the frame rate accordingly, your pictures turn to mush as soon as they start to move.
The reference for the lack of email verification goes to great lengths to point out that Ashley Madison is not just a website for adultery, and the damage that sensational media coverage can cause. Still the author couldn't resist describing it as an "infidelity website", "extra-marital sex hookup site", and assuming that everyone on there has a partner.
@thames - in theory your update is done. In practice the updater installed a new Firefox last night, but nothing has asked me to re-start - the process has been running since 4th August (when the Ubuntu desktop last pulled its "I'll kill all the applications when coming out of suspend" trick). Not helped by Firefox telling me its version is "39.0" as mentioned elsewhere.
Update: after restarting it now says "39.0.3". Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
Oh, and is there any way to restart Firefox without it forgetting all its tabs, apart from "killall firefox" or other unorthodox ways of terminating the application?
Sounds like the high feed-in tariff with a low generation rate is a silly idea. In the UK for domestic installations the generation tariff is much higher than the feed-in tariff, and they don't even bother to install a meter to measure the latter - they just assume you export 50%. So to make the most of things, "make hay while the sun shines".
Do you think if you're registered blind you can get a reduction on Netflix as with the TV Licence?
Sorry, you didn't help, but instead appear to be terribly confused.
Of course Sky doesn't force you to subscribe to it. I never said it does. I was talking about its other income stream - the adverts which it carries - and who pays for those. Yes, believe it or not, Sky is such good value for money that it requires funding from both hefty subscriptions AND advertising.
Oh look - you do appear to have realised that - so why erect straw men to demolish? What was that you were saying earlier about moving goal posts? ;)
When you buy a product which is advertised on Sky (or substitute any other commercial broadcaster), you're forced to pay Sky a "tax" incorporated into the price of that product. You are paying Sky for programmes, whether you are watching them or not. Sound familiar? Sure, you can choose not to buy that product, but that restricts your freedom of choice and who's to say there's an alternative, especially as the free market will tend to equalise the prices of competing products?
Just watch any commercial TV for a while to see how advertising works without benefiting the consumer. A company will start to advertise a product. A competing company will panic and start to advertise their product too. These advertising wars happen again and again. Result: trebles all round for the broadcaster; prices go up for the consumer.
There are hundreds of things you have to pay for in your taxes which you don't consume. It just requires a bit more intelligence to be applied to realise this, rather than just kicking off at the licence fee all the time because it's so obvious what it funds.
codejunky, when talking about bias earlier, you criticised me for defending the BBC by comparing it to an "extreme" example, Fox News.
I assume, therefore, that as you yourself are now comparing the BBC with Fox News on the subject of dumbing down, that you believe that the BBC has dumbed down British TV news to a similar extent to Fox in the US.
Fair's fair, after all.
Pretty thinly disguised "I'm not going to answer the question", codejunky. ;)
Perhaps an easier one for you then - back up your claim that the BBC is "well known to be biased". As that repeated claim is the basis of your complaint I trust you will be happy to do so.
There is not yet, but should be, so much more to 4k than the extra pixels, which, let's face it, are redundant to a lot of people a lot of the time. Much more noticeable benefits could be achieved by tacking on higher frame rates (less juddery/smeary motion), higher contrast (brighter whites/deeper blacks) and a wider range of colours. The BBC is able to look at this sort of thing from the point of view of the broadcasters, e.g. by developing systems which are not radically incompatible with how programmes are made at the moment (reducing production/infrastructure costs) and promoting universal standards (opening up the broadcast equipment market and hence also reducing costs).
"And they charge you a Fox tax if you wan to watch any other channel... oh wait, no that's the BBC."
As opposed to the ITV/Sky/Ch4/Ch5 etc tax you are charged here if you watch any other channel, whenever you buy a product or service advertised on any of them, you mean?
The licence fee (note spelling) is "a breach of human rights"? And I really thought I'd heard it all! Surely a far worse breach of human rights is the inability to access information free from the influence of either government or big business?
"Also how do the BBC know which pages google omits from searches?"
What are you missing? Well for a start, the fact that no-one can contact you on your mobile number, and that you can't use your included mobile minutes to make calls. You can also neither send nor receive text messages. Online banking and other services often uses text messages to provide 2FA.
"The Amazon connection doesn't strike me as The Way Things Should Be[tm] and seeing adverts for paid software in the software centre was something of a surprise, too..."
While I don't like the intrusive Amazon search, I have no problems with the Software Centre listing or advertising paid-for software (and other things such as magazines). It's both heartening to see how many vendors consider it's worth porting/building for the platform, and if it earns Canonical commission then why not? Someone has to pay for the software development and I'm sure Mark Shuttleworth's is not infinitely wealthy. I see it as a welcome step towards the mainstream.
Don't forget the bright spark who decided that performance would be measured by how many trains are on time, without putting in a safeguard to stop the inevitable wheeze by the train companies of simply building in extra slack so that they're less likely to be "late". This is why Virgin trains always come into Euston early, resulting in delighted passengers... trebles all round!