Re: "now I have to walk an hour to work"
all DLR stations have a ticket machine or three, just sayin'
32 posts • joined 19 Jun 2009
"OH F!ck Off!!!"
Next up, hold car companies responsable for the idiots who speed and cause vehicular manslaughter... After all, without the car, they can't possibly speed can they?!
Oh, while you're at it, gun manufacturers, alcohol companies, rewrite-able media manufacturers etc etc ad nausem.
Grenade, because those manufacturers need to be sued too!
It's strange, because Red Ken went over there and bought back a few things from HK, including the RFID card, which I admittedly love.
a small correction / expansion of a point, though: The Octopus card can be used as payment - and be topped up - in a couple of chains, such as 7-eleven and McDonalds. It''s not limited to any one type of item, just places.
Personally, I like the Oyster card, as those blimmin' paper ones used to disappear in the pocket quicktime, but not as happy with Big Brother being able to track my every movement...
So, no need for multitasking for Joe Bloggs web surfing?
So, I take it you don't have any friends online then, as you won't use an IM client whilst web surfing, as that won't run in the background giving you notifications that some one has IM'd you?
Similarly, if you were in an email chain, collaborating on a document, say, you won't be notified of a new email that came in whilst you were editing the document (apparently, you *might* first party apps working in the bacground, so this point may be moot).
there are many things you might want to run in the background, which need to be running to give you notifications.
I'm not saying it's a life or death feature to have (although I certainly want it personally), but saying multi-tasking is not required because it's not on Apple's new Jesus Pad is just gulping down Jobs' Kool Aid.
Hell yeah! Off the top of my head at consumer level: -
- Streaming of HD movies / TV Shows (see Korea for example)
- HD quality video messenging.
- Cloud computing in the future?
Then, at a business level: -
- Video Conferencing,
- File sharing (as in CAD drawings, projects, etc) between remote sites,
- Remote HD presentations (uhm, if they are still used)
I'm sure if I thought about it more, I would find more consumer level reasons, but those are the ones I use in some kind of way (online gaming, SD iplayer, and SD skype, for example... Lowly 2Mb speed here :( )
Meh, call me old fashioned, but I like the old (current) one more. The whole point of the Google look was that it's spartan, not much... Just my search results, and a choice to choose between web / images / videos etc will be fine, no need to ass a sidebar that does exactly the same thing.
What did she expect Google to do, do time in the slammer for contempt of court?????
How can she poossibly sue Google for complying with the courts?? Sure, if they gave it up because the model asked for it, sue 'em, but it's a whole 'nother matter when it's a big bad court demanding it.
Can any lawyers among us shed some light on the technical deets?
I have to disagree with a point you made there; if I ran a service, why should I have run this service for my competitors for free? Like you said, it costs hardly peanuts to scan in the books, so why should big companies like MS or Y! have someone else do all the leg work and reap the benefits?
I have to agree with the big G on this point, "if" (big if) the agreement is non-exclusive, then it just paves the way for anyone to scan in books, and make a business model out of what basically a libary does, but online. G wants to get money via ads, but Ms could charge say, 1op a read of a book...
Don't see the problem here, on this particular part of the debate.
I've had the Hero (rebranded on T-Moby) for a week or so now, and it's a nice phone, and felt the review was spot on. Main gripes are a slow processor, and stupid portrait keyboard, and no way to calibrate the screen?
Other than that, loving it, wanting to splash a little cash on the market, but nothing caught my eye yet! No idea how they charge, does anyone know?
It gives me food for thought, though. It makes me shudder if Google had done what MIS had wanted in taking down the snippet, as wouldn't that construe as censoring the Internet? If I type Google review", for example, i damn well want to see both sides of the arguement, not just the "Google is golden" reviews...
Still, nice to know that some judges have common sense AND a glimmer of tech know-how.
By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 8th July 2009 10:09 GMT
does that make x86 86bit processors?
I doubt you need Itaniums (IA64) to surf the web...."
I do know that x86 are the old chips, and the new ones are x64. Seems like you don't. Not once did I say x86 are 86bit, but x64 currently ARE 64bit (unless I'm sorely mistaken).
If you want to play the wiki game:
Taken from above wiki:
"Intel 64 is Intel's implementation of x86-64. It is used in newer versions of Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium Extreme Edition, Celeron D, Xeon and Pentium Dual-Core processors, and in all versions of the Core 2, and Intel Core i7 processors."
You sir, are acting a foo'.
"Google Chrome OS, as it is currently known, promises to be quick to boot up and secure. It will run on x86 and ARM chips."
What, no love for x64 chips, a la 64bit processing?
Also, does anyone else think that an OS and a browser coming from the same developer with the same name will cause confusion to average plebs?
In all honesty, I really hope this goes well for them, as another competitor (at least, another big competitor) is always a good thing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022