Posts by Yet Another Anonymous coward 26130 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Dec 2009
>No Netflix? How come - ChromeCast supports NetFlix after all.
But chromecast requires you to have another computer sending the data. I can't see people buying this box as a replacement for the $25 chromestick thingy if they still need a windows PC to send the video,
Netflix does work (sort of) on the Samsung Arm Chromebook so perhaps they are working on a port for this.
Somehow I don't think computational fluid dynamics is the intended market.
Still it's tricky to see what the market is. For Google-Docs and Web browsing the Chromebooks are better. The only use for this is for content consumption - but it doesn't work with Netflix/Hulu etc - so unless Google are going to offer pay-per-view on You Tube (and fix the HTML5 viewer) - this is a bit pointless
Has Microsoft said what patents Android violates? Have they been challenged in court?
Or has their just been a letter to Samsung/Sony/Lenovo etc saying "call it $5 per tablet and you won't suddenly find your OEM licence to sell copies of Windows on your PCs and Laptops cut off. And this time it's not abuse of a monopoly because you are actually paying for patents."
>Pretty odd, given 99% of the people going will want to see the machines, not the grounds...
Not really, UK tourism PLC is in the business of preserving buildings and gardens not the falling down huts with a bunch of geek stuff in it.
I bet the people working in them don't even have any official qualifications in tourism interactivity studies.
If you use HTML forms your data entry minions might not need a full copy of Office running on a full copy of Windows with a few server CALS thrown in.
If they just enter data into a web page - they might as well go back to having IBM3270s on their desks.
Yes - since BT's system X in 80s most trunk routes are digital
The phone companies claims are a bit disengenous (amazingly). They claim they want to replace the ancient obsolete trunk lines with modern digital stuff, although almost all of it is, and are using this as an excuse to supply you with a voip phone running over the data link you already have and pay for - while still charging you for the separate land line which you won't have.
If experience of the local telco here is any guide they will also block all competing voip products - claiming they damage the quality of service for other users
The problem of a generation believing that Computer and Intel aren't synonymous.
Executive1: This low power embedded stuff is catching on - we need a product
Executive2: And it should be 64bit and multi-core and have every peripheral we make and run windows server
Executive3: We don't want to harm sales of Xeons, and it's about time we gave Microsoft a warning shot - stick Linux on it.
>If he was getting his bill by post and the post was lost
But this is the equivalent of them sending out a bill disguised as a leaflet for free dog walking with an official statement on the envelope saying "not from Natwest - we promise" - you might be reasonably expected to throw it in the bin unopened.
In most of business one receives an invoice and then one pays the bill - it's generally the responsibility of the person wanting the money to send out the invoice.
It would save us a lot of time and effort and bookkeepers if we didn't bother to send out invoices but simply assumed all our customers would remember to send us the money - especially if we were then allowed to charge them for late payment.
So why weren't they charged with threatening behaviour?
The concern is using the fact that electrons were involved to sidestep the law. In the same way that "conspiracy to" was used in 80s industrial disputes to add a 7year jail term to any action or "terrorism" is used for any anti-government protest today
Because any politician who sent the police to arrest a protester at speakers corner would get it in the neck from the "free press".
But if you protest online then anything can be made illegal if they can find one person in who would be threatened by it. But don't worry because this law will only be used against violent psychopaths - like all those other laws that will only be used against terrorists
>There's only one reason to own your own production facilities, to eliminate the profit margin on production.
Or to stop you waking up one day and discovering you can't launch a phone because somebody has bought all the production capacity of flash or screens.
I don't know how the report classifies Samsung's own production - the company generally runs divisions as very competitive business - it sells chips to it's main competitor for example. So Samsung's $50Bn probably includes a lot of chips made by Samsung fabs
I thought all the companies had been scared off from the UK by the equal pay act, the minimum wage, maternity leave, health and safety, banning chimney sweeps, the abolition of slavery.
Everytime there is a law to improve the rights/pay/healthy+safety of workers for the last 200 years - the Tories have claimed it will drive companies away and destroy jobs.
>a)You need something to move TO
Not a difficult market to enter, a kid in a Harvard dorm room could manage it.
>b)Since when do we believe such theories?
When do we believe epidemiological models of disease spread and network effects?
Since they correctly started predicting diseases, growth in traffic, best places to build a mall, etc etc
>There is also the case for many of the "Yoof" that if your parents are on FB its no longer cool any longer and you'll move on...
Which could - long term - be its saving.
Yoof are a good market, but they don't buy many white-goods/cars/mortgages.
At the moment magazine and TV ads are still the best way to reach these people, if Facebook reaches critical mass in the 30-40 somethings rather than Yoof and hipsters they could own a very profitable and much less fickle market.
> "we want privacy, we want privacy / "we want security, we want security".
Assumes that the way to get security is more spying on obviously non-terrorist citizens.
Its the old, we have to keep sprinkling magic dust on the roads because people won't forgive us if there is a tiger attack on a pre-school.
And so some of them will discover they have no aptitude/interest and do something else - how else where you going to get the first lot to go to university to do CS if they had never heard of it?
It's the reason we do lots of subjects in school rather than just classify children at birth into a suitable job (Tory cabinet ministers excepted)
>What about bringing in a tutor who teaches just the programming content of the course?
Of course, so long as they have a PGCE - you need to be properly qualified, you can't just have a maths PhD and 20years experience at a top public school and be allowed to teach.
And a background check - and you don't mind being dragged out of school by a swat team if it later turns out you had been fishing with an expired licence
And you have to be paid less than a classroom assistant - because the union will insist you don't compete with real teachers.
