'don't even fucking bother.'
Ah, do I see a potential epitaph waiting in the Facebook wings?
7408 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2011
>: the answer like it seems to be for everyone but the richest organisations will almost certainly be the cloud.
Just like when then only solution you have is a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail?
The correct solution is a business continuity plan, with properly performed risk analysis, to determine what your company needs, what the biggest risks to that are, and how likely those risks are to come to pass.
Based on that you can work out how much it costs to provide the protection you need, which of course will not be the same for each user and each department. I suggest that instead of simply waving your hands in the air and claiming that "our cloud" will solve everything for everyone, you take a look at how the professionals do it. Start with the UK-focused Business Continuity Institute (http://www.thebci.org/) or perhaps the more US-centric Disaster Recovery Institute (https://www.drii.org/) and their various publications and conferences.
> maybe over an hour (!) to import a pool
More nonsensical FUD. Have you ever got closer to ZFS than posting abut it on the Register? You've clearly never used it, so why should anyone take your rants seriously?
I've yet to see a zpool import take more than a second or two, unless the underlying devices have some serious problems, and even there ZFS will correct and import the valid pool in less time than a traditional FS will complete an fsck and present a maybe-correct volume.
What is inappropriate about telling children that services intended for adults cost a lot of money? Are Voda worried that this will immediately make the kids think "ooooo, sex, I'm going to blow £10 pocket money on that number I've just learned about" ?
If the kids are old enough to know what a sex line is, it does no harm to tell them that it's expensive. If they aren't old enough then the worst that will happen is one of those "Mummy, what's a sex line?" conversations that any parent should expect at some point, and should take advantage of to educate his/her child.
Sounds to me much more like Voda trying a "won't you think of the children" scare to persuade Ofcom to back off on something they don't want. Muppets.
It's a conglomerate. It's entirely possible that one part of Samsung's R&D department is officially committed to the Alliance for Wireless Power, while the division that designs the Galaxies has made it's own mind up over what it thinks is best. If it's anything like the UK/US companies I've worked for & with, the managers will let both camps run with their ideas, and take the credit for whichever one succeeds in the market.
"sending it to your home as leccy (losing 40-60% during transmission) and then turning it back into heat (and losing some more)."
Don't be daft. Grid losses are around 2% - 4% (slightly more on the low-voltage grid), and when you turn electricity back into heat you can't lose any, all energy ends up as heat in the end.
> patents are specifically for the purpose of preventing certain kinds of competition?
No, patents are specifically for the purpose of encouraging the publication of new ideas, so that they can be improved on, while allowing the inventor limited protection against having the idea stolen by the competition.
> You could, cost permitting, hire a car for longer journeys.
Only if there are just a few electric cars around. If most people had electric cars there wouldn't be enough "long journey" cars, because it would be uneconomical to maintain a hire fleet.
Besides, price is irrelevant here. Electric cars are only cheaper than diesel/petrol ones because:
1) Other taxpayers subsidise your purchase. That won't last.
2) Electricity isn't taxed at the same rate as road fuel (of which > half the pump price is tax)
The moment a government realizes that tax income has fallen because too many people are driving electric cars, it'll find a way to get the same per-mile income from them as it does from diesel or petrol ones.
There are sound reasons not to extravagantly burn finite resources like petroleum, but plug-in electric cars aren't a solution.
> Strangely many older people in the village seem to develop cancer,
Not so strangely, you'll find that is true everywhere. If you haven't died of something else by the time you're 85, the odds are pretty high that you'll have a cancer of some sort. Most people will die with it, rather than of it, though.
It is one of the reasons that cancer seems more common, we can deal with most of the things that used to kill people earlier, before the cancer was noticed.
I remember the pre-Adastral days when BT was adding to the campus there. A very high tech-looking building was going up near the entrance, and staff took great delight in impressing visitors, telling them that it was the new chip fabrication facility. It was, of course, the new staff restaurant...
Or braided brushes, a la Scalextric cars/track?
Or don't use wires, use foil strip and pass that behind the exhaust. It should melt rapidly. In fact, foil with a small notch cut each side should just tear apart as LOHAN's powerful drive thrusts its slim body along the supporting member to penetrate the unknown void...
Sorry, getting carried away there, as you were.
Too true.
"Today’s action sends out a clear message to the marketing industry that this menace will not be tolerated,"
Yeaj, like fsck it does. £90k is a derisory fine for these scumbags, it's just a slap on the wrist.
Hit them with a £10k per call fine, and ban the directors from being a director of any company again until the total is paid.
> a vomit repellent road surface would bounce the stuff right back at your face
Or it might just float there, a few mm above the surface, being blown around at the whim of any passing breeze (and no doubt being chased by a dog).
Would there be a market for artificial vomit, which could be attached under a vehicle, to get a "maglev" effect? The possibilities are endlessly revolting...
If they want a quick way to bring in some cash they could just offer Windows XP -> Windows 7 upgrades for, say, $50/£30, instead of the ludicrous prices they charge for W7 at the moment.
It might not get people onto Windows 8, but at least it would help get them off XP...
> I also wonder when we will get equal up/down speeds, probably never if BT are in charge
Whenever you want, just ask (and pay) BT for an SDSL link instead of an ADSL one.
Most domestic users want fast download, and don't need fast upload, so a 10/1 Asymmetric ratio is just fine. Business users want roughly equal, say 5/5, so will order Symmetric DSL. It's not BT's fault if you order a product that isn't what you need.
This red herring keeps coming up. It has nothing to to do with interference on nearby TV channels.
The spectrum associated with TV used to extend to 860MHz. As part of the digital switchover Ofcom reduced this to 800MHz, and sold off the higher frequencies for 4G. A lot of people who were out of range for pre-DSO Freeview installed aerial amplifiers to bring weak signals up to viewable levels. many of these installations used amplifiers which covered the whole 470-860MHz TV band, even when that wasn't actually necessary .
If a 4G signal in the newly-released band above 800MHz is strong enough it will cause the amplifier to overload, and when that happens any channel within the amplifiers passband can be affected, not just those that are "near" to the 800MHz top end.
I would expect any arguments here to centre around whether the amplifier was required to get local TV, or was installed as a way of getting a weak signal not intended for the given reception area. In the former case full compensation should be forthcoming, in the latter case I suspect you're on yoiur own.
This all sounds so like the power-line comms issues. Its funny how people don't care about interference when a service they like interferes with "a few beardies" , but get so upset when a service they don't care about spoils their reception of Corrie. At the end of the day, it's the same situation, well designed radio gear won't interfere with well-designed equipment. If it does, action should be taken against the user who causes the interference.