form over function to make something look pretty.
Standard Apple design philosophy.
7402 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2011
We had a power cut one day and discovered that one of the coffee machines, which was outside the server room but against one of the server room walls, was on the UPS-protected supply. It became a very popular machine that day, but sadly, facilities quickly had that power socket rewired.
Nearly 50% global installed electricity capacity is nice, but we know that much of that capacity goes unused. We pay wind farms in Scotland not to generate power, for example, and solar panel capacity is unused for around half the time (when it's dark).
It would be better to know what %age of global installed electricity demand is actually met by power from renewable sources annually. Otherwise this is just another meaningless "up to" statistic.
Why shouldn't visitors get in for free as well? It's not like they'll be an additional cost, and they may well spend some money in the cafe or gift shop. Assuming that all visitors who currently use the free entry will be happy to pay is typical government nonsense, the odds are they'll simply not bother and so spend no money with the ancillary services either.
don't get me started on what she did to the UK coal industry and the miners
Coal was already dying, but the real damage to the miners was done by Scargill. He hated Thatcher so much that he used the miners as his private army to try and overthorow an elected government, and didn't care what happened to his cannon fodder. No government can let that happen. There's a reason that the breakaway miners' union called itself the Democratic Union of Mineworkers, and don't forget that Thatcher won a second landslide in the following election.
HTTP error 418: "'I'm a teapot", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_Text_Coffee_Pot_Control_Protocol
It's also, apparently, the International Day of Happiness, so get those cats herded.
Something very simple like a winch that the astronauts can use to get up and down
Gerard Hoffnung's Bricklayer comes to mind.
you have to live dramatically below your means
But it's not below your means, it's within the means you choose to support the future lifestyle you want. You're assuming that people with more income will squander it because they can. That could equally apply to someone on 250k/year, well-off by any standards. Not everyone is so indisciplined. If you want to own your own house, you have to work for it. Too many people expect to have it handed to them on a plate, they will be disappointed.
An extra £600 a month savings is not the difference between 30k and 90k per year. It's more like 30k -> 40k.
A 400k mortgage over 25 years will cost you 2k/month. On 30k (2500/month) that's not viable but 90k per year is 7500/month. A 2k mortgage payment should be easily affordable if you manage your finances correctly.
It's rarely the bank's fault, and people always seem to forget that high street banks get their money from their customers. The more the banks are forced to reimburse gullible customers who have been conned by scammers, the more the bank charges for all customers will go up.
If someone follows a link they have been sent to a phishing site, instead of typing in the bank address as they have been repeatedly told to do, they must share the responsibility. The fact that the site pretends to be their bank isn't the bank's fault, nor the fault of the bank's more attentive customers, so why should they have to pay?
They'll identify a suitable off-the-shelf product which can be delivered overnight.
But then there will be 39 pages of changes required to customise it for the special circumstances of the MoD, which will take a year to implement, and the end result will have a range of 25 feet, and cost $1m a shot.
It does highlight one of the ongoing issues with Open Source. The GNU project predates the explosion of software due to the widespread internet and WWW, and I don't think it really foresaw a world where software would be used by, and written by, everone and his dog on a daily basis. Nowadays we frequently see the situation where someone knocks up a bit of code for themselves, but thinking it might be useful to a few others they unthinkingly slap a GPL header on it and put it up somewhere like github. A few years later they realise that it's really popular, lots of businesses have picked it up, and they're expected to keep maintaining it for nothing. It's unsurprising, really, that many of them regret having made it so freely available and wish they'd kept enough control to have commercialized it themselves.
That doesn't bother the people who are ideologically convinced that commercial software is an abomination, but the real world isn't so black and white. I wouldn't be surprised to see a move back towards the 'shareware' model of the 70's and 80's, where people made their software available for free for hobby and non-commercial use, but very clearly stated that anyone wanting to use it commercially (including for AI training) should call to discuss licence terms.
I also wonder how the use of AI like this will impact software patents. The whole concept of a patent is that the developer of the design gets an exclusive license to commercialise the design for a fixed period, in return for which they make the design public so that others can understand it, and improve on it. That sounds like a perfect definition of what AI does, it can be trained on published patent info and then instructed to create a non-infringing duplicate. Might make people much less likely to patent software in the future.