Posts by Kepler

What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight

Re: What the Hell is Firefly???

Thank you, Michael, for explaining what the article itself did not. (At least with sufficient clarity for me.)

Re: What the Hell is Firefly???

A comment posted above by ToxicDragon —

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/2/2014/11/26/amazon_fire_phone_review/#c_2371061

— implies that the camera in question really is the phone's camera, and not some on-screen pointing/selecting icon made to look like a camera:

"the ads I have seen feature a woman waving her phone about and having it scan things like websites and tv shows. . . . [P]ersonally I don't like waving my phone around in a crowded bar to find out what track is currently playing, . . . ."

So the pointing isn't done on screen, at Web sites, photos and videos displayed on the screen. Instead the phone itself — or rather its camera and/or microphone — is pointed at other screens, or at physical objects in one's environment.

In the case of Web sites and URLs, you aren't using your phone to browse the Web. Instead you are browsing the Web on some other computing device (even another phone?), but keeping your phone handy so you can point its camera at the other device's screen. TV shows and videos can be on a TV or a computer screen; pictures can be paintings or drawings or photographic prints in one's physical presence, or on a computer screen; phone numbers can be printed or even written by hand on a piece of paper, or displayed on a TV or computer screen; a bar code can be printed on paper or a package, or displayed on a screen; and so on.

It would have been nice if this had been spelled out originally. Or if a video or at least a photo or two of Firefly in use had been included with the article. And some of the details of how all this is supposed to work are still a little murky.

(E.g., how Firefly works with sound. The article explicitly mentions only the camera, but obviously a microphone must be involved too.)

"It still begs the question, . . . ." (Re: Hmmm)

Raises the question, Jack of Shadows, not begs!

Begging the question is a logical fallacy — essentially, assuming one's conclusion. But it has become all-too-common today for people to say "begs the question" when what they actually mean is that such-and-such raises the question.

You also refer to a January issue of BYTE without bothering to specify a year. (Plus if my guess is right, you actually mean August of 1985?*) But since you mention the Amiga and distinguish real multitasking from pale imitations, all is forgiven. You're all right.

.

* http://archive.org/details/BYTE_Vol_10-08_1985-08_The_Amiga

What the Hell is Firefly???

In most respects this is a perfectly fine and helpful review. However, its discussion of Firefly does not even begin to convey adequately what it is and does and how it works.

"Launch the app and point the camera at something - a picture, a URL, a phone number, a bar code, and Amazon will tell you what it is."

The camera? What camera? Does "the camera" mean the phone's camera — the actual physical camera built into the phone — as any normal, sensible user of English would take it to mean, or a little picture of a camera shown on screen? Naturally I took the term at face value, but the things that are said about the camera and what one does with it (see below) suggest that maybe something entirely different and non-obvious — but in any event unstated — was intended.

"It works with music and video too. If it’s a purchasable item you get pointed to said item on Amazon.

For music and images I found Firefly to be reliable but the video ID feature is a bit hit and miss. Listening to the soundtrack (it doesn’t actually look at video) . . . ."

Huh? How the flunk do I point my phone's camera at music? (Or even an on-screen camera?) What does that even mean? Point it at the speaker from which the sound is emanating? And even if I do, how the Hell can a camera hear (or even see) music or a soundtrack?

And for that matter, how do I even point it at a video or an image? Being displayed where? Obviously I can't point my phone's camera at an image or video being displayed on the phone's screen; that's physically impossible! So am I supposed to point it at a video or image being displayed on a TV or a computer screen in the same room? Or — again — are we not actually talking about the phone's camera at all?

I'm sure there is a very good answer to my questions that would clear up my confusion and show how my questions are all entirely misconceived. It's a shame that answer wasn't provided in the review. The problem is that things obvious to the writer (Alun Taylor) — things that should have been spelled out for readers who have never used or seen an Amazon Fire Phone themselves — were left unstated. What Firefly is and does, and how it works, were left entirely unclear and mysterious.

Edward Snowden: best ... security ... educator ... EVER!

Trust no one!

"The research also touched on internet governance, reporting that no-one trusts anyone to run the internet although a cushy collection of NGOs, tech companies and engineers garnered 57 per cent of votes. About a third said the US should play an important role, but of these around three percent of punters in Western countries had complete faith in the US. Even patriots could only muster eight percent to the full confidence vote."

Count me as one Yank who trusts the US government and the Department of Commerce barely at all, but who trusts most or all of the available alternatives (that he's aware of) even less.

I have been much influenced on this particular topic (who gets the root zone files and tables) by the writings thereon of The Wall Street Journal's Gordon Covitz. I find them very persuasive.

There are things even worse and less trustworthy than the US government. Like the governments of China, Russia, and France.

Lenovo: We'll say HELLO MOTO to profits in 18 months

Wolfetone's suggestion: V3i/V8 running Android or BlackBerry 10

"You know what I'd love to see from Lenotorola?

A phone like the V3i/V8, running Android or - possibly - BlackBerry 10."

Since it can run any Android app anyway (though perhaps with a bit of difficulty in obtaining some of them) — and can do so at essentially native speeds — and since it has the elegance, efficiency and solidity of Neutrino underneath the hood, my vote would be for BlackBerry 10.

"prophesises" (in URL)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/25/lenovo_prophesises_moto_profits/

Oh, for the love of Christ! It's prophesies, not "prophesises" or "prophesizes"! Three syllables, not four!

http://www.onelook.com/?w=prophesy

The verb is to prophesy, not "prophesise" or "prophesize". It is roughly pronounced "prof-ess-eye" or "prof-e-sigh". With no goddam s or z sound at the end of the word!!!

(Prophecy — with a c instead of an s — is the noun (and the gift!), and is roughly pronounced "prof-e-see".)

I need a password to BRAKE? What? No! STOP! Aaaargh!

P.S. "regular coffee"

P.S. The confusion this usage naturally conduces to reminds me of another well-established regional usage. In the New York City area but no place else on Earth that I know of, the term "regular coffee" is used not in opposition to decaf — as it is everywhere else in the English-speaking world — but to denote coffee with milk and no sugar. (That's right, milk — not cream.) Which seems like a pretty fucking stupid default position, since you can always add milk if it was omitted and the customer wanted it, but you can't take it out once it has been added.

But there you are. The usage exists and persists all the same.

"a car that lacks working indicators"

"No, seriously, what right-minded individual would pay that much for a car that lacks working indicators and cannot be parked outside a supermarket except diagonally across three spaces?"

What an interesting usage. I had not previously encountered it.

The dashboard of any car is full of indicators — gauges, dials and meters that serve as indicators of vehicle speed, engine speed, miles traveled, remaining fuel (be it petrol or gasoline), and so on (time, temperature, engine temperature, oil pressure, the state of battery charge, . . .). When I first read the article, I honestly thought that Mr. Dabbs was asserting either that such instruments are typically broken on BMWs, or somehow are absent altogether.

Only later did I start to surmise that the statement in question might have been euphemistic sarcasm. That by "indicators" he actually meant turn signals — indicators specifically of one's intention to turn or change lanes — and that his assertion that BMWs lack working indicators was actually just a cutesy way of saying — yea, indicating — that Beemer* owners are too lazy or stupid to use their damn turn signals.

A subsequent Google search ("indicators British English") bore out my suspicion, providing numerous sources indicating what a large portion, if not a majority, of Reg readers already knew — that Brits use "indicator" to mean turn signal.** But also indicating that they also use the term broadly, the way everyone else uses it — to denote things that indicate, quite generally.

The British usage seems reasonable and perfectly sensible to me, but it obviously is one that depends heavily on context to indicate when the narrow, specific meaning of "indicator" rather than a broader, more general one is intended. Given that even Brits use the term "indicator" in its broader, more universal sense as well as as a term specifically for turn signals, it would have been helpful if Mr. Dabbs had used some different or additional words to indicate/make clear that in this instance he was not referring to (missing or malfunctioning) gauges, dials, meters, or other indicators on the dashboard. (For instance, at the very least, something like "indicator lights" or "direction indicators".)

.

* Or, if one prefers, "Bimmer":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW#BMW_slang

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080409175415AAKAUqy

.

** All of these sources save the last show Brits using "indicator" either to mean a turn signal or as everybody else uses the term, to denote pretty-much any kind of indicating device whatsoever:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/indicator

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/indicator

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/indicator

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/indicator

http://www.bg-map.com/us-uk.html

IDC: iPad sales crash incoming ... Win 8 killing 2-in-1 typoslabs

My compliments, Charlie Clark! ("Re: No news")

On a perceptive, illuminating comment.

In particular:

* your observation that the market for tablets will continue to grow anyway "because we're getting a generation of kids who are growing up with the tablet as their primary computing device";

* your further observation that their future tablet purchases will come at the expense more of "gaming and media consumption devices" than of PCs, because these users — being primarily content consumers rather than content creators — weren't going to be using PCs anyway (unless "absolutely necessary", as you point out); and

* your concise explanation of why the Surface has largely failed to date — because "RT was bizarrely crippled" and "the Pros are overpriced for the mass market".

When I first saw the Surface several years ago, in an article here at El Reg, I couldn't stop drooling. I thought it was so cool and such a clever idea; I think I even made a post about it on Facebook!* And ever since then, I have wondered why it has bombed so miserably.** Your answer makes perfect sense.

So kudos and thanks.

.

* Anyone who has noticed the scorn and vituperation I heap on Microsoft elsewhere should remember the almost fawning praise I had for it here.

.

** The unmitigated suckiness of Windows 8 — or at least its user interface — is not even remotely sufficient to explain Surface's failure to gain market share relative to other laptops that do not double as tablets (and relative to other tablets that do not have any sort of physical keyboard at all). Especially since most other laptops have to use Windows 8, too. Windows 8.1 ameliorates things considerably, but likewise does so in a manner neutral as between Surface and other machines.

"Thanks for everything, Mr Sinofsky"

Thanks indeed! How badly that man and his handiwork suck cannot be overstated.

Another golden nugget contained in the article:

"Longer product replacement cycles as users avoid upgrades so they can keep using software they like . . . ."

Love that Metro . . . er, Modern . . . interface! Let's just force everyone to use it, and to abandon the software and the modes of interaction they know and love. Sheesh!*

A good and informative piece, Simon. Quite revealing.

.

* People who do not know me personally cannot fully appreciate the significance of my scorn and sarcasm, for it is impossible to overstate how predisposed I am philosophically to defend large, successful companies like Microsoft. But 20 years of its giving users the finger have made me ready to light a torch. (By which I do not mean a flashlight.)

'How a censorious and moralistic blogger ruined my evening'

Cognitive Dissonance

I just can't get my head around the notion that someone from Buzzfeed — much less its editor-in-chief — did something sensible and showing integrity.

Might he at least have plagiarized it? I know he says he was there, and may even have witnesses, but has anyone looked for a source elsewhere on the 'Net?

It’s payback time as humans send a probe up alien body

Re: 2001 and 2010

"Clarke's repetition of the final sentence of Part 1 kind-of hits you over the head with it, if it weren't obvious already."

(1) I meant the last two sentences, not the last sentence alone. (This fact should be obvious to anyone who has read the novel.)

(2) Actually, in some ways the same two sentences are rather misleading the second time around, for their use implies that Dave Bowman/the Star Child has a host of options available and can do pretty-well whatever he damn pleases, when in fact he quite obviously was sent back to Earth for a very specific mission.* So one could argue that the novel's last two sentences make the story's ending less clear rather than more — just the opposite of what I asserted previously.

However, by using the same two sentences in reference to Bowman that he had already used in reference to Moonwatcher, the ape, Clarke signals that Bowman — like Moonwatcher before him — is at a nodal point in the history of human evolution. The repetition and comparison-suggesting juxtaposition produce the kind of irony or je ne sais quoi that makes so many of Clarke's story-endings so delightful. And again, it's still quite clear what Bowman came back to Earth to do.

.

* Technically he can do anything he wants, I suppose — certainly there is no one and no thing that can stop him! — but he has a very definite purpose in mind that was his sole reason for returning to Earth in the first place, and that will incline him to take a very specific action in short order and not bother doing much of anything else until after that action has been completed.

At which point he really can do anything in the universe he wants to, and so can the rest of us!

Though presumably all our desires — like his before ours — will have been transformed and elevated, so that all sorts of baser possibilities previously imaginable will no longer interest or appeal.

Re: 2001 and 2010

". . . and fought through the book . . . ."

I must concede and agree, though, that the book is tough to get through. The first two times I tried to read it, I couldn't get past Part One!

(In fairness, I was only ten years old the first time. I lacked sufficient patience, and had no idea yet what a mind-blowing payoff lay further into the book.)

.

". . . has watched 2001: A Space Odyssey at least 20 times, read the short story once and fought through the book on three occasions, . . . ."

My own stats are remarkably close to those of Mr. Dabbs. I, too, have watched the movie at least 20 times (somewhere after 10 or 12 I started losing count!) and read the novel at least thrice (not counting my first two, aborted attempts). It's possible my reading count now stands at four or even five, but I just don't recall. And I hope to read it at least once more before I die.

I've read "The Sentinel" at least twice, and probably thrice.

.

P.S. In every respect in which the novel differs from the short story, the novel is better:

* using the emission of a signal rather than the interruption of an ongoing signal as the sign that "Hey, your tea is ready!";

* burying the object instead of leaving it out in the open, but surrounding it with an intense and unusual magnetic field sure to attract the notice and attention of anyone looking;

* that in conjunction with both the decision to bury the object in an especially geologically stable region of the Moon (so it almost certainly wouldn't ever be pushed to the surface by natural geological forces) and the decision to use exposure to the Sun's light as a trigger

— every detail in the novel pertaining to the alien object on the Moon not only made perfect sense (and far more sense than the counterpart details of the short story), but represented sheer genius, both on the part of the aliens and on the part of Clarke (or Kubrick?). It was a thoroughly masterful playing of the odds by the aliens, in light of the experiments they had just performed on those apes on the neighboring planet.

2001 and 2010

"Alistair Dabbs . . . . has watched 2001: A Space Odyssey at least 20 times, read the short story* once and fought through the book on three occasions, and still doesn’t understand what the bloody hell Arty was on about. In his favour, at least it wasn’t as contrived and muddled as 2010."

The ending and implications of 2001 are clear enough (at least in the book), and they render the entire plot of 2010 and the other sequels impossible. If what was clearly supposed to happen next when 2001 closes actually had happened, everything in 2010 would have been overtaken by events several years earlier.** Any single one of us would have been just as able and just as inclined to protect Europa himself as the transformed Dave Bowman was, and there would have been no ordinary humans left to threaten Europa.

Viewed on its own, 2010 is a perfectly OK (if contrived and muddled!), or perhaps even more than OK, story; so are the other sequels (2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: The Final Odyssey). And the discovery of liquid water on Europa was new enough when 2010 first appeared (1982) that a story about the possibility of life on Europa was appealing.*** It still is, for that matter.

But if you understand what happened and what was at issue in 2001, 2010 and its successors are the greatest anticlimax in history. Perhaps even the greatest anticlimax imaginable!

.

* I assume by "the short story" he means "The Sentinel"; there is no short story entitled "2001" or "2001: A Space Odyssey".

2001 also draws heavily on at least three other Clarke short stories, though I forget what they are at the moment, and I do not have either my copy of 2001 or my collection of all his short stories at hand to check. However, "The Sentinel" is indeed the one that inspired Kubrick to approach Clarke about a joint project, and the one that 2001 draws on most centrally.

.

** I can elaborate on this claim if necessary, and spell out "what was clearly supposed to happen next when 2001 closes". But I resist doing so for now. No one who has read the book should need it spelled out, and people who haven't read the book yet deserve the thrill of reading the final paragraphs and realizing what comes next for themselves. Clarke's repetition of the final sentence of Part 1 kind-of hits you over the head with it, if it weren't obvious already.

.

*** It is possible I am mistaken about how long it has been known or suspected that Europa has liquid water underneath its frozen surface. However, the 1977 discovery of chemosynthetic life around undersea hydrothermal vents on Earth — strongly suggestive of a similar possibility on Europa — was only about 5 years old when 2010 was published. That discovery coupled with the knowledge that Europa has a liquid ocean underneath its surface is what inspired Clarke's idea for the sequel.

If only 0.006% care about BLOOD-SOAKED METAL ... why are we spending all this cash?

Do ALL of us really want MORE from government?

"Sure, we'd all like more from government, . . . ."

I for one would like less from government. Far less.

Horizon finds new potential in the sci-fi staple deepsleep tale

Re: A bit like Earthlight?

Just in case anyone wants to pick nits:

The stasis in Forbidden Planet did not involve freezing or lower-than-normal body temperature, and was not used for the purpose of reducing resource consumption or preventing aging during transit. Instead it was presented as a technical requirement, either of faster-than-light travel itself, or of the transitions between sub-light and faster-than-light travel — I forget which. I think the idea was to prevent people from moving during the transition, or something like that. But it was a type of stasis, even if not the more common type of stasis.

A bit like Earthlight?

As described, the story sounds a bit like a cross between the movie Alien and Arthur C. Clarke's novel Earthlight — minus the former's beasties. (Alien's element of a crew in stasis, with Earthlight's political crisis.)

Of course, lots of stories involve having most or all of the crew in stasis (Forbidden Planet, Planet of the Apes, 2001: A Space Oddyssey, et c., et c.), and Horizon doesn't necessarily sound like Alien more than it does like any of these others as well. Plus 2001: A Space Oddyssey involves the element of a rogue artificial intelligence. (Alien sort-of as well, but not so much.)

But still, Alien's crew setting combined with Earthlight's strife and turmoil is what sprang to mind.

Police in U-turn as 'shop a gun-owner' hotline is scrapped

Natural rights demoted to mere "privileges"?

"It is a privilege to own a firearm - not a right." Natural rights enjoyed subject to the whim of the police. Victims of theft punished as wrongdoers (unless they are lucky enough to satisfy the police), almost as though they were accomplices. Citizens admonished to narc on their fellow law-abiding citizens, à la East Germany.

I weep for my brethren and sistren across the Pond. Blackstone must be rolling in his grave.

Apple fanbois are 'MENTALLY UNSTABLE' but you still have to 'SERVICE' them

Touch This! (i.e., usage)

Based on the Burberry(s) connection, I had assumed Ms. Ahrendts to be English, or at least British. I was all set to lament how this was "Another blow to my illusions of British superiority" (in use of the English language).

However, it turns out she was born and raised in the United States (specifically, Indiana). Which makes her brazen illiteracy somewhat less of a surprise.*

It's bad enough that she does not know the difference between the verbs serve and service. (Are children raised in the American Midwest no longer familiar with the basics — and basic terminology — of animal husbandry?) Her figurative — or not? — use of the verb touch almost suggests that she was deliberately engaging in one long double-entendre.

In any event, in the face of this combination of factors, I consider the puerile/infantile/prurient/titillating aspects of this first story to be entirely her doing rather than Jasper Hamhill's or El Reg's.

It's a shame when literate staff** must serve an illiterate master.*** Or mistress. Especially since — for all I know — she might even be quite good (language difficulties aside) in her chosen field of marketing.

.

* On the other hand, it makes her receipt of an honorary doctorate of Humane Letters (!) rather puzzling. And embarrassing for Ball State University, her alma mater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Ahrendts

.

** Absent evidence to the contrary, I must assume that at least some of Apple's retail staff know the difference between serve and service.

.

*** Cf. the burden of Microsoft employees serving under Satya Nadella, who is as jargon-prone as his immediate predecessor, and who does not seem to know the meaning of the word "first".

Marketing or HR? (i.e., spelling)

Turns out it's "Angela Ahrendts", not "Angela Arhendts". Jasper transposed the r and the h in her last name.

(I never heard of her before, but I learned this upon Googling her.)

Hot, horny bees swerve planet-saving duties as climate warms

Might someone be kind enough to clarify, please?

I've no wish to get into any of the myriad issues surrounding AGW, or even into whether this particular paper was well or poorly thought-out. I just wish to understand a comment that Team Register made.

This one:

"Researchers from the University of East Anglia, Reg readers may want to take note, used Met Office climate records as part of their study. So we bring this information to you along with some serious side-eye glances."

Are the side-eye glances due to the use of Met Office climate records, or the fact that the researchers are from the University of East Anglia? I would have thought the latter,* but the sentence clearly reads as though the former is intended.

I know a tiny bit about the University of East Anglia and its apparent penchant for not-so-objective scientific practice, but I know nothing at all about the Met Office — not even what it is — or any climate records it might keep. It sounds like perhaps I should correct that.

So would someone be kind enough to explain, please?

.

* Thanks to "Climategate", I am passingly familiar with the University of East Anglia and its (in)famous Climatic Research Unit, as well as Michael Mann of Penn State University. (Not the TV and movie director of Miami Vice, Heat and Last of the Mohicans fame, but the other one.) So I certainly am ready to associate East Anglia, or at least the CRU — but much more so Professor Mann — with non-objective or flat-out dishonest practice of science, and with data, analyses and interpretations that must be taken with a boulder of salt.

Ex-NSA lawyer warns Google, Apple: IMPENETRABLE RIM ruined BlackBerry

One minor quibble with El Reg's response

The last two paragraphs* of this story understate the matter. BlackBerry's security policies are not simply a less important factor contributing to BlackBerry's downfall. They did not contribute to BlackBerry's downfall at all. They were a positive factor greatly enhancing BlackBerry's appeal, and BlackBerry faltered despite them, not because of them.

.

* It is no secret that BlackBerry has in the past run afoul of some state governments for BES' security, but most would say that secrecy was pretty far down on the list of reasons why BlackBerry is in the toilet.

[In fact the security that BlackBerrys provide their owners was not on that list at all.]

We'd humbly suggest to Baker that a number of other cock-ups – including falling behind Apple and Android in smartphones, flopping with a tablet rollout and having a disastrous comeback effort – had much more to do with BlackBerry's downfall than its security policies.

[The security that BlackBerrys provide their owners did not merely have less to do with BlackBerry's downfall than all the various cock-ups; it had nothing to do with that downfall.]

Trickle-down economics works: SpaceShipTwo is a prime example

Galbraith's definition of "trickle-down"

I once heard the late John Kenneth Galbraith define "trickle-down" as "the notion that by giving oats to the horse, we benefit the sparrows." Or something like that.

Bona-fide science: Which forms of unusual sex are mainstream?

Re: "A dumb as Americans???"

Oh, for the love of Pete!

AS dumb as Americans, not A dumb as Americans. Sheesh!

(It's always extra embarrassing to make a mistake when one was in critic mode — even if only implicitly and indirectly — to begin with!)

My thanks to whoever voted my post down (first/so far) for bringing (whether advertently or inadvertently) this astonishing and sloppy error to my attention. And my apologies to one and all for my sloppiness and inattention.

@Paul Kinsler

"Further, it doesn't represent the majority theoretical physics community I am a part of, or the more applied physics community who - in the same building as me - are trying to improve chemical/bio sensing, medical imaging, or laser/led/light sources, amongst many other things."

By any chance have either you or any of your colleagues ever worked with either Will Happer or Gordon Cates?

A dumb as Americans???

"Bill Bryson names it the London, England syndrome where you have to explain everything so the numbnuts don't have to think too hard, well really not think at all, about what they are reading."

I have no idea who Bill Bryson is, but the fact that someone could say this (and have it be sufficiently well-founded that people know what he is talking about) shatters my faith in Limey superiority. I want to believe that people on your side of the Pond aren't morons, are better edumacated than we, still speak proper English (spelling aside), etc.

A rather important omission . . .

. . . especially in light of the article's emphasis on items of prurient interest:

The article does not make clear whether it is among men or women (or both) that golden showers were found to be an "unusual" fantasy.*

(In contrast, the article does helpfully clarify later on — though not in the first instance — that the fantasy of having sex with two women is "common" only among men.)

.

* The only person I know who admits to enjoying golden showers is a woman.

I'm not certain, but I believe she also may have enjoyed sex with two women at once on at least a few occasions; I know** she has enjoyed sex with other women one-at-a-time on multiple occasions. While she prefers men to women on balance, she vows never again to have another three-way involving a man because of the effect that a three-way with two women has on the attitude and behavior of the man involved.

Concerning the other kind of three-way, she has never commented (to me) on the idea of herself and two other men at once.

.

** Unless of course she was lying; I have never witnessed any of these high jinks — let alone been a party to them — myself!

User-to-user messages?

User-to-user messages?

Is there presently a way for one Forums user to send a message to another Forums user? If not, are there plans (however indefinite) to add such a feature in the future?

(Yesterday I posed a question in reply to someone else's post, but I seem to have no way to bring my reply or my question to his attention. It appears that he and I might have one or two mutual acquaintances.)

Pixel mania: Apple 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display

"chomping at the bit"

"It’s certainly not the home computer that it used to be, but the iMac with Retina 5K Display will have designers, photographers and video-editors chomping at the bit."

It's champing at the bit, not chomping.

(I myself thought it was "chomping" until someone corrected me, nearly 30 years ago. He challenged me to look it up in the dictionary, and in disbelief I did, only to find he was right.

Some dictionaries now list "chomp" as an acceptable alternative to or regional variant of "champ", but that is only due to widespread repetition of the mistake — mainly by Americans. Champ at the bit remains the proper, original expression.)

Microsoft gets storage QoS and software-defined storage religion

"arrays of all stripes"

"arrays of all stripes (pardon the pun, RAID users)"

If there is such a thing, that was a GOOD pun!

Disk drive BIGNESS is back: Seagate revenues and shipments surge

Verbs used as nouns . . . yet again

"nine per cent up on an annual compare"

"Seagate's total capacity ship growth"

What is it with The Register and these newfangled hipster usages? Has the use of verbs in lieu of nouns recently been written into the El Reg Style Guide or something?

This usage is not only erroneous, but pretentious. El Reg has been a stalwart defender of proper English for most of the 15+ years that I've been a reader, but lately y'all have been puttin' on airs!

'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux

Credit Where Credit Is Due (was "Re: Meeeh")

Just remember: Microsoft have [sic] NEVER released ANY product that works properly."

DOS 6.0 and especially 6.2 both worked quite well. (Scandisk was rock-solid.) So did Access 2.0 (live views, and the incorporation of the Rushmore indexing technology acquired with the Foxpro purchase) and some early versions of Excel (pivot tables, etc.). And for that matter, even Multiplan was actually pretty good in its day. Microsoft tended to do good work when it faced serious competition and was not already the market leader.

There also was a lot that was good in early versions of Windows NT (4.0 and earlier — especially 3.5), and in Microsoft's contributions to OS/2. (HPFS for sure. The serialized message queue, not so much.)

But in the past 20 years . . .

Xerox Rooms for Windows (was "Re: Meeeh")

"But you may want to read about Xerox Rooms for Windows, (c) 1989-1992!"

Very interesting! Thank you for posting!

I never heard of Xerox Rooms for Windows before. (Nor of its companion, Xerox Rooms for X Windows (sic).

http://toastytech.com/guis/xrms.html

I clicked on the first screen shot and verified, it really does say "Rooms for X WindowS" — twice! — instead of "Rooms for X Window", as it should.)

On balance I prefer the implementation of virtual desktops in PC Tools for Windows, from Central Point Software (may it rest in peace — gone, but not forgotten!).

http://toastytech.com/guis/cpdesk.html

Judging from the descriptions and the screen shots of each, and my memory of using the "Central Point Desktop" in PC Tools for Windows ("PCTW"), the latter was a more polished and fully developed implementation of virtual desktops than that in Xerox Rooms. In particular:

* Each individual desktop in PCTW was fully, easily and awesomely customizable, using menus right there in the desktop (and using right-click menus as well, if memory serves). (According to the link Anonymous Coward provided above, Xerox Rooms required use of the Windows Control Panel to change things like desktop backgrounds. Its own built-in controls were limited.)

* And PCTW provided — in my opinion — a better mini-view of all open desktops, and more and better (on balance) ways to navigate and switch among them. (You can switch desktops either by selecting a different desktop from a pull-down menu in the top right corner of the screen, or by clicking on the appropriate image in the mini-display of open desktops. I forget what that display is called, but it is fully customizable, resizable, reshapeable (e.g., in the case of 6 desktops: 1x6 horizontal, 2x3, 3x2, or 6x1 vertical), and repositionable.)

(Click on the links, read the descriptions, view the screen shots and judge for yourself, if you are interested. The fact that PCTW provided a full-blown replacement for Program Manager — whereas Rooms for Windows did not replace Program Manager at all — and the integration of PCTW's multiple desktop capability with all the other features and aspects of its replacement shell, give PCTW a huge advantage.)

But the two implementations (Xerox's and Central Point's) appear to be quite similar, and more alike than different. More proof that virtual desktops were perfectly possible under Windows 3.1 or earlier!

So why has Microsoft waited until now to offer them itself?

Planning to fly? Pour out your shampoo, toss your scissors, rename terrorist Wi-fi!

One thing I don't understand . . .

Why didn't LAX ground all flights until the mystery was investigated and resolved?

Although the wireless hotspot with the scary-but-misspelled name was discovered by a passenger on Flight 136, there was nothing in the article that indicated — and the article presented no reason to think — that the hotspot was actually on the plane. Based on what is in the article, all we know is that the hotspot was located "somewhere in or around Los Angeles International Airport", and somewhere within range of the plane.

Since there was no evidence (or at least none presented in the article) of a connection between the hotspot and this particular plane, why weren't all planes grounded pending investigation?

Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster

Far too kind

This article explains things nicely, but it is far too kind. Sinofsky deserves to die!

</hyperbole>

The only thing worse than a moron is an arrogant moron, for his arrogance blinds him to his own foolishness and presumption.

The iPAD launch BEFORE it happened: SPECULATIVE GUFF ahead of actual event

Re: "SPECULATIVE GUFF ahead of actual event"

Okay, so it turns out the article doesn't actually contain any real speculation. (He says, having finally read the actual article instead of just the title.) It still was a nice parody of the kind of speculation that often gets promulgated by other sources, and that rarely is labeled the guff that it is.

"SPECULATIVE GUFF ahead of actual event"

El Reg deserves some kind of journalism award for this title alone.

All news sources deliver large quantities of speculative guff (at least when hard facts are not yet available, and often even when they are available), but how many have the honesty and self-awareness to label it as such up-front?

I think it will be a cold day in Hell before, say, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC offers such a disclaimer.

Google opens Inbox – email for people too thick to handle email

"To reminder you"???????

"One very useful feature is the ability to quickly set up emails to reminder you about meetings, dinner dates and other stuff that's about to happen."

"Reminder you"? Really? Is this just the result of a mischievous spell-checker, or has yet another noun been turned into an utterly unnecessary and redundant verb?

(The reverse phenomenon is just as stupid, and just as "epic"* a "fail".)

.

* In a TV commercial for Pizza Hut a year or so ago, a pizza box was described as "epic". A pizza box! Not even the pizza itself; just the friggin' box!

Clearly the word "epic" has lost all meaning in general, popular use.

What’s the KEYBOARD SHORTCUT for Delete?! Look in a contextual menu, fool!

Windows 8 touchpad swipe gestures/rescuing the missus from some godawful metro app

Windows 8's lack of visual cues is a big problem. Thank Goodness you can always close an application that is opened by accident!

Oh, wait. You can't. Friggin' genii! Redmond wankers.

Yes, I understand that both of the problems I complain of (no visual cues for gesture interface; no way to close TIFKAM applications, once opened) were considerably ameliorated in the Windows 8.1 Update. But before that Update, I could not believe how easy it was to open an unwanted application by mistake, nor how there apparently was no way to close a Metro app, once opened. And I especially could not believe how applications I thought I had already closed (despite Microsoft's efforts to prevent me from closing them) — using Task Manager, since no other way seemed to be available — would suddenly reassert themselves and take over my entire screen if I unsuspectingly moved the cursor too near to the top left corner.

So I empathize and sympathize with Dylbot and his missus.

Mice and Hand-Eye Coordination

"And there's a lot less hand-eye coordination involved in using a keyboard compared to using a mouse or touch. Better for the eyes, better for the hands."

For Windows users, the premium placed on hand-eye coordination skyrocketed in August of 1995. Before Windows 95, we did not have to worry about or pay attention to the path the mouse took from point A to point B; we just thought about where we were moving it to. After Windows 95, and to the present day, we have to be very careful how we move the mouse for fear of causing an unwanted submenu to pop up and cover the menu selection we were trying to get to. Sheer idiocy!

A distinct but related point: Under Windows 3.1 and earlier (and OS/2, and the Amiga), if one changed one's mind about a particular submenu one had opened, or it turned out not to be the one one was looking for, one merely had to click on the same submenu a second time to get it out of way. One did not have to click on some other submenu to make the first one go away, as one must do today.*

By changing the Windows event model and menuing system so that the mouse's mere presence at a position suddenly had the same effect as a mouse click, Microsoft fundamentally changed the way most of us use the mouse, and it was a change very much for the worse. It was a new behavior that could and should have been left optional.

.

* Jacking up the value of "MenuShowDelay" sometimes solves the first problem, but not the second. And the problem's creation in the first place was totally unnecessary.

Splendid article!

Splendid article! And I for one believe that every word of it is true.

El Reg's new ads prevent content from loading

Appears solved!

Ditto. Me neither.

I meant to come back here much sooner to report that I had not seen the problem recur, but I got sidetracked. Sorry for my delay — I can't believe it has now been some 12 days.

In any event, the problem appears to be fixed, and I thank you again, Matt, for taking care of that. Thanks mucho!

Windows 10: Forget Cloudobile, put Security and Privacy First

Excellent article!

An excellent article in a number of ways. Many specific points were spot-on.

Moreover, it was empathetic and balanced, and reasoned rather than reflexive (as it might have been had *I* written it!). Trevor made an effort to see things from Microsoft's perspective, but also to explain to Microsoft why so many users are so mad at it, and no longer trust it.

If I were to add anything to what he said about putting security and privacy first, it would be flexibility and user control. (Meaning control by users, not control of users!) And he specifically made the point that Microsoft has denied users options time and again when it easily could have given us a choice; he only failed to repeat this when summarizing.

Again, well done!

Behind the Facebook DRAG QUEEN CRACKDOWN: 'Anonymity soon!'

Political Dissidents

Facebook has finally made an eminently sensible exception to its claimed[1] "real name policy" for drag queens, yet it remains happy to apply this policy to Chinese political dissidents who risk their lives — at least potentially — by criticizing their government and its policies.[2]

When will these hyper-puritanical Nazis come to their senses and realize that the only sane policy — and the only way Facebook can be fair and evenhanded in the application of that policy, in all cases — is to let users use whatever name they wish?

.

[1] See above re Mark Zuckerberg's dog.

Some churlish souls might object that the dog is — presumably — using its real name ("Beast" — or so we are told!), but I strongly suspect the reality is that some human being who already has a Facebook page in his or her own name is also making posts in the dog's name. Thus maintaining at least two separate accounts under at least two different names.

Remember this when reading what the Facebook mouthpieces say about people using false names or multiple accounts.

.

[2] I thought I first learned of this from El Reg, but apparently I misremembered. I could find no pertinent articles using the site's search feature. But this piece from The Guardian will suffice as an introduction for the unfamiliar:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/09/chinese-blogger-mark-zuckerberg-dog

Microsoft knuckled under to the ChiComs some 5 years earlier, shutting down Michael Anti's blog. See, e.g.:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09122008/profile3.html

Granted, "Michael Anti" has suffered great inconvenience rather than death, but there is little reason to doubt that the PRC could and would take him out should he become too annoying.

"Beast"

It is impossible to take Facebook's "real name policy" seriously — let alone the things it says in support of that policy — so long as Mark Zuckerberg's dog has a Facebook account.

Facebook apologizes for binning accounts of drag queens

Political Dissidents

Facebook has finally made an eminently sensible exception to its claimed[1] "real name policy" for drag queens, yet it remains happy to apply this policy to Chinese political dissidents who risk their lives — at least potentially — by criticizing their government and its policies.[2]

When will these hyper-puritanical Nazis come to their senses and realize that the only sane policy — and the only way Facebook can be fair and evenhanded in the application of that policy, in all cases — is to let users use whatever name they wish?

.

[1] See above re Mark Zuckerberg's dog.

Some churlish souls might object that the dog is — presumably — using its real name ("Beast" — or so we are told!), but I strongly suspect the reality is that some human being who already has a Facebook page in his or her own name is also making posts in the dog's name. Thus maintaining at least two separate accounts under at least two different names.

Remember this when reading what the Facebook mouthpieces say about people using false names or multiple accounts.

.

[2] I thought I first learned of this from El Reg, but apparently I misremembered. I could find no pertinent articles using the site's search feature. But this piece from The Guardian will suffice as an introduction for the unfamiliar:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/09/chinese-blogger-mark-zuckerberg-dog

Microsoft knuckled under to the ChiComs some 5 years earlier, shutting down Michael Anti's blog. See, e.g.:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09122008/profile3.html

Granted, "Michael Anti" has suffered great inconvenience rather than death, but there is little reason to doubt that the PRC could and would take him out should he become too annoying.

"Beast"

It is impossible to take Facebook's "real name policy" seriously — let alone the things it says in support of that policy — so long as Mark Zuckerberg's dog has a Facebook account.

Drag queens: Oh, don't be so bitchy, Facebook! Let us use our stage names

Political Dissidents

Facebook has finally made an eminently sensible exception to its claimed[1] "real name policy" for drag queens, yet it remains happy to apply this policy to Chinese political dissidents who risk their lives — at least potentially — by criticizing their government and its policies.[2]

When will these hyper-puritanical Nazis come to their senses and realize that the only sane policy — and the only way Facebook can be fair and evenhanded in the application of that policy, in all cases — is to let users use whatever name they wish?

.

[1] See above re Mark Zuckerberg's dog.

Some churlish souls might object that the dog is — presumably — using its real name ("Beast" — or so we are told!), but I strongly suspect the reality is that some human being who already has a Facebook page in his or her own name is also making posts in the dog's name. Thus maintaining at least two separate accounts under at least two different names.

Remember this when reading what the Facebook mouthpieces say about people using false names or multiple accounts.

.

[2] I thought I first learned of this from El Reg, but apparently I misremembered. I could find no pertinent articles using the site's search feature. But this piece from The Guardian will suffice as an introduction for the unfamiliar:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/09/chinese-blogger-mark-zuckerberg-dog

Microsoft knuckled under to the ChiComs some 5 years earlier, shutting down Michael Anti's blog. See, e.g.:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09122008/profile3.html

Granted, "Michael Anti" has suffered great inconvenience rather than death, but there is little reason to doubt that the PRC could and would take him out should he become too annoying.

"Beast"

It is impossible to take Facebook's "real name policy" seriously — let alone the things it says in support of that policy — so long as Mark Zuckerberg's dog has a Facebook account.