"Quality, price and styling"
You got that in the wrong order - price, styling and quality.
1592 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2014
I was searching the dark web transplant organ sites. I'm getting a bit forgetful and think I need a new brain. I found that El Reg commentard brains were notably expensive.
I asked the supplier why, expecting a pitch based on how intelligent etc the previous owner had been. No, "Never been used mate."
About a Year ago I collected my new car. It had several "driver assist" enhancements.
The lane keeping warning is just that, a warning (steering wheel shakes and becomes stiff to turn). It will keep the car in the lane if it is a very gentle curve but I have not tested it too rigorously: one I am chicken; two it throws a hissy fit if I don't use the steering.
The "automatic cruise control" will maintain speed, up to the cars idea of the speed limit*, and react to the speed of the car in front. This system is more "self driving" but I have never, for the reason stated first above, given it full control when I think the closing speed could be too great.
The crucial thing is that there is no claim made about self driving in any way. You know the thing, BIG BOLD WRITING IN RED etc.
Rarely is the self driving aspect of use because I don't trust it. It has convinced me that I was always right to be sceptical of Teslar's Autopilot.
* Mostly correct but sometimes a dangerous thing - dropping from 70 to 30 mph for no apparent reason. You get shouted at by other drivers.
Mutually assured destruction (MAD)
A Fairy Swordfish carrying a couple of (well separated) sub critical lumps of Uranium is not "assured". Spend the money, or at least most of it, on a credible programme and convince the "other team" it will not be worth kicking off. Money well spent, money necessarily spent.
I think this court action has been bumbling along for somewhere in the region of a decade. Why no mitigating savings?
Answering my own question, I suppose it is more sensible for the council to suddenly say we're broke and stick it to the Tories.
Was it Birmingham ten years ago or is my memory wrong?
Back in the day, when I was responsible for classified information, there was the concept of bulk data. Just because an individual item of data was in itself unclassified did not mean that a complete table of the information was also unclassified.
The information was released in error. According to the UK papers someone downloaded it, printed it and stuck it to an outside, public wall. An error is an error and not necessarily criminal - perm any one of sacking, retraining or learning lessons. It is the actions of others after the event that is potentially criminal.
IANAL, but mens rea may not be required for a crime to be committed in cases of terrorism or misuse of data.
If The Register had a web ap it would have to be The Best. The commentariat would be all over it and 30 seconds after it was released there would be the first report "El Reg Slurper" if that is the case. Know your user!
When a South American country launched a radio ham satellite there was a theory that it was cover for some sort of spy satellite. I can think of nothing more likely to be blown than hookey radiation purporting to be for the benefit of amateur radio enthusiasts.
I don't think it is beyond the wit of El Reg readers to make out a list of many of the "winners" of the tender. Has any member of the great comentariat out there anything good to say about these usual suspects. There must be some successes (other than making loads of undeserved profit) if they keep winning?
Serious question. It is quite depressing.
In the good old says (now?) ERNIE generated winning numbers. The numbers were then passed to another machine to check that there were valid premium bonds with a winning number. Thus many ERNIE numbers were discarded as non-winning because the bonds never existed, didn't qualify by time or had been encashed.
Is this important? Only for historical reasons. One machine, two machines, three dice, all I want is the BIG prize!
"If courts are unable to determine sworn bullshit from sworn fact, you cannot have a fair trial."
That is the job of the jury. It is the job of the barristers, expert witnesses and the judge to make this as easy as possible for them. Of course, the expert witness lying like a broken watch is not necessarily an aid to the process.
Many years ago a computer magazine (PC Pro?) experimented with editing Wikipedia. They made three edits. The first was the equivalent of changing Trump to the Democrat Party, this was corrected within minutes. The second change, not so current or divisive a subject, lasted a day or two. The final change was to Buzz Aldrin's page. His date of birth was left unchanged but the day was changed from Wednesday to Thursday (or a similar slip) and this was still published several months on.
The result was not altogether surprising. There was less access and the Internet was still a frontier in a good way - motives were assumed to be good and the Aldrin change was quite subtle.
As I understand the law (IANAL etc.) the photographing of an out of copyright painting is controlled by the premises. The photograph has its own copyright but who holds it depends upon the agreement made. I don't know the legal position of a surreptitiously taken photograph. There is a copyright but it may have been ceded to the gallery under the general conditions of entry.
In terms of road safety this is a retrograde step. It is compounded by the sheer incompetence of the touch screen user interface. The tenth circle of hell is too good for the "engineers" who design these abominations.
Adobe Says:
The UI design principals are:
Place users in control of the interface
Make it comfortable to interact with a product
Reduce cognitive load
Make user interfaces consistent
We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronius Arbiter