Posts by That_Guy 25 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Oct 2015
My first was a Nokia Orange 5.1 in '94 most of my friends had similar phones around the same time.
http://www.mobilephonehistory.co.uk/nokia/nokia_2140.php
What's interesting is a shift in support. If I had a problem with the phone while under contract, a man in a van came out and _replaced_ it, no questions asked within a few hours 24/7.
As for never having owned another brand, I agree except for the suspect statistic. Countless times I hear people ask about my phone and say things like is it a samsung, does it work like a samsung, or that they wouldn't know how to use a non-samsung phone. As if Android was that diverse. So there is the idea that other phones are unapproachable hurdle to get over.
I think samsung will recover, slowly over a number of years, but not to their former position. People will forget about the latest hot samsung merely beacause enough people looked elsewhere and found that there's so much more out there.
Maybe we need another Compaq to rescue the day. While the analogy isn't a perfect fit as C, didn't build a CPU clone, they did wrestle the PC from the cold dead clutches of IBM. The PC would have been a relic of history without the reverse engineering effort and our History of PC clones.
Relating to the current end-of-life issues with Qualcon's 80x chipset, which is absolutely a financial decision passed off as a circular wild goose chase.
Should a company have the balls to build a CPU that is restriction free, politics free (i.e. not bound to us domestic intelligence law: snapdragon vs china's mediatek, or samsung specific exynos), and usable by device manufacturers today, has comparable efficiency and processing power, isn't tied to a specific handset manufacturer and more importantly says fu to Microsoft and the ideology behind locking hardware down we might be have a mini revolution. Otherwise we're diving deeper into the current cesspool of idiocy that leads to a 2 year old device being obsolete on an irrelevant technicality, while being more powerful than some devices being sold as new.
As an appetizer: How about this google.... for hardware to be certified for use with the google apps, all of the drivers must be open source.
Where's my tinfoil thingamabob... OK, all good.
No way in hell would I implement the workaround. On a system with a high volume TCP load, I speculate that essentially removing rate limiting would open one up to stack saturation / buffer overflows with intentionally sent malicious packets. Or maybe that's the intention of this workaround that reads like a nation state armchair exploitation.
Agent N: Oy geeza, do this or you'll be owned -
Adminerd: Kk.
Agent N: lolz owned.
Adminerd: :[, barely had time to lick a boot.
Would you be so kind as to give the phone to someone else at elReg for a review with a little more unbiased passion? Then you can go back to the safe zone of your mainstream Samsung.
Your review was littered with errors and omissions. None of which were excepted.
In business when I feel out of my professional depth, I hold my hand up and offer the best advice I can give on where to go for appropriate service. in the instances where I have done this. I have not lost a single client. If writing reviews isn't where your heart is, please leave it to someone for whom it is. At the very least: Accuracy counts.
I'm not an HTC fanboi, I use and enjoy a range of devices over a range of manufacturers.
Let them fail.
There will still be a market for cable, there well still be an infrastructure. Therefore restructuring however slowly is inevitable.
A base administration cost of $10 plus $1/channel may well come faster than you think. Also the right to buy your own box.
The only thing that needs to change to accommodate this is the grotesque profits need to be slashed on all counts.
Tbh most channels need to go. Do we really need 500 channels of cruft? I'd put money on the notion that most people watch a small subset of the available channels. Therefore I assert that we could in reality settle for 50 'decent' channels + on-demand for $30/mo. That or collapse to the likes of Amazon and Netflix. If Netflix were to launch a news program etc to round of their offering cable cutting would also push many more to abandon cable since there's still so many that don't/can't get local hd channels ota.
If referring to the current à la carte offerings we have where individual producers try to gouge for ~$10/mo then yes: à la carte is more expensive.
What most allude to is a cable system that allows you to pick channels for far less than an individual sub. So in that context a resounding No.
Too big to fail.
All essential telecoms infrastructure and operating practices should be centrally managed and regulated to the teeth. All customer relations should then be managed by limited access (m)vno's be that for pots, isp's or mobile. Companies can then bid to work on local systems, with mandatory competition and be performance reviewed.
The /gooberment/ can still sink it's treacherous claws in, and we all get accountability and standard operating practices.
But no, we have this monopolistic sham where we have to put up and shut up.
On the other hand, if I could get a Roku with a cable connector that could stream channels/on-demand to our various devices _and_ a per-channel à la carte plan. I'd maybe reconsider having cut the cord. Till then keep your ugly cable box in a location where the sun don't shine. I'll do the same with my cash.
Still equating a 1:1 ratio with digital distribution? Flawed thinking.
As an admittedly small-fry musician; I started writing while I had a day-job. Never having the pretense that because I created something I was rightful in demanding a regular salary, let alone wealth or riches. True artists enter the music environments with nothing more than a passion to write. Those of us for whom our fans help promote our works are luckier than we imagine. Thus when we whine about lost profits through slants created by corporate executives interested solely in maximising profits: we've become derailed from the truth as both products and consumers of culture.
It's time for a new promotional industry to emerge that is fair and proportional to consumers and artists, even our promoting fans alike. It's time to dump our labels and the greed that drives them.
I'm mystified by those who shudder at the horrors of M$ and Ubuntu, then proclaim Mint as some kind of golden horse, Mint has it's own issues with snooping, they get to place their own ads on your searches, and know what your searches are unless you remove the "addons", there's a few things you have to remove for a clean system, but with such a business model, can they be trusted by anyone mildly security focused?
citation: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=76946
There are plenty of distributions that are truly community driven and offer truly free (as in freedom) software. Mint while arguably popular isn't the holy grail it's usually lauded as. I'll refrain from suggesting a distro, it's an utterly personal choice and something only personal research can help you fathom.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
