Technology Thread.

[Bruce Rioja]

System Network Services? Had a couple of calls from guys rambling on about being concerned about my laptop..(don't have one, the wife does). Knowing suppliers don't make phone calls, who are these people? I just cut the calls.

Hang on, hang on. They don't even know if you own a computer, let alone a laptop or are even coupled to the internet or anything.

Scamming bastards.

Whistle for sure

[thebish]

i had one of them ring me once and they said they had detected there was a problem with my pc... I asked them which one - the one in the study facing the window - the one in the study facing the other way, or one of the upstairs ones...

he didn't know!

[Harry Genshaw]

Register with the TPS http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We're registered at home and hardly ever get spam calls. If we do, mother Pru just says 'we're registered with the TPS' and they apologise and ring off.

I've just seen when finding that link that they do mobile numbers too now, so I'll be doing that so the f*ckers stop constantly ringing trying to get me to claim back PPI.

Their website does say they can't do a lot about spam from abroad though, so sounds like unfortunately you're on a list TD.

Good shout this, as is getting on the mailing preference service. We get very little bother either way.

No offence TD but you getting meithered could be due to your age. These shysters target oaps in particular. My Parents are away at the moment and I tend to pop down after a few days to check on everything. I can't leave it much longer than that otherwise I couldn't open the front door! The amount of mail they get is ridiculous

[thebish]

with the junk mail leaflet scams - there is something known in the trade as a "sucker list" - you respond to one and you are forever more live bait! I suspect there is summat similar on email and telephone...

[Prufrock]

Online targeted advertising seems to be at the same stage as computer done subtitles; I can see what they're trying to do, but the technology just isn't there yet. In one case it's funny. Subtitles rarely get two sentences is without a massive f*ck-up, my favourite being the last Pope resignation when they referred to him pre-pope as 'Cardinal Rap Singer'.

In terms of targeted ads it's trying to look natural but being blatantly fecking obvious. I recently got an advert on Facebook for what I assume was a personalised clothing range with a shit hoodie with my surname blazed across. I think they'd gone for 'subtle' and got 'WE'RE STALKING YOU'.

Latest version; I bought a new drying rack the other day from Argos. Saw the picture in the catalogue, ordered it instore and used my card. I just got a Facebook ad for the same dryer. Now I've never searched for this dryer online, and so the only thing connecting it to me is the card purchase - the card being linked to my online account - which is a little creepy for my liking; but, if you're going to use my card details to target stuff at me, don't push the one thing you know I already have!

[thebish]

perhaps they should have tried to sell you some wet clothes to go with it?

[KeyserSoze]

ebay users! change your password

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27503290" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[clapton is god]

Just a month now since I bought a Garmin Vivofit. Wearable technology that pairs with your phone and/or computer to give you a daily walking goal with the intention of getting a bit fitter (and do I need it!) It's really a glorified pedometer counting each step you take but it also transforms that into distance walked, calculates how many calories you have burned, changes your target day by day, monitors your sleeping patterns and awards you a nice badge when you pass a target... oh, and it tells you the time as well.

And in one month I have done just a smidge under 250,000 steps. Highly motivating and there has only been 3 days days out of the last 30 that I haven't met my daily target.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Gosh, Clappers, that's nearly 5 miles a day (every day), 142 miles a month, or 1700 miles a year. I'm impressed!

[TANGODANCER]

Just a month now since I bought a Garmin Vivofit. Wearable technology that pairs with your phone and/or computer to give you a daily walking goal with the intention of getting a bit fitter (and do I need it!) It's really a glorified pedometer counting each step you take but it also transforms that into distance walked, calculates how many calories you have burned, changes your target day by day, monitors your sleeping patterns and awards you a nice badge when you pass a target... oh, and it tells you the time as well.

And in one month I have done just a smidge under 250,000 steps. Highly motivating and there has only been 3 days days out of the last 30 that I haven't met my daily target.

Is that all round Dock Green Constable Dixon?

[clapton is god]

Gosh, Clappers, that's nearly 5 miles a day (every day), 142 miles a month, or 1700 miles a year. I'm impressed!

Yep, that's about right. Some days have been around 8 miles but I'm averaging four or five every day. I'm lucky with having a park on my doorstep so generally take at least one walk a day through there. Don't hang about either!

[thebish]

bit of a random recommendation - but - hey, that's how I roll!

I'm pretty crappy with naming files - I have no obvious system - I name on a whim - and as a consequence, I can't always find files I need by the file name.

windows has a search by content tool in the advanced search options - but it's utterly crap!

step forward Agent Ransack - fantastic! searches all files in any given directory by key-word (looking INSIDE the file) - and delivers what it says on the tin! this program has recued me now many times - and - it's free for personal use!

http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack

[Worthy4England]

Could I suggest naming files <filename> DD/MM/YYYY HH, MM - easy.

[thebish]

Could I suggest naming files <filename> DD/MM/YYYY HH, MM - easy.

not if you're looking for an old sermon about Paul visiting Athens, it isn't...

[clapton is god]

Current thinking on TV's?

I've been given the go-ahead from Mrs C to update our 6yr old Panasonic 38" HD ready TV, which although still has a great & clear picture we've never been able to tell the difference between HD and not HD.

I'm thinking 42" Smart and 3D but beyond that am a little lost and not savvy enough to make a good choice. What's the difference between active and passive 3D? LED or plasma, is 4K worth going for or simply HD? What are my options on brand? I've always liked Panasonic but Samsung seem to do some good stuff.

And a sound bar? Is that a necessary add on? And a Blue Ray player I suppose?

Looking to spend about £1000. Am I best going buying 'What TV' and having a good read, cos its not like 1994 anymore when I walked into Dixons and picked up a 32" TV on the eve of that World Cup.

[Worthy4England]

We have a 3D TV. The 3D bit doesn't get much use to be honest, although Avatar is still amazing on it.

[BWFC_Insane]

Current thinking on TV's?

I've been given the go-ahead from Mrs C to update our 6yr old Panasonic 38" HD ready TV, which although still has a great & clear picture we've never been able to tell the difference between HD and not HD.

I'm thinking 42" Smart and 3D but beyond that am a little lost and not savvy enough to make a good choice. What's the difference between active and passive 3D? LED or plasma, is 4K worth going for or simply HD? What are my options on brand? I've always liked Panasonic but Samsung seem to do some good stuff.

And a sound bar? Is that a necessary add on? And a Blue Ray player I suppose?

Looking to spend about £1000. Am I best going buying 'What TV' and having a good read, cos its not like 1994 anymore when I walked into Dixons and picked up a 32" TV on the eve of that World Cup.

Active 3d- Glasses need power (batteries) and sync with your TV set. Glasses flicker, so fast that you won't probably notice it but some do. Advantage is the clarity of the 3d picture is higher than passive. The glasses are more expensive though.

Passive 3d- Same sort of glasses you get at the cinema, no batteries and dirt cheap. No flicker and generally easier on the eye. Picture is less clear however. Most people don't really notice.

There isn't much 3d content. I wouldn't use 3d in any sort of decision. Buy the best TV for you, if it has 3d bonus. Active, passive? Given the lack of content I'd not bother either way.

LED - Thin, use less leccy, picture they can produce has improved immeasurably over the past decade. Downside is that the backlighting can be inconsistent and produce a slightly patchy image in low light conditions. And blacks will be less black than a plasma.

Plasma - Generally accepted to produce the best overall picture. Downside is image retention and screen burn. Things that are left on the screen for a while, like the sky logo can retain their image even when not displayed for a while. This effect has lessened as tech improves but is still there. Permanent burn is rare nowadays but happens. And it's a ballache.

IMO only go Plasma if you're a real image quality afficianado.

As for 4k, there is barely anything to watch in 4k. We're talking a fair number of years before there will be, and that is by no means a certainty. There are bandwidth restrictions to overcome before anything is broadcast in 4k. And yes they might stream it online in 4k but again, bandwidth of broadband will dictate that. If you want your TV to be totally future proof for the next decade then yes 4k MIGHT be worth it. But I'd suggest probably not.

Sound bars are a good addition if you have no sound system already as modern TV's especially thin ones have terrible sound from their own speakers.

As for brand, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic. You'll not go far wrong and each excels in different areas.

Do you have Sky?

[clapton is god]

Current thinking on TV's?

I've been given the go-ahead from Mrs C to update our 6yr old Panasonic 38" HD ready TV, which although still has a great & clear picture we've never been able to tell the difference between HD and not HD.

I'm thinking 42" Smart and 3D but beyond that am a little lost and not savvy enough to make a good choice. What's the difference between active and passive 3D? LED or plasma, is 4K worth going for or simply HD? What are my options on brand? I've always liked Panasonic but Samsung seem to do some good stuff.

And a sound bar? Is that a necessary add on? And a Blue Ray player I suppose?

Looking to spend about £1000. Am I best going buying 'What TV' and having a good read, cos its not like 1994 anymore when I walked into Dixons and picked up a 32" TV on the eve of that World Cup.

Active 3d- Glasses need power (batteries) and sync with your TV set. Glasses flicker, so fast that you won't probably notice it but some do. Advantage is the clarity of the 3d picture is higher than passive. The glasses are more expensive though.

Passive 3d- Same sort of glasses you get at the cinema, no batteries and dirt cheap. No flicker and generally easier on the eye. Picture is less clear however. Most people don't really notice.

There isn't much 3d content. I wouldn't use 3d in any sort of decision. Buy the best TV for you, if it has 3d bonus. Active, passive? Given the lack of content I'd not bother either way.

LED - Thin, use less leccy, picture they can produce has improved immeasurably over the past decade. Downside is that the backlighting can be inconsistent and produce a slightly patchy image in low light conditions. And blacks will be less black than a plasma.

Plasma - Generally accepted to produce the best overall picture. Downside is image retention and screen burn. Things that are left on the screen for a while, like the sky logo can retain their image even when not displayed for a while. This effect has lessened as tech improves but is still there. Permanent burn is rare nowadays but happens. And it's a ballache.

IMO only go Plasma if you're a real image quality afficianado.

As for 4k, there is barely anything to watch in 4k. We're talking a fair number of years before there will be, and that is by no means a certainty. There are bandwidth restrictions to overcome before anything is broadcast in 4k. And yes they might stream it online in 4k but again, bandwidth of broadband will dictate that. If you want your TV to be totally future proof for the next decade then yes 4k MIGHT be worth it. But I'd suggest probably not.

Sound bars are a good addition if you have no sound system already as modern TV's especially thin ones have terrible sound from their own speakers.

As for brand, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic. You'll not go far wrong and each excels in different areas.

Do you have Sky?

Virginmedia, XL

[Worthy4England]

We have an LG 3D LED - not had any mither with it.

[Bruce Rioja]

We have a 3D TV. The 3D bit doesn't get much use to be honest

And if I had one, neither would mine if it involved me sitting in my own living room and looking like Ronnie cunting Corbett.