_mulder_

This is not new. Existing Carriers have been offering 100GbE services for some time although the type of customer who requires this type of service is few and far between.

As for 10GbE for residential, if this is literally 10G to the home then that is something new (as a product offering, technology is not new). Interesting to know how they do the hand-off as 10GbE interfaces are simply not useful for home use.

Unfortunately it's not practical to do this for most people who have neighbours. I don't want to hear your classical music polluting my sound-space as much as I would some Techno or Heavy Rock at full volume (both of which are also more enjoyable at loud volumes).

And if you're listening in a car, then digital compression is the least of your audio problems.

Please read AT LEAST the very first line of the article before commenting.

Except a car costs $30,000 and a Kayak costs $300 with much lower running costs. Virgin are not trying to be the first to get into Space, they're trying to reduce the cost and make it more affordable.

Space X and Virgin Galactic are building completely different products. The only commonality is that they both go into Space (and Virgin Galactic barely even that).

SpaceX is not actually doing much in the way of 'new', to date. Their main product is an improved rocket engine design, but it's just an improvement on an existing product. (The self-landing rockets are amazingly impressive, but they haven't managed to achieve success with it yet).

Virgin Galactic is a completely new design (launching a passenger rocket plane in mid flight), at least in the non-military sector. That's a whole world of new unknowns they are having to overcome and, when you consider that, it's incredibly ambitious what they are hoping to achieve. They are less likely to achieve success as a result unfortunately. But well done for being the first to try.

The other big difference of course is money. SpaceX has way more funding behind it, and a much greater commercial potential.

It is, the level of the pint glass changes every day, so the "enterprising publican" would have to send someone out everyday and change his sticker every day too. Sounds like quite a bit of effort.

I would also encourage the design team to keep in mind what their users actually use Audacity for. I'm only talking Anecdotally here, based on my own experience, but I would guess that a large number of users use Audacity for it's dead-simple audio capabilities, especially the ability to record sound from an internal sound source (ie; recoding the sound coming our of your speakers). Essentially, I believe many people use Audacity as a modern-day tape-recorder. For this, Audacity works amazingly well. Throw in the ability to trim the sound recording down and some very simple effects such as Amplify, Fade In, Fade Out, and you've got a very good, simple piece of software.

I may be wrong, but if they pile in more effects and 'advanced' functionality, like any form of batch scripting or API integration. They're going to bloat the software unnecessarily at the expense of the average Joe. That's going to make the UI situation even worse.

Perhaps the time has come for Audacity to offer a basic version, with limited effects, and a 'Pro' version (possibly paid for?) that can cater to the advanced user who wants more effects and automation options and won't feel alienated by a cluttered, technical UI.

Are you referring to the Gray Cable with all the landing points in Northern Canada?

Firstly, this is not the North Pole. There is no land at the North Pole, which is why it doesn't appear on the map. What you're looking at is infact the Ivaluk Network, designed to connect up remote Arctic communities (and I'm sure some Oil and Gas interests).

The other cable system going to the Arctic Circle is the Svalbard network connecting mainland Norway with this remote island. Why? Well it's the location of a ground station for Low Earth Orbit satellites (including imaging/spy satellites).

"the circumvention of data caps sold by Deutsche Telekom (totally different from T-Mobile US) for users of Spotify."

This is not net neutrality, it is just Deutsche Telekom bundling a product with their subscriptions. It only becomes a net-neutrality problem if DT begin to prioritise Spotify traffic over other traffic (ie; let's allow Spotify traffic, but throttle iTunes).

True, but you shouldn't need to replace an LED bulb like you did the incandescent's. More likely to be a problem with the transformer or cheap wire and connections.

I completely agree.

"in the event of a string of lights going out on your tree, replacing the strand is usually the best option. It’s pretty difficult to find that one bulb that’s causing the problem"

That one sentence sums up most of what is wrong with Christmas, and society, today. I find the "just throw it away if it's broken" attitude really difficult to accept. I would hope everyone reading HN has the self-awareness to consider where their possessions come from and what happens to them when they're thrown away.

Not really sure what the point of this is. How do Google Now and GMail Offline == 'The Web'? They are specific Apps designed to work in a specific manner, they are not 'the web'. GMail does work with any browser when accessed via 'the web'.

100% agree with the Apple example though. Why didn't they stream in a more accessible format?! It just served to annoy people and exclude even more people from the Apple elite.

a few years ago banks and financial institutions seemed to be especially bad at restricting access to just IE. Thankfully they seem to have got better, but maybe that's because I don't use Opera anymore!

Originally I thought this was going to be an attack on Hungary's Internet Tax or some freedom of speech protest, alas.