10 posts • joined Thursday 18th October 2007 13:22 GMT
I'm more concerned that they had a grill in the computer room as he was seen "spraying it into the computer grills". The smoke form one of those could do untold damage
Whereas had he sprayed it in to the computer grilles then that would make much more sense.
Just my $0.02...
Most users probably think that in the event of flooding their iPhone will allow them to walk on water anyway.
Presumption of innocence
Describing him is Murderous when he's not yet been charged - let alone tried - does seems to have abandoned any idea of balance or the presumption of innocence in favour of a lurid headline.
But, of course, it's the Register.
Surely Dartmouth is infamous for having unleashed BASIC on an unsuspecting world.
Phorm's lacky (sic)
If you're going to engage in ad hominem attacks at least learn to spell, and possibly have the courtesy/balls not to post anonymously.
I worked on the Phorm project for a few months before leaving CPW over two years ago, so I was neither their "lackey", nor is it recently. I was actually the first one to argue for it to be opt-in not opt-out and also that the opt-out should be network based.
But it does mean that I at least have the benefit of being informed on the subject of both ISP business models and the Phorm technology. Unlike much of the hysterical conjecture posted here.
To reiterate I have nothing to do with either CPW or Phorm, and have not done for over two years.
"I'm no great expert on this type of tech Tim, but as I understand things it would be impossible for Google to implement the sort of system you suggest- It could only be done with the collusion of your ISP."
Indeed - I perhaps should have chosen my words more carefully. The fact of the matter is that companies like Google will exploit - sorry "pimp" - your data in a far more intrusive manner than Phorm ever suggested, albeit in exchange for compelling applications.
Due to the ongoing broadband price-war in the UK most small ISPs can't make money. Particularly when our spineless advertising regulations allow everyone to offer the same, meaningless "upto xx Mbps" to describe their access. Had Phorm taken off then it could possibly have made the difference between profit for some ISPs and slowed down the relentless round of consolidation which is going on in the industry.
When the only UK ISPs left are BT, Carphone, Sky and Virgin is anybody genuinely naive enough to believe that they won't collectively attempt to implement a Phorm-type technology?
Virgin Media Bullshit #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 6th July 2009 09:33 GMT
"The only people Phorm is good for is Virgin Media, everyone else loses out no matter how you spin it."
Err. Not quite. The business model proposed by Phorm offered a generous revenue share to the ISP. Which would make the difference between turning a profit and making a loss. So the result is you will continue to get crap ISP infrastructure or pay higher prices.
And presumably Google will end up doing DPI or similar to serve you targetted ads for which you and the ISP will get f--k all.
Way to go tin-foil hat brigade.