HM has already seen off the hostile attentions of the Luftwaffe, so I doubt that a few drones bother her much.
172 posts • joined 18 Oct 2007
"Good sense may prevail in the Land of the Free"
Other names they considered
Artist formally known as Czech Republic
I Can't Believe it's not Bohemia
If they're so keen to come up with a name that isn't offensive, maybe it shouldn't begin with a TLA that'll be pronounced "Arse"?
RRS Kicker anyone?
Potholes? Those aren't potholes!
Looks like a load of bollox to me!
"Statistically just one airplane will be damaged every 1.87 million years, says study"
No it doesn't, it says that one will be damaged for every 1.87 million years of drone flight time. Since there are (apparently) a million drones in the US, let's suppose they are actually airborne for a couple of hours a week on average - about 1% of the year - you're looking at a collision every 187 years or so. Still a pretty low risk, but not the one-in-two-million shot that you suggest.
Re: What, exactly, are Google supposed to do here?
"Google can provide their own maps (and other embellishments), but they need to provide the means so that if I want to use Bing, Streetmap, Apple etc. for my geographic search results I can."
You can now. By *going* to Bing, Streetmap, Apple etc. Nobody's stopping you, least of all Google.
What, exactly, are Google supposed to do here?
I'm searching for a physical location - a local coffee shop - on Google.
Google provide me with their address (physical and/or website) but also - evilly - the put up a map with the location of the place highlighted. And no ordinary map, but one which they built and funded themselves (the bastards). That might appear pretty useful to me, the seeker of coffee shops, but actually it isn't because... reasons.
So, if they see the light, what should Google be doing instead? Not including a map, but putting in a link to Streetmap instead? That doesn't sound very competitive-market-friendly. How about a huge block of links, in random order, to all possible providers of maps in that part of the world? It would be no use to Google's users, but it would keep their competitors happy.
I have no doubt that Google do all manner of unspeakable things, and I'm glad people are calling them out on them, but it's not enough to say "this is wrong", you have to add "this would be better". And it has to actually *be* better too.
Google shouldn't be allowed to give away maps for free, because they are only doing so to attract people to their site to click on adverts. This is unfair competition with Streetmap who... wait for it... give away maps for free, to attract people to their site to click on adverts.
""We’ve spent a lot of time listening to what people using Google+ had to say."
Wait... there are people actually *using* Googlle+ ?!?
That sounds like the Ann Elk (Miss) Theory of Republic Strength.
Re: Truth to Power
"Some of us think he's doing a better job than Trump could."
To be fair, a potato would do a better job than Trump could.
Re: Cautiously optimistic
I've always assumed that my ISP has a complete record of every page I visit
Really? Why would you assume that? Could you be falling for the line that "internet connection records" are just the modern equivalent of phone bills?
The phone company have always had to keep records of who we called, and when, and for how long - because that's (usually) the basis of how they bill us. Those records have also proved pretty useful to Mr Plod over the years, so there are well established mechanisms of gaining access to them.
Your ISP has no particular reason to care which pages you visit. They probably keep some record of your bandwidth usage, but browsing history or "connection records" are of no relevance to them - you pay the same whatever sites you visit. Indeed - it seems to me - that creation and retention of such records would be in breach of the Data Protection Act as being excessive.
Plenty more like this, just take a look at @_FloridaMan
Re: Oxymoron List
Sports Personality of the Year
US to stage F-35-versus-Warthog bake-off
Which one is Mary Berry flying?
Looking through that Independent article, there seem to be quite a mixed bag of scams going on.
At least some of them appeared to be of the form "victim approached by somebody claiming to be from Wikipedia, paid them to get an article added/edited, and didn't get what they paid for." It's hard to see what Wikipedia could do about that scam, unless Andrew's suggesting that they be granted the right to vet every email sent in the world to check it doesn't make such false claims.
Wikipedia is big, it's high profile, and it's going to attract a lot of scumbags trying to make money off it. I don't see how changing the anonymity rules is going to change that. Any "wedding photographer in Dorset" who knows enough about wikipedia to identify an editor from their putative non-anonymous id should know enough to know that a page about a wedding photographer in Dorset is likely to be rejected for lack of notability - it's an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages.
PS. Since we're in the territory of "oh noes! wikipedia publishes untrue and unproven things about people," how about a credible source for "one Wikipedian who reported another Wikipedian to the police for serious sexual charges found herself vilified by members of the community”? I'm not saying it isn't true but, well, .
Most of the people searching this database will be schoolkids checking out their peers' parents.
School bullies clearly have a significantly greater work ethic these days (not to mention a much improved grasp of technology). In my day they just singled out a kid with the wrong hair colour/physique/aptitude for sport/accent/whatever else they chose to pick on, instead of trawling through a 9.6GB database to find potential victims.
Re: True - but unlikely
Don't you "simply ignore or delete" spam that comes to you? Mail that purports to come from some dubious dating site that you never signed up for sounds pretty spammy to me. I certainly wouldn't have done anything more with it if it had come to me.
Make your minds up!
Quote from original article:
"The new Apple encryption would not have prevented the N.S.A.’s mass collection of phone-call data or the interception of telecommunications, as revealed by Mr. Snowden. There is no evidence that it would address institutional data breaches or the use of malware."
So what are you complaining about, Mr Vance et al? If encryption doesn't stop the NSA snooping on our data, it won't stop law enforcement bodies doing so either. Sounds like phones aren't encrypted *enough*!
That's the story in El Mundo, what does El Sol have to say?
What law do ICANN think Vox Populi are breaking? From what I can see, they're just charging a vastly inflated price for the goods they are selling (in order to recoup the large sum demanded by ICANN in the first place, one might add).
If that's against the law, then there are other companies that should be a long way ahead of them in the queue to the courthouse. Starting with one from Cupertino.
...followed by carving a few bullet points on a big block of stone and, oh, hang on...
"Apple has a clumsy workaround in iOS 8 for its giant iPhone 6 Plus that allows you to pull top of the display nearer your thumbs."
The "clumsy workaround" being that you can bend it in two.
> One copper told me years ago the reason they had not implemented a computerized system was because paper is tangible - it's simply harder to lose a piece of paper
His experience of the losability of pieces of paper is different to mine.
Even if you agree that paper is harder to lose, it's also harder to find. If you're trying to find out about a particular firearm, it's not a lot of use to know that the information you seek is on an unlosable piece of paper in one of 50 filing cabinets spread across the country.
We seem to have learned to store quite a lot of important information on these new-fangled computers over the last half-century, without the needing the backup of "paper forms." Why should firearms licences be any different?
Your mummy was right about that one!
Bring back the MS Office paperclip!
"You look like you're attempting to dispose of a body..."
I'll apologise to Mr Asshat when you've finished apologising to the whole population for describing them as the "unwashed masses."
And I'd be happy to call him a wanker to his face, were he not skulking in an embassy at considerable expense to the taxpayers of the UK and of Ecuador. Maybe, when he gets out, he could get a gig presenting this show:
Try sitting on a committee, constantly disagreeing with points that everybody else agrees with, and threatening that soon you might leave altogether. See how much notice anybody takes of your views.
Re: Pentagram on splash screen
Christians shouldn't be playing the Wizard character anyway:
Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards - Leviticus 19:31
So the pentagram acts as a handy reminder.
Unless it's just a game, of course
Re: Google in a nutshell.
Oh, they do now. But, unless my memory is playing tricks, their original scheme was to nick the data and they were pushed to change when various site's owners made exactly the point I'm making.
To be fair, Döpfner wasn't any better on the other side of the argument. At one point he suggested that sites should be ordered on the basis of "traffic". Even setting aside the point that search engines don't actually know how much traffic a given site has, it's a colossally bad idea.
Since Google must have a colossal amount of traffic, such a change would probably cement their place at the top of the rankings forever. And woe betide any new entrant to any market - no traffic no ranking, and no ranking no traffic.
I don't think Google is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but until its critics pony up with:
a) Actual search terms that they find unsatisfactory
b) A set of search results that they think preferable, with the reasons why
c) Some coherent suggestions as to how such results might be achieved
I'm not going to pay them much heed.
Apparently, according to most of the people on here, environment scientists are corrupt - willing to falsify their results, interpret them in bizarre ways, and god knows what else in return for large sums of money.
The Oil industry has truly colossal amounts of money, way more than any possible green conspiracy could muster.
Why does the Climate Change message make any headway at all, when the oil guys could simply buy up all the scientists?
Also, in my experience, it's very much easier to get heard (and to get funded) when you're telling people what they want to hear. So the message "Climate change isn't happening ... or if it is happening, it isn't our fault ... or if it is our fault, there's nothing we can do about it" should be easier to deliver than its opposite. That being the case, it's odd that the opposite side is in the ascendency.
Unless, of course, it's because that's the way the vast majority of the evidence points...
Doesn't this rather miss the point?
If you've been training with and using ball X over a long period to hone your skills, it's clearly going to affect your performance if you have to start using ball Y for a particular tournament - even if its performance is objectively better.
Why can't FIFA establish a solid, detailed specification for footballs that is applied and stuck to world-wide over a long period, rather than coming up with a new "improved" ball every four years? It's almost as if the people in charge were quietly being paid wads of cash by sports equipment manufacturers to improve their sales figures.
Oh, hang on...
A quick effort
A judge, who was surely no tyro
Was incensed by the lack of a biro
In the Limerick nick,
He said: sort it out quick!
Or you'll soon be collecting your Giro
Re: More metal kit that blocks and thus drops more calls.
> If anyone has worked out a way of putting it down without dropping the thing I'd like to know how.
Maybe drink less?
"Smartwatches and wearable devices have proved the key theme of the show, with lots of folk jumping on the bandwagon to try and get a piece of the action early, now well-known birds like Fitbit and Pebble have been enjoying."
Erm... enjoying what?
Re: Funny that..
How do you know what the "feeble attempts that do actually air" are like if you haven't watched any for over 10 years?
Re: He got something right!
Dunno what poor old amanfrommars did to get confused with GOP members, but otherwise he's spot on!
I'm not sure the danger of insurance companies being able to buy your DNA profile is relevant.
When you sign up for health insurance (or any type of insurance for that matter), you're asked to provide any information that might have a bearing on the risk. If you fall ill, and it becomes apparent that you knew about a risk but didn't tell your insurer - surely that's going to put your claim under some jeopardy?
Only one winner
The most vile villain Has to be Rupert Murd... I mean "Elliot Carver".
Has El Reg started employing a tooled up american organ to protect it from flaming commetards? I think we should be told.
Religious Affairs Minister?
The fact that Greece even HAS a "religious affairs minister" (with, presumably, a ministry of civil servants to do his bidding) speaks volumes.
Since the Greeks are a bit short on cash at the moment, here's a money saving tip - sack the lot of them and let the God-botherers look after their own affairs.
I'd never heard of Ms Palmer, but this does seem to be a fuss about nothing.
According to your article, her original advert 'offered only "beer and hugs" as compensation for [the musicians'] labour'. If the musicians in question were happy to sign up on that basis, they can hardly complain when that's what happens at the end.
"Palmer initially thought she could get away with not paying her fellow artists" - presumably because she advertised for artists who would work for (next to) nothing, and people came forward as a result.
I'm totally against working for nothing, or even for beer and hugs, but I put that principle into practice by never agreeing to work on that basis. If others want to do so, more fool them.
"It's a little tall for my tastes and will require longer pockets."
Anybody in the habit of buying Apple gear - by definition - has deep pockets. So that shouldn't be a problem.
The other side
Speaking for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Worms, what about the massive bloodbath perpetrated by birds on my little wiggly friends? Many millions of them carried off by birds (especially the early variety) every day.
Animals kill each other. If you can't handle that, read Beatrix Potter instead.
Innocent only if you pay
One element of this miserable scheme that you've overlooked is the cost of appealing against an accusation of copyright theft - set out in this BBC story:
Essentially, if you've been accused of being a freetard, you have to pony up £20 if you want to clear your name.
THIS is what I object to in the whole copyright protection malaise - the denial of natural justice. If IP theft is a crime just like any other, which I quite agree it should be, then it should be dealt with in the same way: collect evidence, prove somebody guilty in court, apply a suitable penalty if they're found guilty.
The problem with the DEA is its attempt to circumvent all that tedious "due process" stuff, and jump straight to punishment and invite you to prove yourself innocent afterwards (for a fee).
According to the BBC, one of the alleged infringements is "Google Maps ability to make different information available at different levels of zoom". I think Google might point to every map ever drawn by anyone, ever, by way of prior art.