887 posts • joined 8 Mar 2008
Re: Conflicting reports
You haven't actually read either story have you? If you'd read the AP story you would know that he has explained the exchange with Newsweek.
I read the El Reg and Newsweek articles, but not the AP article. A conflict in the reports is however evident.
DPSN says the Newsweek article is wrong, but Goodman is standing by it saying there was no confusion about the context. It may be Goodman is right but DPSN did not mean what it appears he was saying. Or DPSN could have gathered his wits and is now trying to rescue himself from what he did say. I have no idea which it is and doubt anyone else does at this time.
According to AP, Nakamoto said that he only heard of the digital cash three weeks ago when his son said he had been contacted by Newsweek.
Yet, according to Newsweek, when questioned on involvement with Bitcoin -
"I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection."
Light those torches and gather the pitchforks
This is where public shaming of a company has its place. If he has to go to court I do hope he wins and hope Apple pay the cost.
Of course, it is possible that Apple are right according to law. The moral is to make sure someone you trust does know your usernames, passwords PINs and IDs or knows where they have been hidden, or don't put all your eggs in one basket, keep a backup copy of any data you want others to be able to access.
The costs of obtaining Bitcoins
It seems to me it is now cheaper to invest in robbery than it is to invest in mining and this will continue to be the case until exchanges and other third-party wallet holders get their acts together. I expect we will see a lot more Bitcoin heists coming soon, big grabs and slow trickle thefts.
Re: And nothing of value was lost...
Tonight's viewing ...
19:00 - 20:00 Total Wipeout
20:00 - 21:00 Don't Tell the Bride
21:00 - 22:00 Festivals, Sex & Suspicious Parents
22:00 - 22:30 Ja'mie: Private School Girl
22:30 - 23:00 Bad Education
23:00 - 23:25 Family Guy
23:25 - 23:45 Family Guy
23:45 - 00:10 American Dad!
00:10 - 01:10 Festivals, Sex & Suspicious Parents
01:10 - 01:35 Ja'mie: Private School Girl
01:35 - 02:05 Pramface
02:05 - 03:05 Hair
03:05 - 03:30 Great Movie Mistakes
03:30 - 04:00 Pramface
There's been some very good stuff but these days it seems to be endless repeats, mundane tat and mostly crap. I'm above their target audience (16-34) so perhaps I just don't get it any more. But then I wasn't in their target audience when I thought it was good. It won't, for me, be much of a loss to see it go if it stays as it is now.
Re: A test case perhaps?
it would immediately make a lot of on the road police communication illegal due to them needing to use a walkie talkie.
Not necessarily. The usual reason for police exceptions is their being specifically trained and able to carry out such tasks that a mere mortal cannot.
Sensible laws will not be purely technical offences but usually have some 'greater good' defence that absolves or mitigates any crime; "Yes, I was using a mobile phone in a car, but to call emergency services to save the lives of others". That's also the grounds against creating purely technical offences in the first place as there are circumstances where absolute illegality would be perverse.
This case would presumably have parallels with "watching a TV" when that TV was acting as a Sat Nav display, where one is illegal the other is not; a question of when a TV ceases to be a TV and removes it from criminalisation.
Re: I suppose the Aussie transport safety board forgot...
Seems to me they are well aware that almost anything can become a dangerous projectile and hence the suggestion for securely storing such things; putting them in softer carrying cases or bags and keeping that closed, rather than having them loose and free to become projectiles.
Of course the whole kit and caboodle can come crashing down but that's less likely to happen unless turbulence is particularly bad.
Playing the blame game
My guess is that Dana is currently blaming everyone but herself
If her father had not breached the agreement and told her then she could not have blabbed on Facebook. It is his problem as much as it would be if he had lent her his credit card and she had run up massive debts.
If he had told her not to do what she did then there is a failing which rests with her, but he still has to man-up as having facilitated that in the first place.
I imagine this is the conclusion the court came to in revoking the award having heard all the arguments that it was not his fault.
And thus there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth
I imagine that a great many of us, who were lamenting that we had missed riding the virtual escalator to riches beyond our wildest dreams, are somewhat relieved that, while we may have missed the bubble, we also avoided the inevitable 'pop'.
I think it was the expectation of something like this which had many of us hold our nerves and not jump on board the bandwagon. It's all well and good saying it's no worse than brick and mortar banking, pointing to other bank disasters, but we know deep down it's not really like that at all.
Let's face it - It was about as safe as giving a drug addict your wage packet to go score some gear. All promises and guarantees are as virtual as the currency.
Re: Looks like a black hole
A thief doesn't benefit from a theft that results in a drop in the value of the asset.
They are still better off than they were, and it depends how long they are prepared to sit on their stash and what their expectation of value being restored is.
I am guessing these aren't 'lob a brick through the window' knuckle-dragging thieves so we cannot tell what their strategy is. Perhaps they are simply looking to force short-term value drops to facilitate cheaper investments with higher profits later?
Re: There is a chance of a major win ......
It was "Cat Food (Sheba)". House wins.
We can laugh but when people wanting their fix have it taken away the most inane things will be bet upon. I've known people to start working their way along the spice rack when short of tobacco!
"Only in the USA"
As satisfying as it is to say that; this is what happens when any country creates a law and an activity falls within scope of that law. If gambling is illegal, if betting on an outcome is gambling, then betting on a duck race outcome is gambling and therefore illegal. You can't really blame law enforcement for applying the law they are expected to apply.
It's not "duck racing" which is the problem; it's "betting on the outcome of a duck race" which is, and, by most definitions, that is "gambling". The problem is allowing an activity which some many feel should be legal while preventing that being exploited by those who want to engage in otherwise illegal activities.
Every country probably has laws which makes some acts illegal which many people would say should not be illegal. I recall there were similar problems in the UK where church, social club and other charity raffles fell foul of gambling legislation. I also remember some complaints that tightening up UK gun control adversely affected legitimate gun sports. Then there was that apparent need to be registered and police vetted just to look after next door's kids or drive them to school. I am sure there are many other examples.
Re: A medical researcher's perspective...
medical research has a better history of securely handling data than the rest of the public sector, as the sharing of information is based on the concept of informed consent, something that is hard to get, and even harder to regain when trust is lost.
Very true but informed consent is notably absent in what people are being opted into. Opting out is made as difficult as possible and it simply isn't being explained clearly.
You have done a pretty good job presenting a case for; so why could the government not do an equally good job? The suspicion must be that they deliberately chose not to, do not want to, and that suggests there is something we are not being told, something they don't want us to know, and is a good enough reason alone to be highly suspicious.
Private companies are not routinely going to be given access to this data... the 'Tories' are not planning on selling of the un-anonymised data to their chums in the insurance industry.
I. and I suspect others, would like to see some guarantee of that. Call us untrusting, paranoid, whatever, and that is okay, we are entitled to be. It is for the government to convince us that what you say will be the case.
The best option I can see is to opt out and I would advise everyone to do the same.
Any worry that this may be the wrong option can be set aside by noting that we will be given (or can demand) a right to opt-in later. I cannot see any government saying they will leave those who did not initially sign-up for what they say is good for us languishing in that plight. That would be electoral suicide.
They can have our opt-ins when they have convinced us it is good for us.
Re: a crime to mutilate or alter the seal of any department or agency of the United States
3. I received a phone call from the FBI stating that I had perpetrated a federal crime and that if I didn't desist then they would attempt extradition.
I take it you told them to fuck off, and continued using the seal?
I would guess he did what most people would do and complied with the request because it really isn't worth the fight nor grief. Not when you can't trust your own government to protect you and the law they impose is designed not to.
They rule and control through fear and not everyone can afford to stand up against that.
"we were able to make a live demo of Computrace hijacking"
If that is the case then it appears to be "case closed" and it doesn't matter how benign or safe they say their product is. Kaspersky aren't falsely crying wolf if they can actually show the wolf.
Sounds like a great conspiracy theory, but...
Don't forget the founders of the Raspberry Pi Foundation also identified a need for better computing, programming and coding skills, and that echoes what any number of businesses have been saying for years.
There is a long history of IT and 'computing' being sold as 'the future' with an acknowledged corresponding need to have people capable of working in that field. That does seem to have turned to doing something about it culminating, in part, in the Year of Code.
It's okay leaving people to join up the dots, but there seems to be a number of dots being left out.
Re: The whole thing is silliness
I've never understood why there's this sudden fetish to turn EVERYONE into coders, or where it even came from?
From a government perspective; 'coding' is the next great thing, the guaranteed saviour of Britain and her economy, so what we need to seize that opportunity is more coders.
And all of us can see the gravy train which will ride on the back of that.
Anyone remember those old photos with row after row of secretaries bashing away on typewriters? Replace those typists with 'coders' and you probably get a glimpse of what the government's vision is. An infinite number of coders with an infinite number of computers will write the one app which saves the nation. Honest.
In a couple of years time the next fad will come along and the government of the day will be chasing that.
Easy to say, but without knowing what the actual cause(s) of him taking down the game were I don't know how realistic it is.
Nguyen has been reported as saying, what was meant to be a game of fun, became a highly addictive product which was giving him concern and sleepless nights.
I doubt leaving it up and giving its revenue to charity would have satisfied his conscience.
Re: Passive sensors?
Yes, that's just the sort of applications these things could be used in. No wires, no batteries, simply drop-n-go.
However... most security solutions aren't simply passive until activated. They will normally wake-up occasionally and send status signals to prove they are working, haven't been tampered with, and even just to prove they are still there, haven't been stolen! Most importantly to let the system know, as best as can be done, that it will work as expected when required to.
The last thing anyone wants in a safety or business critical application is something not working when it's needed to work. There is also an issue of guaranteeing delivery; a sensor would normally keep sending an activation in case the receiver does not get it. Not sure how that would work if there's only one activation and no power left for sending a subsequent alert packet.
I would expect most serious safety or business critical systems to be hard-wired, non-wireless, just to overcome the problems wireless and/or battery powering presents. I can see there might be a use in less critical applications such as self-powered TV-style remote controls and similar
The biggest issue perhaps is cost and it's questionable whether they are actually any better than the current range of battery powered but long-life sensors and controllers.
Half a billion dollar loss in a quarter
An average of a $5.7 million loss per day. That is pretty impressive, and I tip my hat to them.
Re: Laser-focused money men
Is there really an IoT market?
A very small one at present but the potential is there. It likely will be a cost sensitive playing field and the competition isn't really Intel and traditional CPU chips but more with cheaper microcontrollers from Atmel, Microchip and the like.
Laser-focused money men
They do seem to have a point; 2.9 billion chips shipped, £95.5 million pre-tax profit, so that's about 3p a chip.
You have to sell a lot of chips to reap the rewards and have to find a lot of new opportunities to keep expanding in a saturated market. And on-going expansion is what the money men seem to favour.
Investment is not solely about how well they have done but how well they will do. There are opportunities for ARM but it remains to be seen if they can offset shortfalls elsewhere. I expect ARM will become favoured again if they can secure the IoT market. ARM is however up against a lot of credible competition in the low-cost chip sector and that's what IoT needs to really take off.
and many more
Re: I thought my marching days were over
You are probably both right.
99% don't give a toss unless something directly affects their lives or the paper or twitter feeds they choose to read are telling them they should do so. We are mostly an insular and selfish lot.
But that 1% who do care are quite a large number.
Of course it's still a battle against 'whatever we do; nothing will change' resignation which has most of us fatalistically accepting however it is. Whether that's the price of milk and bread, government spying, or slaughter and ill-advised ventures in foreign lands.
Still, things do and can change over time. Many of the disinterested 99% can be moved towards dissent and even action. There's always a straw which breaks the camel's back.
C and Y
I claim trademark dibs on the phrase, "C and Y".
risk exists in life ... but it never used to be a reason to ban things
Your right to take risks with my life does not trump my right to not have you take risks with my life.
Perhaps it wasn't always that way. Maybe society has changed and we recognise there is more to rights than self-serving rights.
You are correct, cars would likely never be allowed if they were invented today. Not unless they emerged as they are now, with all the safety features they have. How many needlessly died to make them as safe as they are now? Has it been worth the cost? I don't know.
Don't think I am in anyway anti-car; I'm not, but rights have to be balanced, and if some will not voluntarily facilitate that then the state must step in on behalf of those who face having their rights infringed. Society provides the state the power to do that and expects them to do so when necessary.
The problem lies with Android
Fair enough demanding Apps be less intrusive but Android needs to be able to stop Apps being intrusive while allowing them to do what the user wants. It's no good saying an App should do this or that if Android does not support it being done that way.
If people want an App to do certain things, and that means having to ask for more permissions than that App needs, it's not really fair to blame the App developer; they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Some App developers will take advantage of having permissions they do not need but Android is complicit in that; if Android did not allow that they could not do so. App developers may be taking advantage of the situation but Android is allowing being taken advantage of.
Re: Here's the problem
being within the letter of the law doesn't mean you're right
If it's not illegal it cannot be wrong; that's how they sleep soundly in their beds at night. They wilfully choose not to make any moral judgement on whether it is right. The legal test substitutes for a moral test.
Once that's understood it becomes crystal clear how government ministers and the like can stand there, with straight faces, telling us that something others consider bad is the right thing to do and can genuinely believe that.
So the BBC provides value for money, the overwhelming majority agree, and would be happy to pay the same (or more) through subscription as they do through license fee. I wouldn't disagree with that.
So don't try to fix what isn't broken. Not that I can see how the BBC could become subscription only and still fit with the free-to-air and free-to-view offerings we currently have.
Call me cynical but it couldn't be about trying to get rid of free-to-air and free-to-view could it?
It's to be expected
One snake oil salesman rakes in the money and soon everyone thinks they'll have a go too. Minimal risk and, should it catch on, they get very rich.
I imagine most of us would have liked to have been in on the BTC game early on, to have created huge amounts of money from nothing. Greed and envy are powerful motivators to jump on the next bandwagon that rolls by. Everyone knows you don't get rich by joining a pyramid scheme; you get rich by starting one. The promise of riches beyond our wildest dreams prevents us seeing the true game being played.
Login without knowing password is entirely possible
Whether advisable or not, a good number of people leave their browser to auto-complete login pages with usernames and passwords so it is entirely possible for an account holder to login in without knowing/remembering what their password is.
That however is no excuse for displaying the password once logged in.
Because consumers have inadequate information or market power, bad things will happen to them. And when bad things happen to them, for example if they discover that Netflix has been blocked, they are helpless – and unable to switch. Remarkably, the court supports this point of view.
It is not that remarkable because it is mostly true. If service is only available from one provider it is pretty much put up and shut up or walk away. Hobson's choice.
No end of campaigning can force a provider to do what a customer wants when they have no legal powers to force them to change or where momentum for change is too little to have an impact on providers that convinces them it is in their interest to change. Market forces simply don't work where there is no market or choice and only monopoly.
It is fair enough to say they could have choice but that denies the reality that there is, and may never be, that choice. Even where there is choice there is no guarantee that any provider will actually provide. Change is simply jumping from one frying pan into another with an escape route of jumping into the fire and abandoning all providers.
There is nothing remarkable in a court recognising that consumers may never have a "win" option only "lose" options. I for one am pleased they recognised this.
Earlier this week I foolishly walked out the house picking up the wrong jacket; locked out, no phone, but luckily some loose change. Maybe I am lucky where I live but there are at least seven public phone boxes within a 10 minute walk I could use to get help. I could reach many more within a half hour drive.
If I hadn't any money and needed help I would ask a neighbour, my local shop, pub or even begged a member of the public to help. Many people are on 'free minutes' so someone probably won't mind lending their phones in such an emergency.
And why doesn't she have a backup phone for when the main one fails, breaks or is stolen? Why no emergency phone in the car? At home there is presumably internet access and email.
Of course blind panic can easily displace rational thought. The lesson is be prepared and have a plan for adverse events like your phone not working when you need it to.
Re: What problem I have worth paying good money for is T.I.O.T going to solve?
If I were selling the technology I would probably argue cost savings -
When the time comes that leccy companies have variable charging you will have to micro-manage your consumption to ensure you maximise your cost savings. That is only going to be fully achievable if you have it done by a computer. There are savings to be had today with careful management and an automated, integrated approach to energy use which you are likely already missing out on.
Rather than having your heating system, fridge, washing machine, dishwasher, backup server, battery and electric car chargers, etc, each working out if it's cheaper to start-up now, hold off for a while, or start earlier than scheduled, it is easier and cheaper to have a single server crunch the numbers and tell the devices what to do and when.
And you don't need a personal server when we already have one in the cloud ready to go. Our system which integrates everything and even caters for any self-sufficiency generation you have will be far easier to use and set-up than anything you can create yourself or find elsewhere.
Bottom line; if it saves you money then why wouldn't you want it? If wasting money isn't a problem for you then fair enough.
Not everyone will want it or see the benefit in having it but I imagine a lot would. The current hurdle is selling the idea to people and achieving initial take-up. It fits in with government desires and would probably also have environmentalist backing and, above all, saving money is a good motivation.
I expect this would be treated exactly as if being paid in a foreign currency -
So no tax benefit for salary and any profit from such an investment in 'foreign currency' would appear to also be liable for either Income Tax or Capital Gains Tax.
One thing we can be sure of is that HMRC will want their slice of the pie and have the upper hand in getting it.
Re: The dirty secret of mobile apps - they don't make any money
Writing apps for profit is little different to trying to make a career as an author, musician or artist. A lucky few will make the big time while the rest will see little reward. Most therefore only do it for fun and a vague hope they might get lucky.
App stores have become too big but I don't know what the answer is. It's no different to having a store which stocks every book ever written, every recording and film ever made, every item ever produced. Nothing wrong with that but no one would find such a place useful for discovering what they will like as the sheer choice becomes overwhelming.
We rely on word of mouth and independent reviews to tell us there's something good and, though that may mean some real gems get lost in the process, I guess the best we can hope for is good categorisation of apps and user ratings.
Put bluntly; there has to be some kind of filtering because it can't work without any.
Man takes things. Puts them in a box.
Well done for having done it, but there are far more interesting things going on in the maker, hacking and repurposing communities for those willing to seek them out. This doesn't even have the appeal of being cheap to do.
Perhaps that's the real message - that it doesn't matter how low-cost the motherboard is (be that a Raspberry Pi or anything else), it's the cost of everything else which is the main obstacle to turning that into something useful and usable.
Re: You are welcome to scrape my LinkedIn accnt
I made a policy about 10 years of using my real name on the internet whenever I couldn't realistically use an alias.
Are you actually saying you will always use an alias if you can and if you cannot you will use your real name?
"No politician (nor NGO) is ever going to admit to error now, are they?"
No politician or NGO is entirely a master of their own destiny so it is not without hope.
They might not explicitly admit they were wrong but can, and do, conveniently forget old views when new ones emerge or allow old views to quietly disappear without trace. So forget about what they may have got wrong (and beating them up over that) and focus on helping them get it right.
Not as painful as finding oneself in a similar position when nerves take hold. I expect there are a lot of people who know and understand exactly what he went through, and wish they didn't.
Everyone thinks public speaking is easy, and for some it is, but one only finds out when put to the test. He's not the first to think he could but found he couldn't. I reckon he actually handled it pretty well. He had enough composure to get out before things got really bad and better to cut and run than turn into a gibbering, incoherent wreck, a real and full 'meltdown'.
I don't think he's really going to suffer as a result and Samsung have had plenty of headline publicity indirectly so they can probably mark it up as success.
"the attack vector - booting from an infected USB stick - will have many security veterans rolling their eyes in disbelief that the targeted bank hadn't already mitigated the threat"
But to be fair; an ATM is not simply a PC accessible to anyone and everyone. It seems the real problem is not lack of mitigation but that what mitigation efforts there were proved ineffective. Having a plastic chassis which could be drilled through rather than a decent steel enclosure looks to be a fundamental failing. There were a lot more failings here than not disabling booting from USB.
Re: It's not real therefore you can't take it from me
^ Except it doesn't appear he is actually claiming that.
Perhaps Ulbricht is totally stupid but it seems more likely he has a smart lawyer who sees good legal grounds for getting the asset back. If it's not in the 'list of things the feds can seize' then they can't legally seize it. It seems eminently sensible, and the obvious course, for Ulbricht and his lawyers to argue that this asset is not covered by such a list.
I suspect he's on a hiding to nowhere but that doesn't mean he's wrong or foolish to try. The feds have over-stepped their powers in the past and may have done so here.
On the other side of the fence
Any system which rewards rejecting legitimate complaints is utterly wrong but businesses should be able to reject illegitimate claims.
When you have people breaking things then claiming it was faulty when delivered, claiming it is faulty when they simply don't understand how to use it, demanding replacement without return simply to get a freebie; you start to develop a different perspective.
Not all companies can afford to allow themselves be taken for mugs. That simply pushes up prices, can make them uncompetitive, even put them out of business or laying off staff. Perceived poor service isn't always the result of company culture but having been bitten too many times in the past.
Re: weird design decision
I can't say why it was designed that way but the generic reasoning would be to give more capabilities, and more flexible options, than a simple LED across the camera power supply gives.
For example the LED can be PWM controlled allowing it to be dimmed or brightened depending on ambient light levels, it can be flashed to indicate status, such as drawing attention to it if a physical shutter were closed and you were trying to use it. If taking still shots, the camera can be kept on and the LED flashed as each shot is taken.
Should the LED be on when the power is on or on only when the camera is in use? We can argue that all day long and not have a universal consensus. Arguably the best solution is that which allows either and that's likely what the designer decided to do.
Done this way the manufacturer or designer of the camera part doesn't have to worry about how the system integrator wants to use it or what they chose to use; they have all options available to them. If they want it to behave differently it's simply a firmware mod not a hardware redesign. In fact it allows old product to be upgraded to new functionality simply by uploading firmware to it. This would usually be seen as an advantage though in this case it also creates a problem.
If Google want to diversify away from Intel, buying up one or more of those wannabees or simply placing an order with a lot of zeros after the first digit for their product would be less expensive and take less time to get the the new machines spinning up and going online.
That's always been the age-old choice; pay someone to do it for you, buy up a business to become part of your own, or create a department to do it from scratch.
Each has advantages and disadvantages, risks, costs and opportunities. It seems unlikely Google would not have considered and weighed-up all the options they have. Perhaps cost and time are not the primary concerns?
Britain has led the way
Britain has often led the way; but that does not mean that commercial success will land in British hands. There is a lot more to it than inventing or developing a technology; the success of Apple goes far beyond using 'touch screen' displays.
I am no great fan of Apple but their success is in giving the customer what they want (and particularly in convincing the customer that it is what they want) and delivering it in a quality manner with a premium price. That is where Britain often fails. It doesn't matter how good the tech is if one cannot turn it into a desirable product.
I remember an Alexi Sayle joke that if Britain had invented the Walkman it would have been the size of a tea chest and made of polished mahogany. That sums up what the problem often is with Britain's inability to dominate commercial markets.
It seems an odd definition of "parody"
It's not parody as I see it; it's simply taking someone's tune and changing the words to promote their business and commercial products and hoping to get away with that. To then sue the creators of the original song because they weren't happy with that takes the biscuit.
I am not entirely sure on what principle the EFF seems to think this is okay. Perhaps they have re-branded and one of the F's now stands for Freetard? I am sure some would say it simply reflects the 'we can take anything we want, and fuck you' attitude which has been attributed to Google.
The resilient internet, or not
I am totally unsurprised that you have no idea how the network operates! Well done at highlighting that.
Yet how many times are we told that the internet is resilient and immune to such single point failures? And wasn't that the prime motivation for its development?
Few would expect redundancy from home/office to cabinet but it seems the infrastructure is far more tree-like than net-like with a single point of failure knocking out numerous downstream branches.
The infrastructure is frequently demonstrated to be much more fragile than it should be. The redundant and alternative paths to keep things going when one site falls over seem to be placed too high up the network and I suspect less redundancy exists than could exist. I would venture that's a cost decision. Things could be made better but the network operators either don't care or don't want to invest in that.
People may be ignorant of how the network operates but they are frequently led to believe it operates other than it does in practice.
Re: I genuinely do not understand...
If you don't understand I guess you have never played a practical joke on anyone where the intent is to derive pleasure in someone else's gullibility, naivety or greed, and their suffering through that.
It's the joy of seeing people put aside critical thinking to reveal they aren't as smart as they would like to think they are. Satisfaction and smug superiority that we would not have fallen for it ourselves.
Maybe we shouldn't derive pleasure from that but it seems most of us do. Few of us like to be victims but most times it's our own fault when we are; raging against those who invited us to become victims doesn't alter that fact.
It can be a hard lesson being reminded we should never simply believe what people tell us.
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung