Where can I check my upvotes?
Just so I know how much more karma whoring I have to do.
And do downvotes negate upvotes?
And what about votes when using Anon (the defacto troll standard)?
3055 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
Just so I know how much more karma whoring I have to do.
And do downvotes negate upvotes?
And what about votes when using Anon (the defacto troll standard)?
"You understand it wrong."
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides statutory rules under which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.
Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:
o fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
o fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
o fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
o fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
That's not much of a right to silence is it? It's a bit like saying "You have the right to hold your breath indefinitely". You do have such a right, but you're going to be rather screwed if you exercise it.
"3. He is a terrorist. And a criminal. And a thief (tried to steal data, I'm sure)."
Oh well, case closed then. No need for a trial. HANG HIM FROM THE CITY GATES!
AIUI we have no right to silence as such. Ours is along the lines of "It may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court." i.e. you must blab to the rozzers.
MPs can ask companies to stop their tax dodg...efficiencies as soon as the MPs themselves stop engaging in such shenanigans. Perhaps the MPs should look at re-hiring all the HMRC inspectors they allowed to be sacked and updating a few laws?
All this is just grand-standing for a bit of good PR - it amounts to nothing.
Of course you can't d it on a desktop machine. You going to let kids plug whatever bollocks they've just soldered together to an expensive desktop PC. Yeah...right...
"Secondly, the "£25" computer is a myth. You have to buy cases, SD cards, highly-regulated power supplies, plus something for it to plug into (like a monitor for a start). PER DEVICE."
Wrong. Bar the SD card it's no "per device", it's per seat. The keyboard, monitor etc all probably exist right now and are ready to use. Heck, the RasPi can be per seat too, just have the kids carry their own SD card (may not make sense in all cases though).
The RasPi is far from perfect, but the idea is sound and it is better that spunking £500+ on locked-down shite that just spits out brainless button-pushers.
"you need to have the training and the support infrastructure there to handle things."
That exists. They're called "Computer Science Teachers". And then I remember that in England one is not required to have a degree in the subject one teaches.
And why would they need to? Except for some unusual projects.
Kid has SD card, school has RasPi. No need to unplug anything other than the SD card.
Kid wants to tinker? Kid can buy their own RasPi for home use (or get from the school or whatever).
It's the everything. It's removing the fear of tinerking, investigating and trying new things. It's encouraging thought, analysis, design, and engineering. This used to be the province of Meccano, Lego etc (both now dumbed down to hell).
To do this you don't actually need a RasPi, but you need something free, open and cheap enough that if you do happen to break it; it's not the end of the world. You simply cannot do that on a desktop PC with restricted boot and a restricted operating system.
All that does is produce push-button clones who thing "Google" is the Internet and that Excel is a good database.
There's the odd thing about H-D. They're actually quite innovation and (now) have reasonable quality (dreadful in the past). But despite their engineers tinkering around with cool new ideas, their designers seem stuck in some 50s James Dean time warp. And that's not an H-D issue, Victory et al are just the same. Big thumping V-twin and always a big-thumping V-twin in a cruiser-style layout with soggy suspension.
Might work in the USA with long straight roads, but I can imagine it being hell over here with the bends and the rain.
Eric Buell tried to show them and...failed.
Of course the European/Japanese bikes have problems in other directions. With all the engines being race derived, they are high revvers and very thirsty. Shame really. A decent, low MPG bike would be excellent.
@Eadon - I don't think it is a copy. I thought it was more of a reference implementation to try and give OEMs a boot up the back-side and stop producing boring, staid and clunky devices.
Although how that is possible with a boring, staid and clunky OS is beyond me.
"You do know that Ripping them is not legal in all countries? (Ahem, USA?)"
Or even the UK.
"If you use something other than IE and it never touches the 'net, why the hell do you make such a big deal about uninstalling it? Are those 3MB so crucial to you?"
Well, for starters baking it deeply into the OS in such a manner that it can't be removed was deemed to be abuse of a monopoly position which led to MS becoming a convicted monopolist.
Secondly, despite not ever wanting to use IE it keeps popping up. Want to open an XML file? Oh look, there's fucking IE. One used to be able to deal with that relatively quickly by altering the file associations, which is a bloody PITA on Windows 7.
And thirdly, it is much bigger than 3mb. So why should I keep code for an application I don't want hanging around as a security risk? Oh, I have to because some wing-nut decided to integrate said security risk deeply into the OS.
"You're a linux evangelist anyway so you couldn't use IE if you tried, you hypocrite."
I don't think you understand you meaning of the word "hypocrite", so I'll help you with some basic comprehension again. hypocrite, adjective: Person portraying false virtue; or Person who acts in contradiction to their own statements. So I'd only really be a hypocrite if I said "Don't use IE" whilst in fact using it. So I can't be a hypocrite on my GNU/Linux systems as they don't run IE (IE6 could be run in WINE I guess). I could be a hypocrite on my Windows system, but I've gone to great pains to avoid IE altogether because is it so bloody god-awful.
As for being a "linux evangelist" (which would be quite a compliment if it came from someone with any clue as to what they were talking about), if attempting in some small way to defend freedom and foster competition is offensive to you, then I strongly advise to reassess your values; defending oppression does seem like a nice lifestyle. Or maybe you have Stockholm Syndrome, there are people who can help with that.
"There is nothing illegal about a monopoly or about trying to get one."
There is about abusing it. Here, let me help you with some basic comprehension:
Were (are) MS a monopoly? Yes.
Were they convicted for abuse? Yes.
Ergo "convicted monopolist".
"These days, anyone who cares can use the browser ballot to install whatever they like."
Where's the "Uninstall IE option"? Ah yes, you can never remove it. How cute. And of course MS is now blocking the install of alternative OSs on to most OEM hardware (and yes, I know about MS's terms surrounding SecureBoot and whilst they are not blocking as stated fact but the effect is to block any alternative. I for one hope to see the regulators move on that - certainly given MS's ineptitude with the Linux Foundation boot-shim and the requirement to use an MS OS to proceed with the key-signing).
"Do you think browsers would be free if not for MS?"
Yes. Just like operating systems can be free (in terms of beer and speech), and office applications, and drawing programs, and CAD applications and...
"You don't even know what you're typing. I reckon it's a reflex."
Well hello there Mr. Pot, how is Mr. Kettle these days?
"Why do want to install Linux on a Windows tablet?"
Why should MS be allowed to dictate to me what I can do with my own property?
Would you be happy with Ford telling you which company's fuel you can use? Or what clothes you have to wear when driving?
It's the principle. My device, my choice. And yes, before you start, Apple are equally guilty (but they're not a convicted monopolist yet and are not restricting choice on other company's products like MS are).
To add to Richard's excellent response, there is the PengPod and the Vivaldi Tablet, plus any number of "odd ball" things coming out of China. Oh and the WebOS unit that HP dropped during it's most recent schizophrenic fit. Need I go on?
If you hate Linux, good luck in using your fridge, PVR, eReader, car and router; all of which are probably running a Linux in one form or another.
The Kinect is open enough to allow people to connect it to what they want, hack away at it and do cool new things that MS never thought of. All this brings press coverage for the Kinect and is, in effect, free PR. (I'm ignoring the legal threats MS issued to the first hackers.)
Win8, on the other hand, is locked down tight and so is the hardware. No hacking, no cool new ideas, nothing. So all MS get is the bad press about how shit Win8 is (and it is shit).
The poor quality of the Surface.
Oh, and the bad press about blocking the Linux Foundation's attempts to get their own bootloader signed.
And the other bad press about dodgy firmware that only accepts the MS boot label.
And the...you get the idea.
Ofcom. Cloud. Cloud?
So any poxy Internet connect server that can answer a simple query is now "cloud" is it? Take that term and shove it.
@RICHTO - That's because there is no choice and no competition. It is more tied to the sales of hardware as that ages out and is replaced, rather than people getting a hard-on for Win8.
...that the Surface will out sell the iPad.
I don't know whether to laugh at that preposterous suggestion, or cry at chance it might be true.
Not that I have much love for the iPad.
Yes it does and you are right it isn't.
Lawyer pantomime in 3...2...1...
...with Ubuntu pre-installed (or will sell), but if the touch screen worked I would seriously consider this. It has about the right specs at about the right price-point.
...Sony makes the Pi? Better start checking them for rootkits then.
"The hack, the gaming equivalent of jail-breaking, allows home-made games"
Awesome. I am all for this.
"pirate copies of titles"
Not so much this.
"other unauthorised software to run on the Wii U"
Awesome. I am all for this.
One of the best techy things I ever did was jailbreak (softmod) my old xBox. Became a pretty nifty media front-end. Why companies just don't embrace hackability with the caveat "You break it, we ain't mending it!"
AC...probably just a brainless troll...but I'll bite because it's fun.
"Piracy as a "right" is never going to get much sympathy when it hinges on someone losing out."
I'm not advocating for piracy. I'm not into rape and murder. I'm also not advocating for copyright infringement. I'm simply advocating for not having a presumption of guilt and for the protection of our social culture. You trying to tell me that 70 years is a reasonable time period? Pfft. And the recent 20 year extension was gained by artists from beyond the grave? No. Pure profiteering, nothing more and our cultural heritage is held to ransom that little bit longer. Kids can't have their own designs printed on to cake because that's an attempt to overthrow multi-national corporations?
Tell me...ever heard of Shakespeare? Did all his stuff being out of copyright ruin theatrical production? Oh wait, Beethoven's sheets killed live orchestra. Or not.
Nice link. So MTV doesn't play music videos because there are other channels (e.g. YouTube) and other ways for artists to reach fans (e.g. Twitter). Strange, doesn't seem to stop the likes of "Kerrang!" (on in my household quite a lot). And I don't need to see speedboats jump through balls of fire (that's what movies are for). Also, I could never stand MTV. "Celebrity Deathmatch" was about the only thing worth watching.
I will say one thing, the situation with regards access is is better than is has been, but the content providers are still wedded to old ideas like "regions" and all that does is drive people batshit. I can't watch "Hulu" for example. Why? I might even pay for "Hulu" if it was an option (thus doing away with my current cable deal). But no, not an option. I want to buy that DVD, but I can't play it because it's region 1. I want to give you my money but you won't let me*. Idiots.
* In reality can play it of course, but only because I have gone all illegal and (shock, horror) by-passed the region lock. Wow! Look at me! I am a l33t criminal who can now given money to the people/companies they like! Arrest me! I am supporting free trade!
So....what's to stop me running a public guest network from my router? Purely as a public service you understand. Maybe even run something as part of Project Byzantium.
Can I now be exempt from these stupid laws?
It's high time our MPs stopped attacking our freedoms just to maintain a dying business model.
And that just carries on the same point. A copied B who copied C who copied D who copied A who...
The only people to get rich are the lawyers, the companies lose focus in the various spats and ultimately the consumer pays for it all.
Says "Older Action".
Did you have a point?
His "name" is a generic word. Kinda hard to protect. Unless this start-up is aiming for the lulz market segment or something.
Or maybe "moot" in an investor and this is all some kind of PR campaign?
The RFC for horse heads over TCP/IP hasn't been ratified yet.
moot.it should become moo.tit
Nah, that's udderly ridiculous. And you've probably herd one like that before. Ok, I'll stop milking this.
"You do realise we live in a modern age? I tend to record my TV and watch it when I fell it is the right time thereby eliminating the ads."
I do, which is why I said the "cost" of the adverts could be avoided, but not the increased cost of the products.
"You are comparing apples and oranges."
I'm not actually. A cost is a cost, direct or indirect.
"The direct hit on my wallet that paying for a license fee costs vs this ethereal cost factor"
There's nothing ethereal about it. A business cost is always passed on to the consumer. And whether your wallet is skewered through the heart or bled to death by a thousand cuts, doesn't change the fact it gets drained.
"Please tell me how to calculate this cost factor."
Basic arithmetic. [cost of adverts] / [units manufactured] = [cost per unit]. If you want specifics, go look up a few numbers. Will the cost per unit be high? No. Fractions of pennies. But multiply that by the number of various units you buy every day, week, month, year. The point isn't that this cost if large or small, but that commercial stations are not free. There is a cost and it is borne by us whether we want to admit it or not.
"Secondly, you are assuming I spend the adverts time staring at the screen....Another phantasm cost you conjured into existence."
Which is why I stated you could avoid it. If you can't be bothered to read nor to comprehend what is writ; there's not much hope for you I'm afraid.
"I watch commercial TV I should start feeling an ache in my wallet"
You do - it's been explained to you twice now.
"Nope. CHannel 4 and ITV are free."
Nope. They cost you, those adverts are not free; so you pay for those with increased product prices. Also, if you watch them, you pay an opportunity cost. Let's say you watch 2 hours of 2 a day. That's about 6-7 advert breaks. We'll say 6. Average time, 3 mins so that's 18 mins of adverts a day; or jut over two hours a week. How much do you value your free time? £10/hour? So you pay £20 per week to watch Channel 4 and ITV and you pay higher product prices. Nice. You can avoid the former but not the latter; and the situation is even worse with the likes of Sky as you pay again to get the adverts!
What's this "free" you are talking about?
"It shows us exactly the same "quality" entertainment as other commercial stations, with the difference that commercial stations don't charge us for it."
Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! The reality disconnect is revealed! You do pay for commercial stations, sometimes you even pay twice.
"be incessantly anti-tory (I'm not particularly pro-tory, but I can see the unfairness in BBC "journalism" over the last 10 years.) "
When Labour were in, the Beeb was called "anti-Labour". Now a different set of Etonians are in power, they are "anti-Tory". Sounds like the Beeb is getting it just about right.
"Perhaps it could come out of Newsnight producers' salaries."
Deal, right after we make all the bankers pay for the economic collapse from their own pockets.
Public or private, scandals will be scandals. You think it was a publicly funded agency that was involved in the phone hacking? Or maybe a publicly funded church that also engaged in paedophilia?
The Beeb, for all its faults, it a good counterweight to the likes of ITV and Sky, we lose it at our peril.
Just like the NHS, for all its faults, is better than a private healthcare system (just ask the USA).
"The BBC should become commercial"
Dear god, no, No, No, No, NO!
"anti-establishment mentality, that I do not share, and I know many others who don't. So I resent paying any money to them."
Aww, diddums. Did the big nasty Auntie ask you to consider an alternate point of view? Did she? Aww, issums itsy-wisty world view and little-wittle shakey-wakey? There, there little petal.
I do hope the got consent from the products* for this.
*The admen are the users, the products are the people uploading pictures of their cats and "Liking" crap.
"For those of you who don’t know, timesharing, whose heyday was in the late 1970s, allowed companies to use large mainframe-based systems without themselves having to purchase these huge computers and hire an army of support staff."
And people claim "The Cloud" and "Saas" is all the new sexy.
If you see these people, please give them a slap from me. Thanks.
MS product is crap. Next up, sky blue and water is wet.
"No. Consent is specific, rather than vague."
Thanks for that answer. I'm still of the opinion that these people should have seen some like this coming. They are the product, after all.
I'll answer myself. California Right of Publicity Law, but I am not sure FB broke that because it says:
"Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent"
I may be being daft here, but isn't reading and agreeing to the User Agreement prior consent?
"Legal precedent dictates that if a contractual clause is illegal, it isn't worth the paper/ screen it's written on."
I will ask again - what is illegal? What law is being broken? I simply do not get it. They have agreed to let FB do whatever it wants with what they choose to give FB. It's not like they have signed away all rights to whatever they produce to FB, just what they choose to give FB.
But we are talking about a license agreement, not theft or signing away statutory rights (I think).
If "there are laws", care to cite? My question was genuine, I don't see why these people are complaining. They (should have) read the User Agreement and they (should have) understood what they were agreeing to.
From the Facebook User Agreement, section 2, point 1:
"you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). "
Surely that means FB can do what they like with your stuff (unless you've set it to private)?
So why do these people think they are due money?
I dislike FB as much as the next thinking person (which is why I am not on it) but if people agree to terms like the above, I really don't see on what grounds they can complain.
Came here to say something similar. Just lucky (for now) I guess.
"but should consumers know that?"
Yes. Just like consumers associate certain car makers with poor build quality or reliability, consumers should associate MS with what we know them for.