Re: Monetization!
Maybe he makes enough to be happy? Work-life balance and all that.
3080 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
The sale isn't the issue, the day is.
I also have the quaint idea that retail stores should open 1200-2000, rather than 0900-1700. This woyld give them better overlap with their customers. Also, it would partially alleviate rush hour.
I did look at a few black slaes after work, but anything of interest was either not on sales, or only a couple of pounds off; no mega-deals.
"No self-respecting terrorist (well: one who hopes or expects to walk away from an "incident") would give up the goods that easily and therefore the only data they will collect will be from harmless individuals and private citizens with no nefarious intent."
AIUI, the terrorists who flow into the WTC made no effort to hide the identifies. So these measures would have been ineffective anyway as no one joined the dots.
Or maybe they did, and let it happen. /tin-foil-hat
"Most useful remedy might be to simply provide more information to the public on call quality."
You could probably use an FoI to OfCom to get that, whole will then refuse under "Commercial Confidentiality".
The one thing a Tory government does not want is more openness and the possibility of being scrutinised by the public. Not that Labour would be any better. Both cut from the same cloth.
People moan about the fractured nature of the mobile space in the UK, this upper-crust, Etonian old-boy doesn't give two damns.
He has a problem with one or two calls and all hell lets lose.
Maybe if his pension funds collapse or his back mis-sells him some insurance he'll begin to give a crap about regulating the financial sector.
Until then, it'll be the usual "Piss off, prole" attitude from the Tories.
"but steadfastly refuses to produce a stable API that would allow connected device manufacturers (and everyone else) to build and maintain their own clients at their own expense."
Because the BBC is run by technology ignorant middle managers who are only interested in expanding their fiefdoms than providing an actual service to the public.
iPlayer could become a reference implementation and the community could pick up the slack. This would allow any OS, any device to be supported that the community saw fit.
As to unflashable TVs...that's a matter for OEMs. Consumers can help by simply not buying a TV that they can't upgrade or install new software on. Which is all of them at the moment!
I would like to posit that tools such as "get_iplayer" actually reduced piracy. People simply used the community tool to connect to the legitimate service.
Now what is the easiest option for the dedicated BBC viewer going to be?
Fart around in a browser or with the specific desktop application (no available for all OSs)....or use a plug-in for their current media front-end that pulls content from other sources?
...I am an avid user of XBMC (now "Kodi") as it is *the best* media front-end bar none. Why don't I use a browser? Because a browser on the TV is feckin' crap, that's why!
Why don't I use the "Smart" features of my TV? I don't have a "Smart" TV, but even if I did I would still use XBMC as it link to the other content on my network.
Why don't I use iPlayer on the set-top box? Because for some STUPID reason, it doesn't allow me to watch films.
Do I download videos via the iPlayer plug-in? No, I just watch 'em and move one.
If you are upset with "get_iplayer" etc, why not take some of the energies you just wasted in going and write something better for XBMC et al.
edit: There are workarounds it seems. Hopefully the community will deliver what the BBC refuses to (despite the BBC being paid millions to provide a service).
I wonder when the BBC will start trying to detect VPN usage....
Indeed, just like banking. Can't interrupt criminals at work.
Why there isn't a flat fee per individual I don't know.
Non-identifying info - £1 per record
Communication info [cyber] - £2 per address
Communication info [real] - £5 per number
Identifying info [minor] - £10 per record (e.g. name and city - probably not enough to be truly unique)
Identifying info [reversible] - £50 per record (e.g. when combined with another readily available dataset, it become trivial to uniquely identify a person; name, postcode, d.o.b)
Identifying info [full] - £100 per record (without reference to any other dataset, it is possible to uniquely identify someone)
Add in some other entries for financial etc and you can simply calculate a fine, which could well be ruinous even for a small breach (e.g. "Racing Post" could have been on to a £6.7million pound fine). AND THAT'S A GOOD THING!
Why?
Well, it will make companies seriously consider if they need to collect that information at all; rather than just doing the data-rape land-grab they do now.
> If the agreement you have committed to with a supplier includes limitations
Which is an argument for Free Software, no limitations can be imposed.
In fact the only "limitation" (if you want to call it that) is to preserve the freedom of any subsequent derivatives you release.
> for example, some "free" software disallows its use for military purposes.
Then, by definition, it's not free software.
"No you shouldn't - port everything to .Net and forever say good bye to dozens of security flaws every update. And gain a performance increase and better UIs."
So you're saying "Ram portability up yer arse, go Windows only and say hello to a whole slew of NEW security flaws every update."
"You could just not plug it into the network?"
So I should pay for crap I don't use? No. How's about they just don't put the crap in there? I have no issue with the TV showing me local network content; it's the reporting back to big-brother and only letting consume specific on-line services I don't want.
...I'm more interested in the quality of the programming rather than the number of shiny dots in front of my eyes. Cease the race to the bottom and deliver good shows (be that drama, documentary or whatever). Even the likes of Horizon are now little more than dumbed-down vacuous bullshit; hell, Nat Geo has "Ancient Nazi Alien Ghosts" or such cobblers on it as serious programming. Pathetic.
When I can find a HD TV that is *JUST* a TV with not walled-garden, spying on your network "SMART" TV wank; I'll buy it. Or a SMART TV where I can install a new OS and make it actually SMART and serving me, rather than the OEM.
...would be to not censor anything. Let people engrave sex organs, hate speech, whatever.
If they want to pay over the odds to make themselves look like monumental dobbers, then who is Apple to stop them?
Reminds me of the story where Nike (I think) banned the word "sweatshop" from its customer embroidery service.
It's because they are applying the business strategy of "just pump-up the numbers" to a diverse, and hard to acquire competence in, set of skills. PowerPoint/Word etc are basic office admin skills. They have little-to-nothing to do with actual computing.
Having done manys a computing course, nothing pissed me off more than busting my ass to deliver projects on time, only for the slackers to get an extension. And another. And another. And then to be given the answer just so they'd pass.
Numbers make the college look good, quality be damned.
I say; fail the bastards!
The state could just make the operator responsible for all activity on their network. I think that may already be the case in Germany.
I run segregated guest network on my home router already using DD-WRT. I haven't applied any bandwidth limits as you need to know the password (QR code on the side of the router) and it was a bit of an arse to set-up; but it can be done. If this project makes it easier, then great.
What I'd like to see is something akin to a "Citizen mesh network". Won't solve every problem and would need significant density to be workable.
Neither solve the issue of someone abusing your network, then you having your door kicked-in and all computers seized (not to be returned for years). If that happened to me, I'd be fired in an instant.