+f for Jamendo
3070 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
Just a thought
So after all the good words about cracking down on short-termism and looking like they'd changed, it turns out they are the same Labour through-and-through.
Thank you for restoring my world-view on this, I was worried I was going to have to start thinking of Labour as a credible democratic party and not as a morass of fascist totalitarians.
By turning the key in the ignition, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not start the car. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the entire vehicle in which OnStar is installed.
(To paraphrase the MS license)
All the add-ons worked (but then I had frigged a bunch of definitions for the move to 6).
ACID3 is no worse that it was on FF6 (100/00, but there are notices when you click on the "A").
Memory...on tab open "El Reg" (but I have had quite a few open) and it is sucking down 353mb (and I have a lot of add-ons).
...I guess Spotify will never see my money then.
I realise that's not big loss to them, but this could hurt them in the future if more people wake-up to the privacy disaster that is Facebook. I do not want people knowing what I listen to nor, frankly, do I think anyone cares. I can't see why Spotify have taken this bone-headed decision.
...I like some of what I am hearing about cracking down on short-termism. But then words are cheap and this is the party with some of the most short-term policies going and actively pursues short-term goals. If give you PFI as but one example.
So...top marks for gum-flapping, zero for credibility. If they get back in power, it will be business as usual for the fast-buck-brigade.
My question: Given your party's past history of lies, deceit and chicanery; why should anyone believe a word of what you say?
Smaller businesses (the ones who actually pay tax in the UK) will get it in the neck and be squeezed until their pips pop. Meanwhile the he largest avoiders of tax will be allowed to continue getting away with evading paying billions and get 'personal' deals that vastly under estimate their actual liabilities.
There is something wrong with this picture. Hartnett needs to go.
...why MS should require other keys or the disable feature for Win8 certification, as neither of these affect Win8 running. Unless one buys a computer with another OS as standard (yeah, like that is possible for the average consumer outside of Apple).
The real danger is that MS stuff the UEFI body so that the standard do not declare must be disable-able and to give the end-user some means to load new keys. MS already perverted one standards body (ISO), so why not this one too?
The fact that (according to Red Hat) some unamed* vendors will not be shipping a disable feature and there appears to be no clarity on how an end-user can load new keys is deeply worrying.
This is a shame as it looks like a secure-boot feature could be helpful against some attack vectors (until it gets cracked and presents a whole new set, that is).
*El Reg - any chance to getting them named?
Have you been at the KoolAid?
The ISO body is meant be independent, yet MS managed to stuff the ballot box and have a patent encumbered format approve. Do you understand the implications of that? There is an ISO *standard* that you cannot fully implement without infringing on MS patents (I am quite aware of the MS "gratis" license and it's limitations).
If we could be 100% sure that the UEFI body was totally independent and was really just there to ensure that all the i's and t's were dotted and crossed, you'd be correct. But we cannot be because, as I have pointed out, MS has form for skewing these bodies.
Really? Just like OEMs can ship with any OS thy want, assuming they also want to swallow inflated license costs.
Just like OEMs don't have to "recommend" any particular OS, if they want to swallow inflated license costs.
I would not trust MS in this matter, they are far from impartial and have too long a history of attacking GNU/Linux and F/LOSS in general. If they need to solve this issue, then I suggest two courses of action:
1) Write an OS that does not leap on to the Interwebs and scream "I am open, have at me like a cheap tart! I'll take all comers in any port!"
2) Let OEMs sell a "bolt on" to people who need this kind of control (certain corporates, certified environments etc).
Has there suddenly been an out-break of common sense?
I tested on IE9 64bit on a Win7 64bit (fully patched). I have no plug-ins or toolbars are any other crap in IE (in fact, I barely use IE) so it is vanilla.
There is more to the criteria than just the "score", so your "100/100" is still a fail.
The fact that the rendering is not pixel perfect means that it is a fail (the "score" is not actually a score and 100/100 does not mean "pass". I do wish people would realise that).
I tested on 6.0.2 on two separate platform and it worked fine. Deeply odd.
IE9 still does not pass Acid3 (95/100, one box coloured wrong, text shadows missing)
FF6 on Windows and Ubuntu passes with flying colours (smooth animation, pixel-perfect with reference).
My guess is that Opera and Safari will fair similarly to FF (as I don't run those, I can't test them).
...for cage drivers to not LOOK before they do something.
Maybe Ford should put a sensor on the door's edge that applies some kind of lock to the hinge preventing it opening any further when in close proximity. Then cagers can just throw their doors open without a care in the world for others.
Migrate the servers to Windows. Job done.
And, according to El Reg, GNU/Linux is already in second place on servers [Apols, search-fu has failed me at this late hour].
Perhaps securing this position is MS's plan?
Do you think for one second that Apple will not start to use this as well? They'll dress it up a bit better than MS and make it all shiny for you, but they will use it. Then where will you be?
Apple run the most locked-down and controlling hardware/software when they can get away with it. This will be just another way of doing that for them.
And do leave off the ad hominems, they really are pathetic.
Apple do not lock the hardware *yet*
Not even MS demands that OEMs lock the hardware *yet*
Do you get the point? It's NOT about what you have now it's about what you WILL BE FORCED to have. It's just like you cannot use HDMI due the various vested interests deciding that you freedoms and you rights mean jack-shit.
People don't get the problem. Just because the MBP you have today will allow you to do this, does not mean a MBP tomorrow will.
But the newer MBP will be shiny, and you like shiny dontcha.
Here, this ball and chain is shiny to. Shiny. Likey-likey?
...board is not made up of MS, but they still managed to force through their patent-encumbered 'standard'.
...explain Apple. Anyone who likes freedom and choice should eschew Apple, but people flock in their droves.
Make is shiny enough and people will pay you to enslave them.
...spouted over RMS's comments about Android, do people *NOW* get why we need free software?
Free as in speech, not as in beer.
It's not failed (yet), be interesting to see how things work when I switch it to modem mode later on.
It's quite clear to me that "free" means "free as in speech, not as in beer". So I can take any GPLv3 code, change it as I see fit, and then keep it for myself or re-distribute it (with source, of course) as long as I do so again under GPLv3 (or any later version, my choice).
If you don't like the GPLv3, you have two very distinct choices:
1) Don't use it, no one is holding a gun to your head; and/or
2) Clearly state what the problem is and propose an improvement.
That was enough. A thoroughly hostile UI and a bugger to use. Took far to many clicks to get to basics (e.g. an actual Control Panel, shutdown etc), the random switching to/from the desktop is irritating and distracting and it just makes using a desk PC painful.
It actually manages to be *worse* than Unity; that takes some effort!
..if I can be bothered to read a story that has gone Granuaid in the first sentence. Is this some comment on W8 quality?
What about the plans to relax domain names in general? .ass, .bum, .poo, .wee, .cum etc
How about .bush? Then one could have obama.bush; if one appreciates disjointed thinking.
If people want a free Internet (and anyone with a brain does) then one needs to be ready for the consequences.
Now please excuse whilst I register thereg.xxx.........
Surely to do the de-dupe the data must be unencrypted at their end (or at least accessible, a la Dropbox)?
Sure, putting *ALL* my data on-line where any third party could look at it is smart.
No thanks, I'll pass.
If it's hardware failure, then you are pretty much boned. I only asked as some many people chuck out perfectly good PCs that simply need a tidy-up.
Doom! PC prices have crashed, will crash again. Doom!
I've seen similar stories over the past year or so, but no-one appears to have told the retailers. Low-powered "cheap" machines are still way, way over-priced. I don't see it some much of a price drop as a price correction; consumers are wising up and not willing to pay over-inflated prices for kit.
Are they failing? Unstable? A re-install can really boost a PC's performance. About the only thing an 8-year old PC will not do is run current games, it should still be able to cope with web, office etc.
Of course, if it was a really low-budget, low-powered system 8 years ago then you may well struggle. In which case, try installing a less demanding OS. One of the "Puppy Linux" distros is often a good choice.
It's that Windows advert where a 4-year old PC is "too old". Horse-hockey. Makes me want to punch my 12 year-old TV and write an angry email on my 7 year-old laptop.
"Mean Flexions Before Failure"?
I am shocked and disgusted that my Timmy can see ".xxx" on his Internets. This is simply pushing vile and disgusting porn to our children and raising a nation of paedophile rapists.
I must insist that the UK government immediately ban this vile filth from our shores. Without such a ban in place to protect the children, the UK government is saying that it supports the idea of importing raw-filth into the homes of decent, up-standing Britons. This is really a terrible stance for you to take.
Ban this sick filth now!
Angry of Barking
No - I'm just saying the government should not be promoting part of the problem's cause.
...the way major fast-food companies operate is to de-skill people so they are basic automatons and will work for low-pay. What guarantees are in place to ensure that these £2.50 serfs do not get the boot once they become more expensive?
Quite why the government wants to help the fast-food industry when we are facing an obesity epidemic is quite beyond me; and that is before we even consider the methods of food production.
There again - I've never understood why the Olympics (and other sporting events) lower themselves to taking advertising from these purveyors of high-fat convenience.
I'd hardly dismiss a fight-back against the misuse of our language as mere semantics. People already confuse a copyright infringer (civil) with an actual criminal. This has all been done through the misuse of language.
Heck, the "stakeholders" have even managed to have ethics thrown out with various new laws getting passed (e.g. DMCA) so actually now creating new crimes that should not exist.
I still call myself a freetard as I think the word "free" is precious and we should try to keep in mind what "free" means. Otherwise we're doomed to lose it.
Nice summary - thanks.
"A true freetard takes movies, games, TV, music et al and walks away. No money ever changes hands for the copied material (note: not stolen)."
It's not stolen (that's be a crime), it's a breach of license and a civil offence. They are also poisoning their own well. I have no sympathy for them.
Cracking DRM/encryption should not a crime, it's no worse than lock-picking (also not a crime) although they *could* be used to commit crimes and, in those cases, the people should be charged with whatever crime they have committed.
So it all adds up. Free as in speech, not as in beer. I am (by and large) free to examine, distribute and update what I torrent. And I do. I am a freetard. I am not a criminal.
I track about 85 torrents. The material is copyright (games, movies, music etc.). I look forward to any nasty letter and I have my £20 at the ready.
Simple - whilst the material is indeed copyright, it's all either GPL/CreativeCommons/Copyleft/similar so I have the *right* to distribute and in fact it is positively encouraged as it makes life easier for the creators/distributors. And yes, I do punt them some cash so they can do their next project.
For the actual unlicensed sharers/downloads, it will just push them to use other measures to avoid detection. It's a war that cannot be won.
...you should never, ever, EVER trust your data and your business to a third-party unless you have a binding legal contract, rights of escrow etc.
What is it that "Turk Guvenligi" are after? Are the protesting against the human rights abuses of the Turkish government or something? (e.g. Ilisu Dam)
Or are they just doing it for the lulz?
...environmental controls, they would not be able to make things so cheap. So you'd pay more. And you'd moan.
There is a reason your plastic gadgets are so affordable. If this concerns you at all, vote with your wallet.
And here we go, a bit later than originally planned admittedly
So, has the insulin pump been patched? I somehow don't think so. One major step towards fixing a problem is admitting there is one in the first place. Free software tends to be much better at that than proprietary.
Levi's have two choices
1) Reduce the price in the EU; or
2) Increase the price elsewhere
That will stop the exploitation of the price disparity. Resorting to legal measures like this is just trying to restrict free-trade.
The sad thing is, when this hits the EU courts they'll probably let Levi's get away with it (just like how the capitulated over CDs, DVDs etc). Why the hell the EU (and the USA) are anti-free-trade is quite beyond me.
Meanwhile all those companies wanting to maintain the status quo (and thus their business model) are not profit motivated?
I am not 100% convinced about anthropogenic global warming. There, I've said it. Maybe I'm just stupid.
But I am not so stupid as to think we can carry on the way we are. We are burning way too much oil, wasting too many resources, polluting far in excess of what is needed, abusing the natural order with too many pesticides, destroying farming cultures with patent/license infected seeds; all in the name of profit.
This is biting us all in the ass right now, never mind what global warming could do to us.
With everything now privatised and in the grubby claws of the venture capitalists via PFIs, any tax revenue from profits lost due to tax avoidance measures and vast subsidies having to be paid to keep the operators profitable; we're screwed.
It cannot be fixed in the current state.
The prices that have to be paid are ridiculous, restrictions are ludicrous and the service (almost) universally appalling. The two exception I can think of are ScotRail (although that's been getting worse) and NI Railways. The embarrassing think for the government and their PFI chums is that these two are state run (well, near as dammit); that's a situation that can't be permitted for much longer.
So, Scots and Irish, rejoice in your train service while you have for you too are soon to be screwed over just like the English and Welsh.
BURN THE HERETIC! BURN HIM I SAY!
BURN THE HERETIC! BURN HIM I SAY!
We can have menus (if you want)
Or ribbons (if you want)
Widgets (if you want)
And multiple desktops (if you want)
And multiple panels (if you want)
And "active desktops" (if you want)
And....well, you get the idea.
Of course, you should only switch if your software is cross-platform or a viable alternative exists. This is not always the case unfortunately.
...so its easier to tie your web habits back to your real-world self and thus they can make more money from using your data.
YOU are the product, remember.