'Nuff said really.
3058 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
'Nuff said really.
Surely the offence is committed by the person making the copyrighted work available?
And that it that person and their server are outside of the USA?
And how does the USA check whether or not, under local laws wherever the server is based, if the person has the rights to stream?
So once again the USA seems to think that their laws are the world's laws and that we must obey their pathetic little whims.
I thought the USA was the land of the free - not the land of corporate imperialism.
And as for a world power? Give it a few more years, the USA is a debt-ridden minnow compared to the might of China.
...18 more months about this jumped-up sports jamboree.
...do I need 64-bit beasts on my desktop if I have virtualised said desktop? From the past few days on El Reg it seemed like everyone and their donkey had a hankerig for virtualised desktops, so I am a bit puzzled why the 64-bit question even arises.
Outside of a few niche uses (e.g. video editing, large image manipulation and maybe some devs) who really needs more than 4gb chuntering along on their dekstop?
"Rivals like Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari – which spread their bets by working on different operating systems – are handicapped. According to Microsoft."
So let me get this straight. MS's browser is restricted to some versions of MS's own OS due to dependency linking etc (and no doubt the OS is dependent on some browser classes) and it's the *others* that are handicapped?
The fact that the other browser can run on multiple platforms is a massive boon to consumers and companies. If their services are web-based (and done to the standards) they can switch to the best platform for their needs, not be hamstrung by MS. So if spec'ing a new web-based solution, demand that it be cross-browser; that way you increase cost-saving opportunities.
It's also massive props to the engineers of Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari et al to get their browser working on MS, given MS's active hostility to standards and open source in general.
"web apps built on web standards like HTML5."
HTML5 is *NOT* a standard, so please stop calling it one (and most of what people call HTML5 isn't HTML5 anyway, marketing destroying truth and clarity once more).
There will be pain ahead when the standard is actually set and MS refuse to update IEx to meet that standard. We'll be back to people having to create sites for the actual standards compliant browsers and then again for IE. Straight back to the bad old days of IE6. Urf.
Pfft. You really don't give Great Britain credit. This is the *modern* Olympics and Great Britain stands to take home a clutch of gold medals in *modern* competitions:
--- Lager relay chug-a-thon
--- 100m blunder and chunder
--- Tag-team street brawl
--- Fake tan slop and slap
--- Kebab chucking (contains no identifiable meat products)
...to MS. MS are ramping up to compute like it's 1980!
MS, who were late to the Cloud just like they were late to the Internet, are claiming OTHERS don't get it?
The Cloud is a modern take on the old mini/main-frame idea, except with a mini-main-frame that can (if you have it set up to do so) expand/contract as demand permits and even move itself over to another data centre should the need arise (fail-over etc).
Working in such away requires an OS that is perfectly happy to live "on" the network as it were and not expect to be a series of monolithic installs with a local user (probably running as an admin). It also helps if any GUI is network transparent, this means the server can do what its good at (crunching the data) and the client can do what its good at (making it look pretty). Perfect for low-power clients like smartphones, netbooks and tablets.
In summary - the Cloud demands everything that the MS stack isn't, it demands a Unix or a Unix-a-like way of thinking, probably with a x-windows a-like to boot.
MS's Azure is the horseless carriage, they've put it on a motorway already populated by articulated lorries, X5s and S1000RRs; and for some reason this is everyone else's fault.
"PFI" is a way to fund government projects off-balance sheet (thus hiding the true cost from proper scrutiny). As a general rule PFI is very high-risk for the tax payer and costs a lot more than just doing it the old fashioned way. It also ties public expenditure into fixed contracts for decades that can only be varied at increased cost.
So if one used PFI to build (say) a hospital, then didn't need that hospital for whatever reason, one is screwed. One still needs to pay. If it turns out the hospital is too big, one's screwed. If the hospital gets the wrong kind of patients, one's screwed. Etc ad nausea.
The only things PFI is good for is ensuring MPs (or their pals/partners) can get cushy directorships and forcing future generations into crushing debt.
...a politician would never say that. They would say "That is a hypothetical question and I really won't be drawn into answering. There are many aspects to 'two' that must be considered holistically and how they interact with society at large. This is why we have engaged in a public consultation to find out what the public wish 'two plus two' to equate to."
Or, if discussing costs "That was done under PFI and thus is commercially sensitive."
Can't beat a spot of honey on the old porridge (lowland dwelling jessie that I am).
Wasps, on the other hand, are utter bastards and serve no function.
KILL THEM ALL!
I'm no great fan of spiders either, but I tolerate them as the EAT WASPS!
Phobic about wasps? Me? I wouldn't call it a "phobia" as such, more of a pathological hatred.
This is the EU, run by unelected committees who meet in secret, publish no minutes and can't even get their accounts approved. Google will just grease the correct palms and the problem go away.
"The UI is maybe a bit slow ( but not as much as you say)"
Yes, yes it is as slow as I say. I know because I spent a frustrating time trying to set up recording for WSB by searching for "motorsport" under the "TV Channels"
"You can't watch LiveTV while searching OnDemand (Probably a marketing decision rather than a technical one)"
Yes, I know this and I really don't care why it is that way; it's a PITA and affects my experience as a user.
"You can't hide Unsubscribed channels - So what? If you're on the V+ package you probably have XL anyway."
I can't view them and I don't want to have them cluttering up the guide, that's why.
"Why would you need to use Ethernet and USB? The software has no function for that - the recordings are encrypted for a reason."
You assumed I want to lift media off the V+ box and you assume wrong. I want to view media I already have on my network. The V+ box is running on a Linux distro, including "smbfs" would have been a snap.
"Have you heard of a Wireless Router? Never trust bundled routers."
I'll agree on that, I'm using the bundled one at the moment but considering buying another one and chucking DD-WRT on it.
Most of the above will be moot once I get around to setting up Myth with Freesat. The V+ box will either be returned or can just gather dust.
It's 80hour of storage, no 80gb. So that does match what El Reg got - everything else still stands though.
And a few more I forgot: Schedule information is incomplete, it does not tell you if the show is a repeat or not, often misses the year and there is not quick way to jump to other showings. You cannot search on the summary, actor or anything else (and have I mentioned the search is slow?). The UI is fugly. Really, really fugly (and there's just now excuse for that).
And the inability to use Ethernet means you cannot consume media you may have on another other networked appliance (e.g. a NAS). Hello....Virgin...this is the 21st century calling. Get with the sodding program.
I am a new Virgin customer and I wonder just what kit they sent you. Firstly, my HD (Samsung) only have 80gb of space. The UI is slow (ask it for "motor sport" and it takes 15+ minutes to search the schedule), the search feature is hidden in a sub-menu you cannot access without losing live TV. All the "on demand" features are fragmented into sub menus that make perusal difficult and cause you to lose live TV. You cannot hid channels you do not subscribe to, all you can do is "favourite" some and that means favouriting everything that you subscribe to. The box (despite having the ports) cannot use Ethernet or USB.
The router (a re-badged NetGear) reboots for every single change. Want to set a fixed IP? Reboot. Want to change the SSID? Reboot. Want to... Reboot. Pain in the bloody ass.
I'd give Virgin at most 50%.
If thinking of getting BT, Sky or Virgin, don't waste your money on the TV packages. It's 100+ channels of utter crap. Use the catch-up services instead.
Err...you rolled out an unstable beta to the whole enterprise? Really? Really, really?
Or do you mean that you and one or two other techies key to play with the shiny?
Yes....I thought as much.
Microsoft welcomes you to 2005.
Oh, and HTML5 isn't a standard yet, do you think MS will update the browser when the *actual* standard gets fixed? Will they cock.
So it's welcome to 1998 and "This site works best in..."
Meanwhile corporates are still running IE6 as their proprietary code on the proprietary platform is too critical, too brittle and too badly documented to be touched by anyone.
We know who we have to that for that catastrophe don't we? So unless IE9 can run IE6 ActiveX controls and render non-standards IE6 pages perfectly, no one will upgrade to it.
The most up-to-date browser I am aware of any enterprise using is IE7. If they had made the right decision a decade ago (i.e. follow the feckin' standards) they could have had a near-seamless upgrade path. but no. The consumed the MS Kool-aid and screwed themselves over.
And they will do it again if they ever start using IE9.
...are NetGear. They're still a bit crap though.
If I didn't rely on it so much, I'd risk DD-WRT install. heck I may buy a second router so if I break it I am not stuffed.
Why? Does the 3DS come with an "Other OS" option?
On an old Compaq that would blue-screen in XP when trying wireless, Ubuntu was perfectly happy.
Edimax PCMCIA card worked a treat too.
You probably have a Broadcom chipset and they ARE a clusterfsck. The fact that they don't work is not a fault of Canonical or anyone else, it's the fault of Broadcom and their crappy drivers.
Do yourself a huge favour and get an Edimax dongle/card. They work right out of the box (Windows, any Linux distro) and have yet to let me down. Cheap as chips too.
As others have said - did you log a bug with the logs and hardware specs? Did you look into the forums for anyone else with the same kit? Did you ask for help on Launchpad?
I've had mixed success with "ProcessExplorer" in the past, but it is way better than what XP does by default!
Why they make it so hard beats me....
Well, it makes sense when you know why it is there. It's to make sure that all writes are complete and that you don't trash the file system by yanking the drive. This is why some devices (e.g. mice) can be safely yanked, there is no writing going on.
What pisses me off is when it says "I can't something is locking it" but never, ever tells you what that "something" is. Then you play a game of hunt the app/process in order to get your drive out safely; sometimes necessitating a reboot to get the friggin' lock removed. Win7 seems to be a bit better than XP, but not by much.
...faith-based schooling. If parents want to stunt their children's ability to critically assess evidence by forcing them to believe in some mythical sky-fairy, then they can do it at their own expense; not mine.
...any recent Linux install CD.
...but didn't open the case.
As in, she puffed but did not inhale.
...she fail to understand the Internet. All blockages will be routed around, without exception.
Where does the censorship end? Porn off by default. Anti-Semitic off by default? Pro-ana off by default? FPS gaming off by default? Government criticism off by default?
You may or may not like porn. I am may or may not like many things, but I am not advocating censorship just because I don't like it (although...I'd probably not complain too loudly if religious and intelligent design sites/pages were "off by default"). Anyway...censorship is wrong. Period.
The responsibility lies with the parents and no one else.
Don't want your kiddies to get run over? Teach them how to cross the road and not to play on the motorway.
Don't want your kiddies to see porn? Learn how to install a proxy and don't allow them on the Internet unsupervised.
Do not abdicate YOUR responsibilities to MY wallet.
And as for Ms Smith - never seen porn? Bullshit. Has she never looked inside "The Sun"? Impartial outsider? Should more like a puritanical vigilante if you ask me.
...but isn't this just like GPG signed mail (that's been around for ages) with an official seal of approval?
...is still using IE6 FFS.
I would be deeply nervous about any MS involvement, especially if the patents haven't been filed yet. I predict trouble.
Increasing the tax on big multi-nationals like Tesco will cause them to FLEE! Can you imagine the deserted wasteland the UK will be when Tesco et al leave due to the high taxes.
Why are you laughing?
This is the same reasoning they use for letting banks, telcos etc get away with only paying 1% tax (if that) so it must be true!
Without all those companies paying 1% (or less) and employing cleaners who pay 25%-or so, how will we afford schools?
Will no one think of the children?
Ok then. Freedom is obviously the USA's enemy.
I wonder how much charge Franklin is generating as he rotates?
At least Assange knows what to expect when USA forces do the snatch-and-grab in Sweden.
I thought that was the case (women, more but less severe incidents; men, wipe out!), but couldn't be 100% sure.
Reads like an argument for stepped car-licenses if you ask me (mandatory basic control test then low, mid and high capacity).
...experience != population norms.
I am a male and I have had a few mishaps (from stupid stuff in a car park at sub-5mph to a head-on*). So am I proof that males are more dangerous? Nup. I am only proof that *I* am possibly more dangerous (or I driver in riskier conditions, or...)
One must be careful about abstracting generalities from a statistically insignificant set (especially one with selection bias such as yours).
*I do not recommend it one bit. Although getting run over by the cop afterwards hurt even more**.
**I really wish I was making this up.
..."factual inaccuracies" £5 is quite a sweet deal. Very, very tempting; although I was thinking of getting an HTC...
All the shouts of "First app store for a desktop PC, ever!" make me snigger and wonder what I have been doing for the past year or so. And I can't wait to flatten the last of these Windows hosts.
Is this going to be the one with the floaty-circles?
Really people, it's time to get a clue.
I hear yah! Classic xBoxes are dirt cheap and still usable these days. They make a decent (non-HD) media extender plus a fun game is still, well, fun!
The more you drive, the more fuel you use, the more insurance premium you pay.
Well, not scrap but turn on its head. What if insurance was a "club" and you stumped up £50 to join for a year. After a while, there would be pay outs for various incidents/costs and everyone's £50 wouldn't be enough, so the club debits money from you. So rather than paying for what /might/ happen, you pay for what /has/ happened.
At the end of the year, you see how much "club" membership cost you. Too high? Change "clubs". Everyone within a "club" pays the same.
Obviously the "clubs" need to compete on costs; lower costs, more demand. The "clubs" would need to risk assess each prospective member (a bit like insurance companies do now) and decide whether or not to allow them in. Rejected? Try a different "club", do more training etc. Want lower premiums? Don't drive like a tw@.
Heck the "clubs" could even be owned by the members and run not-for-profit. Simple.
Or am I simply being far to simple?
A company sells a "thing" that does A, B, C and D you pay £100 for that "thing".
At some juncture in the future, the company says "From now on you can do A, B and C; or A, B, and D. You have to choose between C and D".
That is not right.
Whether you care or not is not the issue. All that matters is that the company (Sony in this case) has unilaterally decided to knobble your device in one way or another. I will agree that people /could potentially/ use the Linux install to do some naughtiness, and if they do I won't complain when they are done for it.
But removing a feature just because it /could/ be used in that way is no excuse.
Imagine if companies did that for everything.
...this will be interesting.
OOXML is an ISO standard (after the committee was massaged to vote the correct way). However Word et al do not implement OOXML as defined in the ISO standard and (according to RMS) one cannot implement the format use within MS Office without infringing MS patents. So it is impossible for anyone other than MS to correctly implement the format used within MS Office.
That little lot would seem to preclude the use of MS Office within any government department.
Of course, there is a massive get out in the documentation that states (I paraphrase) "Use OSS unless OSS can't do the job".
Then there will be weasel words "This is only guidance....", "We outsourced that function...", "We are a private contractor selling services, we are not bound by that document..." etc.
"h-online" has an article on it and a link to the Cabinet Office document.
I expect exactly nothing to change. Big money speaks too well to MPs and civil servants.
No hate, just simple economics. Things cost money. For free (at point of consumption) things, someone needs to swallow the cost. In the AppStore that means Apple /or/ the publisher. You have to pick one.
As for the "in addition to", that was part of my point. Apple is insisting on this so they can cover their costs. They assumed repeat revenue (a bit like Sony with the PS3 and games) and are now reliant on that. If they had charged a sustaining price up-front, then they wouldn't have had to do this.
I quite agree about the service Apple provides, but what if the dev doesn't want their service? Their only choice just now is not to list in the AppStore, but if they are not listed there how can they sell their wares to the iDevice crowd?
I am not saying that Apple is a monopoly (their sales are still far too small for that) but I can see why the regulators might want to keep an eye one things. What if Samsung et al go down similar routes - that would not be good for consumers IMHO.
And I repeat - no Apple hate. They are very, very good at what they do (design, integration) but there are certain things they do that I don't like. Simple.
"Put yourself in their shoes, they are employing lots of staff to handle app submissions and they have built a huge expensive data centre recently. Hosting apps, music and films is a costly business."
If the AppStore model cannot support the infrastructure, then the AppStore model must change. I see four solutions
1) Make the user pay a minimum one-off fee for buying the app.
2) Make the publisher pay a minimum one-off fee for listing the app.
3) Make the user pay a minimum subscription fee per app purchase.
4) Make the publisher pay a minimum subscription fee per app listing.
If the fee is not paid (or lapses) the app is yanked from the store/iDevices.
That covers the cost of infrastructure, certifying apps etc. Content could come from the Apple store (for whatever fee Apple want) or some other place/store. This would allow competition and that is always good for consumers.
Of course there is a fifth option - if you don't like Apple's fees, don't list in their store.
We are supposed to trust the snoopers and spammer to not track us?
What penalties will the execs face (note: not the company, the execs themselves) of companies that do not respect the "Do Not Track" setting? Here's my guess: none whatsoever. "Lessons will be learned" blah-de-blah, but nothing will happen.
Until the execs of the ad companies are held personally liable (say, £10,000 for each breach) they won't give a shit. They are paid to take "business risks" so it's time they actually had to bear those risks.
Not that I trust any ad/marketing company to respect my wishes - I will still block them into oblivion.
...but then you could try hacks, break the phone, recover, repeat and eventually get access. Then you could pirate stuff (SHOCK!)
Make it do things MS didn't think of (HORRORS!)
Not have to upgrade so often (CALAMITIES!)
The world would end I tells yah!
The mere fact you could use such a system to reverse out a cock-up such as this is of no consequence to MS and they hold all the cards. They ruined PCs and they seem poised to do the do the same again on phones. It is a real shame. After netbooks, smartphones was the last chance for F/OSS. Unless they pull something out of the hat quick, they'll fail there too.