Posts by The BigYin
2783 posts • joined Tuesday 25th March 2008 12:38 GMT
Page:
Wait...
...Sony makes the Pi? Better start checking them for rootkits then.
Mixed feelings
"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!"
Re: "public Wi-Fi network providers"
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!
Re: Whenever...
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.
Re: An anagram of Lewis Page...
Says "Older Action".
Did you have a point?
Whenever...
...I hear Apple bleat about how Samsung or HTC or whomever stole their ideas, all I can think of is this.
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?
Re: moot.it
The RFC for horse heads over TCP/IP hasn't been ratified yet.
"public Wi-Fi network providers"
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.
Time for a rebrand?
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.
Cheese it!
Re: @ The BigYin
"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.
Oh nos!
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.
Not finished the article yet...
"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.
"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.
MS product is crap. Next up, sky blue and water is wet.
Re: Or...
"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.
Re: What case do they have?
"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.
Re: What case do they have?
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?
Re: What case do they have?
"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.
Re: EULA are worth little more than the paper they are not written on
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.
What case do they have?
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.
Our server is goosed!
See title
Re: reading ability
"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.
Re: Wait...
The "lightweight" RT is 8GB before applications?
*shakes head*
Wait...
...their tablet OS takes 16GB?
16GB?
<Examines hard drive>
My current install, including office suite, hypervisor, games, media players, logs, etc just touches 16GB.
What the bloody hell are MS putting on there?
Re: More fake statistics paid by Microsoft
@h4rmOny - I know perfectly well what SecureBoot is, thank. I also know the impact that MS's diktat has had, and it can be summarised as "Pay us US$99 or piss off out of the PC market". Add to that the inability to change keys on Win8 badged ARM devices and you have, IMHO, more than enough for regulators to stick the boot in.
Oh, and do lay off the straw men.
Re: Yoinks!
Facebook is a public forum, and this is how you should treat everything you post there. If you don't want it known to the world and total strangers - don't post it.
I know they have privacy controls, but leak still happens.
Re: More fake statistics paid by Microsoft
I don't like the enforced choice either, but the "No OS" option seems the least bad to me as the current situation is untenable. Also, it does not force anyone to carry a competing product.
Now, this is where someone drags out a car analogy and asks if I want or buy a car with no engine. It's not the same. I have a choice of car engines, if I buy a Ford or Mazda or Honda I will get a different engine. One simply can do this in the IT world because there is effectively only one "engine" manufacturer and actively blocks any competitors. Would we stand for this? No, of course not.
Yet, somehow, because it's in the IT world it is somehow acceptable.
Competition is good, we need this in the PC marketplace to drive innovation and investment.
Re: secret email address
Can't tell you, it's a secret.
Re: @The BigYin
Not if you are correctly handling the data. And that means not writing your own code, but using the widely available libraries for escaping etc. that exist for every major language. But you are quite right, if one has hired developers who just concatenct email addresses into SQL strings, then you will suffer.
The BigYin's maxim: If you think you know how to validate an email address, then you don't know how to validate an email address.
If there is some limitation, then that needs to be clearly documented and a proper error shown, not just crap like "Your address is invalid".
For example, I've worked on projects where we can't accept a backslash ("\") amongst other things in certain situations (not going into all the ins and outs of why - legacy is a bitch) - so we displayed a message along the lines of "The characters "\, £, and /" cannot be used in an email address". Clear, simple and let's the user know enough to use a different email (or call support and have a good moan).
Re: Three months...
No to worried about downvotes to be honest (check out some of my other posts).
I just don't follow how pointing out the timeline specifically mentioned in the article can be disagreed with.
I'm confused, not upset.
Gmail (to name one) does this, I am not sure about others. It also allows you to put a random "." anywhere in the localpart. The big problem with using a "+" is that most sites reject it, when it is in fact valid.
Are you a web dev? Read this, now go and fix all your no doubt incorrect email validation. So many sites fail on the "+" it's depressing.
Re: Three months...
How the hell is that worth a downvote? It says it in the article FFS!
Three months...
...if the article is anything to go by.
Re: More fake statistics paid by Microsoft
"I really don't fully understand the entire preoccupation with MS bashing. There are, in fact, far more dishonest companies out there ripe for a kicking (i.e. Google/Apple)."
Neither of which are convicted monopolists (yet). Look, MS has been found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour, faces massive fines in the EU and should face sanction for their actions of SecureBoot. Period.
I'm not arguing about Google or Apple, that's a different topic, but as the industry isn't providing choice - it's time to enforce choice. I don't really like regulation, but I don't see it happening any other way.
I don't use IE9 if I can avoid it...
...so why the FOOK would I want IE10? If I had my way, I'd delete IE entirely. Oh wait, I can't.
Thanks MS.
Re: More fake statistics paid by Microsoft
Came here to say something similar. As it is basically impossible to buy a non-Apple PC without Windows, it is pretty easy for MS to get the figures it wants. So a few doom-and-gloom stories, then have the OEMs start to ship Win8 "OMG! LOOK! Our Win8 got n% sales. WE ARE THE AWESOME!"
What the public need is some actual competition in the PC marketplace. Come on regulators, give MS a kicking, please.
Re: "does it also have to be impartial about string theory, quantum mechanics and everything else"
"If somebody has a new theory (different to string theory) then the BBC should not be able to say 'doesn't agree with our stance on string theory....not going to show it"."
So they have to allow every crack-pot, moon-unit a voice? Bollocks. The Beeb should give weight to proper, peer-reviewed results/theories and that's it. Otherwise we'll be having crap like Creationism given the same air-time as evolution and that is plain wrong (creationism isn't even a theory FFS) and homoeopaths given the same credence as actual medical doctors.
I'm sorry, but no.
Why all the secrecy?
Trying to deny climate change is like trying to deny gravity. You can try it, but it's pretty futile.
All that really remains to be debated around climate change is the rate, exact details on the feedback mechanisms (i.e. the finer details) and what (if anything) can be done. If the BBC has to be impartail about science of this nature, does it also have to be impartial about string theory, quantum mechanics and everything else?
Re: So....
Oh, and I forgot one, if you want to avoid paying billions in tax; it will only cost you a nice dinner and a handshake!
So....
...government passes tax laws with loop-holes.
Government cuts HMRC inspectors.
Government follows advice from accountants and bankers on tax (those with the biggest incentive to avoid it).
Government engages in fiddles to avoid revealing true costs (i.e. PFI)
Government allows "non-doms" to get away with little or no tax (when they aren't really non-dom)
Government...it's long list...
What the government is annoyed at here is that the information is public. People only used to suspect that the major high-street chains and other paid little-to-no tax; but now we know. Up until they information was public, the government were very happy for their rich cronies to get away with paying nothing, whilst the lower-middle and working class get gouged for just about every penny.
These companies are wrong for not paying their due, but the government is even more wrong for trying to be all high-and-might about it. It was the Tories and Labour who created this mess in the first place.
Re: Free speech?
@AC - "I'd imagine there would be a fair few people who know or knew people being honoured by the poppy who would love to express there free speech in burning this chap alive"
See, this is Daily Fail logic at its finest. So destroying a small paper flower = capital punishment. FFS. Here's a question....do you have all you poppies from previous years? No? You threw them in the bin! MY GOD MAN! The mob will be round to throw you in next!
"I'd probably break laws excercing my free speech rights on there ass's"
You want to impregnate their donkeys? Eh?
Re: Free speech? @AC
@AC - "You have a right to an opinion but only if it is the same as mine."
You have the right to an opinion, however you only have a valid argument when you can back it up with facts. The Daily Fail (or Daily Hate, if you prefer) is rather "facts light" and "vitriol heavy".
Amusing how irate you are getting about this.
Re: Free speech?
@AC - Straw man,but nice to know you read the Daily Mail.
"What;s your view about peeing on a cenotaph - guess that's acceptable?"
Wrong question. Is peeing in public acceptable?
Tell me, how is this the fault of the immigrants again?
