75 posts • joined Saturday 19th July 2008 10:35 GMT
And the logical next step...
But more seriously, I suppose as long as these bans are in addition to proper sentencing and deterrents, I suppose it's not that illogical. If you commit driving offenses you get banned from driving. Of course, as others have pointed out, good luck enforcing that.
Metacritic seems to disagree with you there.
Review sites give it an average of 54, user scores give it 5.9.
Not that I'm saying review scores should be taken seriously at Metacritic. I don't think reviews should give scores anyway, it just leads to ridiculous 'how is this game only 1% better than that game' type arguments. A good review will tell you whether you would like the game or not without some number attached to it.
It's not their kids
they can't be bothered being proper parents to. I'm pretty sure their kids will be suitably restricted to Christian friendly, fun free activities. It's the kids of everyone else they're bothered about. They don't think you're bothering to look after your kids properly and so they want the government to do it for you.
Seems a lot of people are missing this, what with all the 'ffs parents should take responsibility and stop relying on the government' type comments. It's not about some lazy parents wanting the government to take responsibility for their kids (although some would be more than happy for them to), it's the Mother's Union wanting the government to take responsibility for everyone else's kids, because they don't trust them to parent them responsibly.
Well, to be fair he might have a proper site and he could just be using Facebook to complement that and reach out to more potential customers. If he's running a tech business then I'd certainly hope that's the case anyway.
But yeah, these businesses who think Facebook is an acceptable platform for their web presence, they can go fuck themselves. Yeah, I might want to know more about your product or sevice. But no, I don't want to be liking your fucking Facebook page and getting my wall spammed with whatever.
I have to agree
Nothing worse than being forced to read something I'm not interested in. If this carries on, I might have to somehow only read the items that might interest me. Now, if only there was some way to know what an item is about before I start reading it. Maybe some sort of headline or something.
they think the companies will actually try to reduce these costs by trying to reduce the amount of numbers they ask for. Which I imagine they probably would. I also imagine they will put their prices up anyway, because they can just blame it on Ofcom charging for new numbers.
I know what is amazing though
It's amazing how your opinions are also facts. Absolutely amazing. In my opinion anyway
If you were a competent adult,
you would realise that the inciter and the rioter may share responsibility for a riot taking place, but they don't share any responsibility for each other's actions during a riot.
There's no such thing as partly guilty. You've either committed the offence or you haven't.
If you incite someone, you're either guilty or not guilty for that. If you loot you're either guilty or not guilty for that.
The 33% discount
Is already reflected in the sentence as the judge takes that off before giving it out. So presumably, the judge thought they would have deserved over 5 years if they hadn't pleaded guilty.
So, come to think of it, that guy tweeting about blowing up the airport - he got off pretty lightly.
The Court of Appeal
Is going to be getting busy.
I've got three addons from Kaspersky that are absolutely impossible to get rid of short of reinstalling Firefox. They've been there for about a year and the only reason they're not enabled right now is because they're not compatible with Firefox 5.0.
And yeah, I know Kaspersky's turning into a bloated mess. That's why there's absolutely no chance of it getting renewed. When the installer gives you no option as to what gets installed or not, and removing the stuff you don't want is harder than getting rid of any malware, you know it's time for a change.
Yeah, it must be your fault
It's not like Facebook would ever make certain settings related to privacy difficult to find and not very clear or anything like that.
So, instead of just giving people benefits, we could get them to do work and give them money for it instead.
We could call the work we give them 'jobs', and so we can differentiate them from people who aren't getting benefits for nothing, we could even call them 'employed'.
So, that's nice and easy to do. All we need are enough jobs for everyone in the country and away we go.
And talking of averages, I also find it very interesting that nowhere in the pdf they've released does it even mention what kind of average they're actually using. Is it the mean, is it the median, is it the mode? I know most people will just assume it's the mean, but looking at the pdf, they're obviously attempting to present it as scientific research, and yet they leave out something as basic (and vital) as that.
That's just one thing that seemed to stick out, but there's actually quite a few. They go into absolutely no detail whatsoever about their methodology other than the absolute basics of how many people took their test and how they got them to take it. A previous study plays a large part in their findings but they give absolutely no reference to it whatsoever. They use phrases such as 'been bugging the web developers'. They cannot, it seems, even count to two - they have a grand total of two different graphs which they've managed to both call Figure 1. And yeah, that might seem like nit picking, but seriously, it says a lot about their attention to detail.
To me, looking at their website explains everything. They do offer free IQ tests, but it seems for a full report they require payment. Call me cynical, but what better way to drum up a bit of publicity for their website and their 'free' online IQ tests (not to mention their 'range of psychometric tests designed specifically for the use of HR professionals. Their scientific validity, clarity and insight have already won them the loyalty of more than 3,500 businesses throughout the world, including many Fortune 500 companies.') than call the users of the browser with the largest market share stupid?
And no, I don't use IE.
RE: Christ, talk about "correlation/causation" fallacy
Yes, you could do that. If the study had tried to imply any causation that is. All I seen was correlation.
RE: Which IQ scale?
From the article,
'Each subject's browser and operating system were detected and retained along with their scores on the well-respected Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (IV) IQ test.'
I take it you're not using Opera?
re: And his crime was what, exactly?
Writing and distributing malware. It's illegal.
And funnily enough, saying something along the lines of 'they deserved it anyway', doesn't generally work out too well as a defence.
Talking of trust.
I hope you're better at verifying the integrity of your children's friends than you are of information on the internet.
Out of three sources, one is a link to some random internet forum and the other to an article in an article directory, written by some guy trying to sell Facebook blocking software.
I suggest you spend a little less time searching for stuff to scare yourself with and a little more on how to find reliable sources of information.
They should know that it will be mis quoted
Well, that depends on who's doing the reporting. Pretty much to be expected from the likes of the Daily Mail. But, if you're happy with that, that's fine. I prefer my news to be a little more factual.
'Being cyber-stalked is as bad as being raped, or in a war'
Except, from what I read I cannot see them saying that at all. All they're saying, in that quote, is that the number of cases is comparable, not the severity of the condition.
But yeah, no need to let facts get in the way of a good story.
It seems the Sun even struggled to pad it out to the six whole sentences of the article. I mean seriously, a national 'newspaper' using quotes from random Tweets and YouTube comments to substantiate some 'news'.
Oh well, I suppose if you're reading the Sun for anything that resembles news then you really are doing it wrong.
re: Please tell me you are being sarcastic...
'I'd personally much rather have a kid on the net unfiltered than have then roaming the streets with the local chavs.'
If that's the only two choices your children would have, I suggest you leave parenting to others.
'Why is news of the pre-pubertals who sign up to this pathetic Facebook thing of any interest to anyone with a mental age above that of five???'
I don't know, you tell us. You were obviously interested enough to read it.
Well, the propoganda seems to be working...
If RichyS is anything to go by, anyway.
And I can guarantee you, the people most likely to be affected by all these changes are going to be the genuine claimants. The easy targets. The ones least likely to be affected are the ones who actually do want nothing to do with work ever, who've been on benefits all their life, know how the system works and exactly how to get around it.
I couldn't agree more.
Why they keep giving money to all these researchers trying to do science and stuff I'll never know.
They could save a fortune and find out everything they need to know just by asking on this forum.
I doubt anyone's data is going to be worth very much on its own. A few pence or a few pounds maybe? I seriously doubt the loss of privacy would make it anywhere near to being worth it.
Of course, when you're a big company like Google, who'll be selling it in the millions, then its valuable indeed. Especially with the likes of Facebook doing such a good job of convincing so many people their information has so little value it doesn't matter what they do with it or who has access to it.
'Parents of these children should be the ones to take responsibility for their child's actions'
Of course they should, nobody is saying otherwise. The problem isn't with responsible parents though, its with the irresponsible ones. That's why they're suggesting sites like these also need to take some responsibility. Or do you think we shouldn't bother at all with children with idiot parents and just let them get on with doing whatever they want? Because, yeah, I'm sure that'll work out well in the long run.
All the commission are suggesting is that these networks should enforce their own rules a bit better.
'I do love the pro-nuke lobby here becoming more and more hesitant in thier 'It won't happen, it can't happen' as it turns in to 'I hope it doesn't happen' and a creeping 'Oh, shit'.'
Yeah, isn't it great when loads of people die so you can say 'I told you so' on some internet forum.
Ah, now I see.
I misunderstood the bit that was making it clear about how they can remove or disable any changes made to enable unlicenced versions of Windows to run.
I didn't realise it also meant, if they catch you using anything open source, they can start deleting anything they feel like off your computer.
I don't mean to imply you've just made that up, but any chance of providing a link or quote of the relevant part?
Half a minute per hour?
I didn't realise drivers had it so bad. How do you cope?
'Agreed. I am myopic - and yet everybody would scoff if I demanded that the Government make road-signs bigger (and make pedestrians wear fluoro jackets) so that I can drive my car. Instead, I wear glasses.'
As does he. So he can play games, he uses a customisable mouse.
The problem is EA's lack of basic accessibility regarding key mapping. Something that, disregarding lazy console ports, is (or at least was) pretty standard within PC gaming.
It's not even just an accessibility issue for those with disabilities. It's a usability issue for anyone who expects to be able to remap controls in this kind of way, of which I'm pretty certain he won't be the only one.
'What is the definition of fit for purpose?'
'appropriate, and of a necessary standard, for its intended use'
First result in Google. Seems good enough to me.
Oh, and where do I propose it ends? When there's a real deterrent against companies releasing unfinished, poorly tested games.
For every El Reg article please search and replace "anonymous coward" with "dumb-ass"
This is a much more clear description without further explanation necessary.
That word needs to be unpersisted immediately.
I've always wondered...
I do, I sit here and wonder for hours why people don't use/like gift cards.
In fact, you wouldn't believe how many hours I've lost sitting here wondering why anonyomous people I don't know, and will never meet, don't like using them.
For as long as I can barely rememeber, its the one thing that's always been beyond my grasp. My life's greatest perplexity. So much so, that I could see no end in sight, and truly, I believed this mystery was to haunt me for the rest of my natural life. My fate, to die in ignorance.
And all I ever wanted to know was why? Why do these anonymous internet people shun gift cards so?
'That's like being the tallest dwarf or the smartest moron.'
Or the most insightful commentard?
'Don't agree? No posting for you then.'
I'm pretty sure people were well aware that if they didn't agree they could stop posting. In fact I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they were complaining about. That, if they value their privacy and personal information, they will no longer be able to use a service they are already paying towards.
Oh, and the fact they tried to pass it off as some sort of sudden crusade to get rid of trolls didn't exactly help their cause.
I'm suprised someone reading a site aimed at I.T. professionals cannot see the problem with having someone's real life name publicly associated to every post they make on a gaming forum of a massively popular game such as this.
re: Bomb scares, 80's terrorism
I think everyone, apart from you, the police and magistrates maybe, can accept that it wasn't actually a threat but a joke. Not everything should be taken literally, and if someone cannot differentiate between something like this, that obviously shouldn't be taken seriously, and something more sinister then they really have no place working for the police or the courts.
Well, isn't that a surprise. It just so happens that the company that comissioned the survey is planning to introduce technology, that will help combat fake IDs being used, into the UK.
This article goes into a bit more depth -
">> It doesn't matter if Virgin is twice the speed of the others, if you actually use it then it will throttled to death.
Well that depends. The whole reason they are capable of better speeds is because they throttle higher usages. If you want fast occasional usage then Virgin might be ideal."
That's interesting. Before I moved to Sky, which I find to be a lot better value, my ISP was Virgin. Originally, the ISP I signed up to was Telewest, but when it was taken over by Virgin and they started applying traffic management there was no increase to my download speeds.
Also, when I moved and foolishly took Virgin ADSL broadband, I would notice quite a drop in my download speeds during peak hours (and not from traffic management), however when I moved to Sky, which are significantly less restrictive about downloading, my download speeds are consistent whatever the time of day.
Now I know it's a little unfair comparing two ISPs this way, after all I could be the only one with Sky broadband around here (though I doubt it, as cable isn't available here I would assume quite a few would have a Sky package that includes their broadband, and I can't see many having the poor value Virgin ADSL). However, I do wonder just how many people have actually seen any increase to their download speeds at peak times since traffic management became so popular and restrictive.