Fuckwits
"Zynga is no longer perpetuating the mindset that it's acceptable to chain, neglect, and abuse real dogs."
...but it is acceptable to be a Mafia don.
PETA, you really are a bunch of sea-kitten-hugging fuckwits. And you're getting worse.
545 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Oct 2008
Bloody hell, Andrew - what have you been smoking? That was all completely rational and made perfect sense.
Playing devil's advocate though, is it possible that today's challenges are just that little bit smaller than those of the 50s and 60s, so the options to fix them are that much reduced, thus resulting in the limited range of ideologies found in the modern parties?
"...does whats required."
Which is being smooth, shiny and good-looking. Like Cheryl Cole's backside.
Equally like Mrs. Cole's backside, the iPad produces unexplained fervour from those who know no better, has far superior alternatives and results in shit.
"Rosetta Stone ... plans to appeal once the company has reviewed the court’s written judgment."
See, I always thought the appeals process was for the situation when one party felt the legal process hadn't followed procedure, or other such technicalities. Now it's just for "we didn't like the opinion of this court, so we're going to find another."
Three points bound feverishly to mind:
1) Williams is flogging broadband via satellite, which can have reasonable bandwidth but dreadful latency. So pointless for gaming but perfectly acceptable for TV, since we rarely notice the lag there. Hmm, I wonder what his company's pricing structure is like? Probably not...
2) ...£15.99 for 10GB, which is a curious example. By 'curious' I mean 'ridiculous', since it isn't representative of the market and throws most of his other assumptions out.
3) Now, his overall point about "who pays" is actually mostly valid (and something mobile companies are finding out with their clogged airways). However, at least with fixed-line communications, there are technical alternatives to thousands of people downloading the same programme from the same servers at the same time. Caching, for one, even for live broadcasts. And, dare I say it, even P2P...
In summary: Williams has a vested interest and I'm reading between the lines.
"Provided that is you're not a convicted criminal."
In which case Gordon will put you in the House of Lords. I knew there was a reason they reduced hereditary peers, and it wasn't for the benefit of democracy.
What's that? Peter Mandelson isn't a convicted criminal? Well, you learn something new every day...
A purpose.
I don't mind if a particular piece of kit doesn't know what it's for (it might take time to find out) though I do mind paying a premium while the manufacturer works it out.
Buy first, buy twice. Applies just as easily to a new type of washing machine or TV as a new type of iPod, iPhone or iP(h)ad.
"...the newspapers ought to stand up and let them do their own reporting.”
Is that in the way that many Murdoch titles already do, by taking stock reportage from Reuters? Yes, they pay for it - but it smacks of hypocrisy when the Dirty Digger uses a financial argument to justify his usual absence of quality.
OK, so it's pure election propaganda, but 'tis the season for it. A couple of points though:
* "A Conservative government WILL..." The word 'would' might be more respectful to the electorate, who have yet to elect you.
* Using the words "Apple" and "open-source" in the same sentence on a technology website is liable to get you laughed at, even if you do attempt to redefine the meaning of the latter (which, in itself, isn't particularly clever either).
Still, good luck. If you do get voted in, it'll mainly be because we're simply sick of the other lot, but that's usually the way in British politics.
I agree wholeheartedly, and blessed are the journos - for without their cynicism 'news' might simply mean press releases from companies recycled as articles (can I hear a "Metro"?).
No, I simply point out that Orlowski seems to have particular disdain for the BBC. Look back through his contributions and there is a share of legitimate criticism (as in this story), some heavy ranting (IMHO, natch), and quite a few brief but disparaging remarks in articles that have little or nothing to do with the Beeb.
So I'm just wondering why the BBC in particular, way more than any other subject, without actually admitting he simply dislikes the thing? Might be worth an article, that...
Ignoring the rights and wrongs of Lewis' wheelspin, it's worth pointing out that despite a bit of mind-gaming with Mark Webber and (admittedly later) shunting the poor bloke out of his home Grand Prix, it was the Australian who stuck up for Hamilton.
In particular, Webber described his home country as turning into a nanny-state with a number of petty rules and regulations. I think he was talking more about parking than Internet freedom but he's clearly got an impression of the way things are going.
In short: the convicts are clearly going soft and turning into bloody Poms! What could be worse...?
Exactly right. It's about having the debate, the discussion, going through the thought process and actually coming up with an idea of what is truly right and wrong. At the moment we've got to this stage without that debate, and if the Pirate Party encourages it then all credit to them.
Of course they won't get everything they want, and probably most them wouldn't want to anyway, but the entire point of aligning oneself with a political party is that it seems to be pulling in a rough direction that seems right.
Abolition of copyright? Will never happen. Nor should it. Preventing big business from restricting how you use the 'net? Much better.
How much do the UK Pirate Party's aims differ from those of the original Swedish version?
The latter seemed to be as much about a battle against the creeping censorship, 'net monitoring and general population-control that started (rightly) with the control of kiddy porn before moving into the realms of digital media (the implicit question being "then what?").
All quite noble. Of course, a few free choons is the flip-side, but at least they made a reasonable attempt at some form of righteous indignation. If the UK PP concentrate too much on the actual sharing side they won't really be able to claim much of the moral high ground.
Is that a serious post? Living in the countryside is hideously more expensive than cities, mainly due to worse transport and the lack of the benefits you get with economies of scale. Maybe you've missed all the news about rural areas becoming a no-go for the less-well-off?
Or maybe you've forgotten where all your food, water and clean air actually comes from?
Bizarrely for a NuLab idea, this one isn't that bad. Decent telecoms in the countryside would help prevent a Chinese-style exodus to the cities and is pretty essential when travel isn't as simple as an Oyster card. It's also better than raiding the BBC and doing what we British do so well: damaging our world-leading institutions in a shit-storm of self-serving political meddling.
Cade, that link to Wikipedia is brilliant, and manna for those of us who regard the iPod & iPhone as visually impressive but technically inferior. If I may copy & paste (which the iPhone can do now, I hear):
"[Saint Joseph of Cupertino] was said to have been remarkably unclever, but prone to miraculous levitation and intense ecstatic visions that left him gaping."
You couldn't make it up!
@Matt Kimber
I've wondered the same thing and I bloody hope you're right. Throw Murdoch a bone in the form of 6Music, wait for the inevitable backlash then grudgingly keep it going. In which case the Director-General isn't the muppet as he appears but an utter genius ... assuming it works.
Why not axe 1Xtra? Well that would mean getting rid of both a black AND an Asian music station (anyone not see why that might be politically tricky?)...
If Apple are this frightened of Android it means they're shit-scared of their shiny ice-hockey puck being called out for what it is: technically average, restrictive, over-priced but oh-so purdee.
The strangest sentence I note in this article is the bit about a gesture to unlock the phone, as opposed to a PIN. I was under the impression (and await correction) that this is standard on Android but that someone has had to create an app for it on the iPhone?
There was an article a while back between us Reg commentards about the multi-touch bit that Android has on some (but not all) of the standard applications. I was slightly surprised not to see that mentioned but maybe that's a reflection of the sheer number of allegations!