36 posts • joined Tuesday 17th March 2009 00:37 GMT
Re: Letter from Larry...
What's that? You want to know about Google's Taxes? Erm, *couch*, *couch*, Er, I think I'm starting to lose my voice!! No-- really, its true!!!
May I suggest looking between the sofa cushions?
Re: then add engine management control
Control/limit speed - yes, to some extent. However, 50 in a 30 is far more dangerous than 80 on a motorway, assuming all other things are equal. If the system doesn't tie into GPS with a (frequently updated) map of speed limits, then it's not that much good.
Restrictions on acceleration is a bad idea IMO. There are times when you need to get moving sharpish, especially as an inexperienced driver - the last thing you need is a black box with no situational awareness artificially limiting the power available. Just have these events logged and (optionally) a notification sent to parents if the events exceed a predetermined level in a given period of time. If an accident occurs within a few seconds of one of these events and the driver is determined to be at fault, then throw the book, bookcase and possibly the wall at them.
When my uncle first heard about the LHC, he thought that it wound end in disaster. IIRC he said something like "Mark my words, that banging atoms into each other, no good will come of it. It'll all go pear-shaped".
Turns out he may hve been right
Re: Literary Obsolescence.
No more godawful advertising popups. The fact this function, along with it's creators and proponents, hasn't been erased from history is proof that I'll never get my hands on a time machine. Maybe a discreet notification at the "library" page at the most, but outside of the sciences and teaching textbooks, I can't really see a need for an updated version of any book.
Agree with the comments regarding proofreading. Whatever proofreaders there are left seem to be under the impression that the product deserves no more than a cursory glance.
As far as the original idea goes, it's frankly a load of bollocks. What's next - digital degradation of *bought* copies of e-books? After all, despite best efforts, even if you buy a dead tree book brand new and read it a bunch of times, it seems that it'll eventually fall apart. Literally, the last 3 books that I've bought have had chunks of pages come unglued from the spine. Digital is just *better* for the consumer and the planet for many reasons.
Re: Maybe Zuck knows more than we do.
Could they get more than one billion accounts? Possibly.
Users, however, I don't think so. And it's unique eyeballs, not accounts that advertisers will demand. For instance, I have 4 accounts, my cat has 3 and my wife also has 4 (I was hooked on Mafia Wars for a couple of months and was too cheap/smart to pay $ for extra action points). However, I got bored of FB a year or so ago and have logged on with one account maybe twice so far this year, both times for about 5 minutes. If FB did a deep-clean of their old/inactive/unused - say no activity for 90 days - or ran a relatively simple check to weed out duplicate accounts, I'd be surprised if more than 30-40% were actual individual live users. Then remove the fan/tribute/corporation pages and you're probably down to 25%. That's still a horde of eyes, but sounds a lot less impressive than the current userbase figures that they tout.
They do seem to have a particular grip on parents, if only because many I know use it to stay in touch with parents of their kids' friends and to organize whatever. Whether that cycle will continue remains to be seen.
TL;DR - Yes, FB is big, but not near as big in terms of actual users as they make out. As more and more advertising creeps in, it's usefulness and, arguably, relevance will decline. Time will tell what that does to the volume of active, individual users.
Re: In other news...
If I could upvote this more than once, I would. Bravo. The icon is for your comment.
This whole government reaching into your life and trying to stop what could be termed "unapproved activities" is truly scary and must stop. If you think it can't get worse, just re-read the article, think where we were 25 years ago with government reach and attempting to "modify the behavior of the population" and where we're likely to be in another 25.
Somewhere the fact that the government, indeed all civil servants are just that - servants. The point of our democratic system was intended to be that they serve the public. Somewhere along the way this got turned around and seems we're now the ones serving them and whatever their latest crusade-de-jour happens to be.
I realize this is never going to happen but I believe the following:
1) New laws should be drafted in principle by the people. Basically, someone should collect a percentage of signatures of eligible voters - say 15% within their constituency, and present it to their MP. Unless this happens (and if something is truly in the 'public' interest, then there'll be no problems meeting this requirement). Then, and only then, can the minister bring the proposal up.
2) If the majority of MP/law-lords (forget the workings of the system, sorry) approve of the measure, a draft bill is published. Each proposed law is considered separately and cannot be merged with, or have extraneous, non-related additions made to it to garner some ministers favor (as happens so damn often in the US) "Oh yes, i'd be happy to pass your bill making it illegal to smoke in your car, especially if my proposed bill to limit the hours of operation of power tools in residential areas could somehow be included"
3) The draft bill is reviewed by independent lawyers to make sure it contains language that addresses the proposal as submitted in Step1. If the proposed law does not fulfil the requirements of step1, it's sent back until it does.
4) At the next round of local or general elections, the question is put back to the electorate. When you vote, answering the legislation question(s) are mandatory and there is no indication of which MP or constituency the law was proposed by. The question is posed in the form of "Do you believe the below items should be signed into law" and a yes/no box next to each item, which has been summarized by the lawyers as part of (3) Of those people who vote, 50% plus 1 person need to response "Yes" for the bill to be made law.
5) Assuming a positive response in (4), the bill is signed into law. If not, the process has to start over.
There should be a similar method to enable the public to *remove* legislation that is already on the books.
I don't see a need for expediting this. The police and security services already have (some would say more than) adequate legislation to perform their functions.
This will insure that only legislation that is truly in the public interest - in the truest sense of the word - will be made into law. Personal responsibility needs to become the norm again rather than the exception. The PC, we-know-better-than-you, can't-ever-offend-anyone, want-to-rule-your life brigade need to be rounded up and taken somewhere far away. May I suggest Antartica.
Re: About this proposed ban
He also wants to ban online poke from being accessed from Iceland. So he is not just after banning porn.
Sounds like that's all he can think about. Disgusting man :)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Off for some offline poke.
Development code accessed by search engines
Development code for private firms is often available via your search engine of choice. Just put in the terms 'review board' diff ship view, or some other likely combination. As of a couple of months ago, there were dozens of pages available, including a bunch of code visible for a not-too-insignificant e-commerce site that included the admin override URL and testing logins. Another review board for a different site that was accessible had a link to a SQL table with a couple hundred (not much, admittedly) rows of customer info - name, address, password - all in plain text, although thankfully no payment info.
I emailed the companies concerned, so I would assume these two are gone. Haven't bothered to check though. But there are many other examples out there.
On a side note, reading some of the comments on various articles makes me realize how lucky I seem to be to work where I do. Yes, the business needs and what's a priority seems to change on an almost daily basis, certainly weekly, but we have been explicitly told that if doing something right takes more time than a rush job, then the paycheck-signers would rather we do it right. It's probably an attitude that's grown out of the first two years of the business having exactly the opposite mantra, and we're *still* cleaning up the mess that some of the devs left behind, 3 years after they've gone. Some of the most incomprehensible stuff that you'll ever see on dailywtf came straight from our original codebase. The current attitude certainly does reap such benefits, both with staff and customers in the medium to long term, that it amazes me that I see so many people on here whose companies seem to have the opposite approach.
Re: How many of these harebrained ideas will it take to really sour their users?
Because their business model is based in part around no-one being sure how many users are active. Sure, they can tout they have "a billion" accounts, but i'd be surprised if more than 25% of those are legit/regularly used. Before I stopped using it, I had 5 accounts, 1 for workmates, 1 for family, 1 for close friends, 1 for games and one for the cat (don't ask).
Their share price would implode faster than Mt St. Helens once their finances were released to the SEC and world+dog realized that there's far fewer eyeballs out there than
No win for the uesr
I'd like to know how this is going to work. From the release it sounds like that any given account I may have will only receive (up to) one message per week. So if both A+B are willing to stump up the cash to send me a message, does that mean one of them is SOL until next week? That model fails for the user if A is a marketer and B (and the rest of the alphabet) are people they may actually - for whatever reason - wish to communicate with.
Or is it "each user can send as many messages as they want to pay for, but only once per recipient per week". If it's the latter, prepare to be deluged with even more dross as there's technically no limit to the amount you can receive. Another fail for the user.
Almost makes me want to sign back into my accounts and update them to make sure they're flagged as active. Nothing i'd like more than for pondscum-feeding bottom-dwelling marketing organizations to spend their dollars on the premise of reaching eyeballs that will never exist.
... Learnt programming from the ground up
We all had to start somewhere, but wow, this is bad.
I confess that I watched the entire clip in the hope that something, somewhere would happen.
Most interesting/funniest bit is the woman cop "Don't look at me I'm on duty"
Note to devs: Having touristy snippets of text appear is probably not the best idea in a 'racing' game. Maybe that's the reason for the lack of other vehicles as there were times when you could tape the accelerator key down probably nip to the loo and come back with nothing happening.
And I thought Skyrim was buggy....
Reports from pilots and aircraft crew members...
As listed in the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System, available to search at http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html - has multiple accounts where interference with the (usually navigation) systems were demonstrably caused by a passengers electronic device. Usually they just ask folks to make sure that stuff is turned off, but several accounts have accounts where the aircrew asked the passenger to turn the device back on - and the interference resumed.
So there is a problem (although rare) that needs to be addressed, at least with some devices in some plane combinations, which maybe down to a maintainance issue with the aircraft where something wasn't shielded properly or terminated correctly when the mechanics finished fiddling about with it last time they had it in the shop.
Personally I think that device manufacturers can afford to pay for a few test flights. If restrictions are relaxed for certain models, then sales of models that aren't approved for in flight use will drop sharply, especially among the business community. There's probably not more than a few dozen aircraft types in commuter service within the US. Just have the several devices onboard and in various power states, streaming data, hunting for signals/wifi - on each model type and note any interference that happens. If it does, one of the testers can turn the devices off or switch modes one by one until the problem goes away.
Once devices are certified allow them on commercial flights. The caveat being that if interference is noted at any stage of the flight, everyone turns their stuff off and packs it away for the remainder of the trip, never mind whether it's got a shiny "FAA Certified" sticker on it or not. Anyone who persists in using a device when the aircrew has announced such a state of affairs will be met at the gate by security agents, their device removed and tossed into an industrial shredder. Airlines could make this a condition of carriage.
Having said that, I hope they don't allow cell calls. Ever. Like someone above said, it's bad enough hearing someones squealing progeny for hours on end from the row behind you, but to have a whole bunch of folks starting calls with "Hello? HELLO! YES, I'M ON THE PLANE" would probably lead to a new form of in-flight entertainment, although not one the air marshals would much appreciate. Allow devices for texting, streaming/watching movies/music or zebra porn for all I care, just wear headphones so I don't have to listen to it. And turn it off in the instances when you're told to.
And thanks for the memories.
It's just not cricket
If anyone knows someone who works @ FACT, they should consider it their civic duty to beat them over the head with a rolled-up newspaper like the dogs they are.
Honestly, you have a site that catered to thousands of ex-pats worldwide, enabling them to get their TV fix, whether their absence be caused by vacation, extended work assignment or something more permanent. Nothing was available there that would be used to generate revenue at a later date for the copyright holders, last weeks episode of Corrie (for example) is never going to be broadcast again or feature in a "Greatest moments of Corrie" DVD or whatever they come out with. So what was the point of them serving notice, except to drive home the point that they're a bunch of worthless fecks.
Extra disappointed since I'd literally just found out about the place a month ago and was drooling over the cricket coverage they had there, which it seems nowhere else has. I've tried connecting through a free VPN (bestukvpn) to access the channel5 catchup service for the highlight shows - and it's a painful experience.
If any sympathetic chap or chapess reading this knows where cricket coverage resides or any free, working, UK vpns can be found, info would be much appreciated.
Re: Noone harmed? Pull the other one! Try 2500 deaths.
So you quote two articles above, one of which predicts 2500 cases of cancer, the other 1300 deaths. That's a little over a 50% mortality rate, which is a little harsh given remission rates for multiple types of cancer in Japan, but lets play along.
According to statistics compiled by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 353,000 people died of cancer in Japan in 2010, accounting for one in every three deaths. [source http://www.jcancer.jp/english/cancerinjapan/]
So, assuming their projected figure of 1300 deaths from cancer occur in a single year (it would almost certainly be spread out over a number of years, if not decades, but we'll take this as a worst case scenario seeing as that's what you're apparently concentrating on), then at 2010 cancer death rates in Japan, that would represent an increase of just 0.3%. Taken in another context, the population of Fukushima prefecture in 2010 was just over 2 million [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Prefecture]. Based on that figure, approximately 0.125% of residents *may* develop cancer as a result of this event during their lifetime.
The tsunami itself and its associated damage was responsible for (at last count) 15,854 deaths. [source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9132634/Japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-478-bodies-remain-unidentified-one-year-on.html]
So a natural disaster of epic proportions caused a meltdown of two reactors in an ill-maintained, generation-one reactor (read as 'outdated as all hell') that wouldn't have passed routine regulatory inspections in either the US or UK, which has no deaths directly attributable to it at this stage, *may* (the term used in the study you quoted) cause an uptick in cancer deaths of less than 1% at 2010 levels in Japan if all the proposed fatalities occur in a single year, therefore less than a 0.1% annual increase (not compounding) if any cancers emerge over the period of a decade, which is a more likely timespan.
I'm already paying out the nose for "environmental technology subsidies" every month to my local power co for wind and the like. I'd be far, far happier for the same amount to go instead to the construction and maintenance of a generation-3 nuclear reactor now, or further research into generation-4 reactor technologies. And yes, I'd be happy to live next door to it. Why? Because I understand that the risk of having something bad happen in a new plant with modern technology, trained and experienced staff, overseen by an anal-retentive regulatory body (probably one of few instances where this is a good thing), built in an area that's not prone to floods, seismic activity or other geological or natural disasters are miniscule.
And even if something were to happen to the plant on a comparable scale, I'll take the 1 in 800 odds that the event would result in cancer (figure based on the possible deaths quoted by the study you reference as measured against the approx population of the area).
In return for this, I get reliable power that is a near-zero carbon emitter fueled by an energy source that will be available for centuries, if not tens of centuries if the technology referenced in this article can be adopted. But the general population hears the word "nuclear" and instantly stops thinking rationally. The NIMBY brigade are no better. However, I'm willing to bet that people will change their tune pretty damn quick when our fossil fuel supplies dry up, the lights (and heat) go out, and it's zero degrees outside (that's Farenheit daytime temperatures). Unfortunately by then, it'll be too late.
Your last sentence however is brilliant, considering the content of your post. Have a petard.
Error in the questions to the jury?
It's late (and my Friday), so I'm not completely sure if I'm reading this right, but on question 29 posed to the jury, it appears that the iPhone and iPad are listed as Samsung products.
If they've got this wrong, I wonder whether it's a technicality that the losing side can use to appeal.
Good job and all, but
First off, congratulations to NASA. Historically Mars has been a bit of a tough nut to crack, but if this new rover lasts half as long as the previous generation of rovers, with the instrumentation it has on board it should hopefully yield some interesting data.
However I can't help thinking that we should dig ourselves out of the mess we're in before we blow what'll probably amount to tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars on a manned mission that (and I'm completely open to hear anyones ideas to the contrary) probably won't achieve much more beyond a "Look what we can do" feeling.
They should put the money that would be used on this project into science programs for schools and science scholarships for colleges. Recruit the best astronomers, physicists, chemists, metallurgists, stick them in classrooms and lecture halls with state of the art labs and teach the next generation, who in 40 or 50 years will probably be able to do it quicker, smarter, safer and with the probable advances in technology could maybe turn a manned mission into the beginnings of a semi-permanent biosphere, paving the way for what would truly be the next chapter in the human race.
Re: your role as IT support
What's the option?
Family - pretty much none, you're screwed. Just hope that you don't have the type of person in your family that'll hover like an irritating mayfly asking every 10 minutes "d'you think it's done yet". If they drop it off one weekend and come back the next it's not so bad - one operation a night after work and you barely even notice it.
Friends - Agree to do it but hold their machine hostage until they show up with compensatory beer
Friends of Friends - see Friends but replace beer with cash.
Re: Last week
We have a client like that.
Our sysadmin/developer is the most laid back guy I've ever known. Seriously, he'd make Bob Marley appear rather high-strung. Or rather, was, until this week when he had to spend most of his time working with his counterpart at one of our newer clients to setup and test a webservice that exchanges information between our two systems.
Something that he's done a dozen times before with various customers and has taken a couple of hours and an exchange of a half dozen emails each time.
We're still not entirely sure what happened, as he starts rocking back and forth in his chair when asked about it, but after two days worth of email exchanges and 4 hours in the conference room watching her bumble about on her terminal via go2mypc, there came this banshee wail and the sound of something breaking. I'd hazard a guess it was his spirit, but the broken glass suggests otherwise.
It took four of our wallets to calm him down somewhat at the local bar afterwards. Perhaps the biggest clue should have been the email from their previous vendor when they switched to using our services with a subject line of "LOL" and no message body.
“It’s a real unknown, because they have to try to plan when they really have no idea. On the cellular side, it’s all a bit finger in the air,” he says.
At least the telcos have plenty of practice at this aspect. Especially if it's the middle one.
Either that, or Officer Crabtree from 'Allo 'Allo is their new marketing wiz.
"I was breezing the internots and on this Nitwest site they offered a great bonking experience."
He should have invested in
some Bulgarian airbags as support. Too late now. I don't suppose he even wants to see a pair. Poor bastard.
Having said that, he'll lose, unless it's clearly related to the manufacture, design or installation. And if there's [x] more people out there who haven't experienced similar problems - then it's not unreasonable to conclude it's down to some underlying freak physical abnormality that you can't attend to because there's no ROI. Or he's just not set it up right.
Re: I think they value it like this -
I'm positive that incineration is actually the plods preferred disposal method of reefer. Just need to wrap it in paper, first and remember to send Joe down to the 7-11.
Re: Feng brandished his chopper and they dispersed..." <snigger>
Presumably he stood at attention for a time, shui-ing in a passing breeze.
Sorry, could not resist that. I'll just get me coat. That'll be the one with a couple of iphones, a half dozen rolexes and some gen-you-wine imitation Gucci shit. I'll be at your local car boot this weekend.
@NoDosh: Given that everything here is a giant willy-waving contest, I wouldn't hope for much until a good generation has passed into and out of the positions that enable things like this to happen.
I've been here 10 years and it's all over the place. Everyone has to have something *bigger*, *better*, *newer* or otherwise perceived as superior to what their neighbours/friends have. Otherwise they think they're a failure. Personally I think it stems from childhood - nowadays some schools and other institutions don't use words like lose - it's "runner up" (even for last in a field of 8) or "fail to execute". You lost. No-one died, no-one was hurt, accept it, learn from it, be better next time. It's not a crime, like some I know seem to think.
Speaking of crime, the UK needs to grow a set and tell them where they can shove their treaty until it's re-worded that the extraditable offense must be considered a criminal act in both countries at the time of the signing of the treaty and the requestor has the burden of proof to convince the requestees government/judiciary that an extradition is warranted. Since they won't get a conviction at trial based on "reasonable suspicion", they must have proof. Surely....
Of course the US probably won't like this, but the UK could always make the point that, regrettably, it was considering switching a percentage of its national reserve from the dollar to the yuan.
Otherwise the US won't stop. After all, there's a whole world out there that can have a willy shaken at it.
Beer. Cos it's Friday :)
Should be an easy verdict for the jury
The prosecutor in the case [said] he would "advocate for preventing the disclosure of wiretap warrants" and refuse questions from defence attorneys on the subject.
Unless I read this wrong, this means that during the trial, the jurors won't know where the evidence came from, whether it was obtained lawfully or whether it was cooked up by a PFY in the forensics lab told to produce something so they get to keep their job and family fed.
We the people need to start standing up to the courts and legal system since it's becoming blindingly obvious that the principles of law seem to no longer apply to certain individuals or interest groups. That super-injunction is even a term is chilling, now a prosecuting attorney plans to "refuse questions from defence attorneys" pertaining to how/when/where evidence that apparently forms a large part of the prosecutions case comes from?
I completely understand that some information relating to *active* investigations needs to be hush-hush. Once it's reached prosecution though, there should - no - there NEEDS to be complete transparency as to every pertinent aspect of the case. This continued slide towards obfuscation of information from the public from judicial and government officials must stop.
If I was on the jury and the prosecution acted like this, to me it's a simple Not Guilty, unless the suspect walks in covered in the victims blood and carrying a severed head in an M&S bag. If they can't tell me where evidence comes from and how it was legally obtained, that must surely introduce reasonable doubt.
They need to be reminded that "they" work for "us".
If you hyperventilate because a portion of your personal online experience goes AWOL for a bit, then you are psychologically unbalanced and should seek help.
Their family should get them on with Dr. Phil. For the Brits, he's Americas answer to Jonathan Ross, only with infinitely less class.
It seems that so many people spend so much of their lives watching/reading/discussing other peoples lives that they forget they have one, too.
I really do hope he/she gets help.
What is the world coming to?
When lying on improbable objects and having your picture taken is something to risk your life over? Seriously, I want/need someone to explain the attraction to outsiders (and oneself) of expending effort in order to obtain a picture of a person lying down on something.
Guy should be nominated for a Darwin.
Having said that, did anyone else see the Chief Constables speech as reported by the BBC and feel a mite uneasy?
[quote] Sergeant Matthew Russell, of Gladstone police, told the Brisbane Courier-Mail newspaper that planking could be dangerous, and practitioners may find themselves charged with "unauthorised high risk activity" [/quote]
So now 'high risk activity' has to be authorized? By whom? Using what criteria? Where does one apply for such authorization? Who determines what constitutes high risk activity in the first place?
I can only therefore assume that since people die in the waters off the coast of Australia every year while taking part in such activities as diving, surfing, swimming and sailing that law enforcement will put an immediate stop to them until the proper paperwork has been filed and approved in triplicate (and no doubt fees delivered to the appropriate officers desk). Only half kidding there.
And one guy, probably not altogether sober, does something stupid and it's held up as an object lesson to how everyone else in the general population is obviously incapable of taking care of themselves without Nanny making every decision for you.
I don't usually get worked up over this, but I've had enough. I want the freedom to live the life I choose without being told/instructed that it's wrong, simply because some aspects do not conform to societal normalcy in my geographical area. It's not about 'planking', as I kinda already said, I think it's a craze for pillocks with no sense of self-identity and self-worth and as such can't bear not to be part of the latest group fascination that comes along. As long as my (or anyone elses) activities (or lack of) do not affect someone else in a negative fashion then I firmly and unequivocally believe that the government can stay the fuck out of my private life.
Need a damn Stalin icon.
200k? Poor bastards...
I don't claim to speak from experience, but if the harlots advertising their jubblies (amongst other things) on Craigslist are anything like the streetwalkers downtown on a weekend night, then I could well imagine it being the first investigation relating to grown women on t'internet where someones said "But can't you IT folks just turn the bloody pictures off?"
Anyway, it's nothing new. Been going on for thousands of years, now it's just in a directory online, like going to a stores website and ordering parts for the car (and nothing against these women but they're the ones who, for whichever reason, choose to offer their 'time' in exchange for fiscal compensation). They're aware of the format, how accessible it is, so Craigslist isn't preying on them. It's a business, and businesses run by making money, which they get from consumers - by providing a good or service the consumers desire. If they did make some donation to groups dedicated to helping women in general, and especially the ones who are coerced or somehow forced into this, then they should be applauded, but they can't give away all their profits from a substantial revenue stream indefinitely.
The DA or whoever is probably simply afraid that his wife has been busy perusing 'w4m'
So the plods are interested in the FAT content of aforementioned drive? I wonder if, as it traversed his intestines whether it was broken down into trans-fat.
*reaches for his coat while dodging the rotten eggs thrown from the audience*
Grenade - maybe he could try this for an encore.
Device was inert, much like the neural pathways of the tosser that left it there.
Living quite literally a stones throw from where this thing was deposited, I can say firsthand that it's caused quite a stir in the local community. Thankfully it didn't turn out to be anything with the potential to inflict injury (not sure if it was a fake or whether it had been previously disarmed). I fervently hope they catch the tosser(s) that left it.
Just to add that the police response was exceptional, they cleared the immediate area of probably a couple of hundred people VERY quickly using no more manpower than it apparently takes to break up a west-country 'rave' back in Blighty.
The question that immediately springs to mind: Is this going to count against my monthly bandwidth cap that Comcast imposes? Not sure how much data we're talking about but for HD content that won't look like garbage on a large flatscreen, I'd imagine it could stack up pretty quickly - the HD torrents that I've seen on trackers generally seem to run around 1.5 gigs/hour. Also it would be nice, since they are apparently going to limit the content to the channels you're already subscribed to if they could offer a trial period of the shows on the other channels (2 free episodes or similar).
On the plus side, this could make a potentially great VOD service that will hopefully be far better than what Comcast currently offers. Anyone know what method they're going to use to select the homes for the trials?
So what I want to know is...
When they've taken my money and given it to privately held companies, who will then turn around and flog a service that OUR tax money paid for, thereby generating a profit for themselves - how exactly do I get a return on my investment?
If the government wants broadband to be available across the country, mandate it by law. It is not my concern (and should remain that way) how the various telecos/broadband providers choose to comply with this. It seems that this is analogous to raising a cow from birth to full maturity using my own funds, then giving it away to McDonalds and having them charge me for the flippin' hamburger they excise from its flesh.
Another bleedin tax and to pay for what? Giles the farmer to be able to watch Dolly in hi-def on Youtube. Nice to know the powers that be have their priorities straight while 'administering' a country with needs - healthcare/schools etc stretched to breaking point.
Am I missing something?
So is there something preventing your router/firewall from blocking traffic to port 53 except to your known and trusted DNS servers? Just specify the IPs manually in the settings and for the love of Mike, don't ever let a third party (application or machine) tell your firewall what is and isn't safe.
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain BT Tower is just a relic? Wrong: It relays 18,000hrs of telly daily
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- Review: Sony Xperia SP
- Dell's PC-on-a-stick landing in July: report