95 posts • joined Thursday 21st January 2010 11:19 GMT
Re: Block by IMEI
I think some of the reluctance to block by IMEI is that a savvy criminal will have the IMEI changed, and blocking it will be pointless, not to mention each network would have to block it, not just the one it was originally on.
Quite why IMEI numbers can be changed is a mystery in itself, and worse still, theyre not necessarily globally unique, although with more people roaming, I'd imagine the newer handsets were.
Re: It appears they are trying to lie their way out of it...
I think thats the key point, consumers assume its a fixed-price contract, but the operators sell you a fixed-term contract.
A quick glance at T-Mobiles T&C for the 24month plan starts with a sentence about you "promise to stay with t-mobile for 24 months", not a mention of the price being fixed at all, but I do wonder just what they say to people in stores.
Of course, hopefully some investigation and kickings by Ofcom (yea right lol) will eventually force them to be fixed-price like consumers assume.
good to see that once again people misunderstand the Raspberry Pi.
Its an "cheap educational device" for learning and experimenting with, not a home micro desktop PC.
If it doesnt offer the power and speed you desire, youre not using it right, simple as.
Good grief, where do they get figures like $150,000 from? for tracks that are worth probably $0.01 each, before the addition of greedy corporate price gouges etc.
When it comes right down to it, its nothing to do with taking the free OTA broadcast and sending it over the internet, its just down to ITV not knowing how many people are watching their shows.
If they cant tell how many people are watching, and given that people watching via Freeview are estimated using statistical guessing, they cant tell how popular programs are.
And if they cant tell how popular a program is, they cant figure out how much to charge for advertising slots.
Re: Backwards people?
The implication was that Google were forcing data to the client PCs, rather than the reality that the site the user HAS CHOSEN to visit uses adverts to keep itself running etc.
Those arent forced or unwanted, theyre necessary and/or wanted by the site operators. Its free choice, if you dont like having adverts "shoved" at you, dont go to those websites.
That said, maybe it is time to change things, make every website advert free or subscription only, pay your $2 a year to get access to a site and no more adverts, yay!
I knew there was always something funny with the Frogs, all arse backwards based on this bit
"French broadband provider Iliad already tried to get the attention of web firms by launching a feature that blocks all online ads after Google continued to refuse to pay for the traffic it sends to customers in the country."
Google sends traffic to customers? In the rest of the world customers *request* traffic from Google, we dont have it forced down our intertubes.
Re: Blackberry Playbooks bargain of the year??
I got one from PC World, where the monkey serving me muttered something about the PlayBook running android and would I like to buy a copy of some Symantec AV for android devices....
I was polite and refused, but makes you wonder.
I think the simple tests should be based on malice and "pub chat".
Hate and continued harassment are one thing, but saying "<celeb/media tart> is a fag" is something else.
Same old problem all the media and non-technical people seem have.
Internet is NOT the Web.
Hard drive is NOT memory.
Information Superhighway IS a retarded term.
The "big boxy thing with the cup holder" is NOT a CPU.
You do NOT "log on" to a website unless you input a username and/or password.
When posting something, it may or may not pass through any given country, depends if it ever stops in said country.
The internet is vastly worse, as it may or may not pass through any given country each time its accessed, or sometimes even whilst its being accessed due to the way that packet routing works.
As far as jurisdictions are concerned, its much more like you flying from A to B, where youre carrying something permissible in both A and B, only to find you having to make an emergency landing in C, where you promptly get arrested.
Was the same for me, and I had to trawl my old emails to even find out what the username might have been
In the UK its true, in-programme banners wont help as much, but where you have pretty much 100% ad supported channels, you wouldnt be able to escape them.
It is further complicated by channels just being carried, rather than owned, by whoever is showing them, as the owner sells the ad space, not the carrier.
Tbh, Id almost prefer in-programme banners, at least that way what im watching doesnt get interupted every 10mins.
Whilst I'd like to think that Dish, and others in the future, would be vindicated, you should also see where such technology will ultimately lead.
Once the money from adverts is reduced, there will be a move towards in program advertising instead, much like the US has a lot of those "coming next" annoying banners, so it will only be a matter of time until you get ones that say "Buy this crap!" instead.
Re: Solution: charge by Volume
using miles per gallon is the wrong way around. Your gallon would take you 30 miles in anywhere between 1 hour and 30mins, depending on the road speed, but youd still travel the 30 miles on the 1 gallon.
If your ISP is giving you 10mb, and someone else 5mb, you can both download the same data, just you do it twice as fast, hence paying by volume would cost you the same.
..the real answer is paid usage, but no one wants that.
After all, the "up to" speed is totally irrelevant unless you happen to make use of it frequently.
However, if things were to go down a percentage of maximum speed, the physical line provider is the one that should take the biggest hit, not the ISP as they dont have any control over that in most cases.
Re: I thought so. So here they are again!
Although, Three do expressly forbid tethering on anything other than their data only plans and when paying for the data add-on, but I think all the other networks do the same.
Still strikes me as dumb, its my allowance, why shouldnt I use it as I want to.
Re: @James 139 I doubt
I never said they HAD proof, just that they would show it if the law were the same for both sides.
Re: I doubt
Oh, I dont disagree, just because the US system requires proof, that their constitution requires, doesnt mean they shouldnt have to provide the same proof here.
However, its not beyond the US to provide all sorts of evidence, remember that a monkey in a suit convinced Tony Blair that Iraq had all sorts of nasty weapons.
it would matter if the "much needed" change, so that the US had to provide proof, would matter in any of the cases mentioned.
In O'Dwyers case, they would show he profited from crime, and the extradition request would be granted.
its in the "Operating Systems" section, and once installed is called "telnet".
You do know that anti-static bags are conductive, right?
Ahh Artworks, one of two programs I can think of that survived the downfall of Acorn.
The other being Sibelius.
Exactlythe ACCUSED, in this case the 1%, is innocent until the ACCUSER, in this case GiffGaff, proves they are guilty. It doesnt work the other way around, since the accuser isnt being accused of anything. The assumption that GiffGaff are accusing people of tethering, or in some way improperly, using their phones hasnt been demonstrated, let alone proven, and until it is, it is utterly irrelevant to the issue. However you want to view it though, the 1% are probably in violation of Term 11c, in that it might "adversely affect other users".
Not necessarily tethering though, tethering is where youre using the mobile as an internet modem, either cabled or wi-fi, with the other device accessing data via it.
If you connect your phone to the TV via a video connection, be it HDMI, composite or USB, then its not tethering.
I'd think that accepting Facebook T&C that contained things like "you give us permission to use anything you post for our own evil purposes", then they would be one step closer to owning your likeness if you posted it.
Part of the problem is how much the base maps cost to licence, unless theyre spending time making their own, and also adding features and additional information, but I agree, every sat nav maker should be legally required to provide free, or at least cheap (as in £10 a year), map updates.
Somewhat unrealistically I also hope they decide to make it an offence to "blindly follow a Sat Nav", seeing as "driving without due care and attention" doesnt seem suitable enough.
do I get the horrible feeling this will involve an updated set of terms that will mean you must accept them, and have your details sold off, or have your card cancelled?
it depends on how the new owner obtained goggle.com.
If he bought it from the previous owners, the rights probably would transfer with it, or at least there is a reasonable expectation that they would.
If he bought a lapsed domain, then I doubt they would, as the agreement was between Google and the previous owners.
that "uses" word isnt clear on its intention.
Personally, Id be inclined to believe that the term "uses" is in the context of "includes as part of something" rather than any other sense, at least in the original spirit of the law, but being the US, its any ones guess.
It just doesnt seem logical that you infringe a patent by using a patent infringing product, but then, the law isnt always logical.
Oh most likely
"Every doctor has a story about some neurotic woman (and it's usually women) bringing in a printout about some random disease she has read about on the internet"
And you can almost guarantee when it involves a child, UK or US, its ALWAYS the mother thats doing it.
i love the most is when the voice over reads out the list of side effects really quickly, and one of them is almost always death.
Its also a different attitude to health over there.
Here we go to the doctor, the doctor has a think and prescribes something.
In the US, you go to the doctor, tell them the problem, tell them what you want done and complain if the doctor disagrees.
that part is somewhat dumb, the really stupid part is when its not even real, ie CGI or other art.
People seem obsessed with the idea that thought leads to reality.
Either its unlimited or its not.
ISPs and Telcos should be required to state things properly, and I dont really mind which way its done, either advertised as "unthrottled capped" or "throttled capped" or actually provided as unlimited.
children are easily taken care of on Facebook, at least those under 13.
Just report them and Facebook will ban their account.
Of course, Facebook doesnt help it self by making things fairly open by default, rather than totally closed requiring the user to allow rather than deny.
whilst you say its optional, Facebook pretty much encourages you to provide it with information.
Personally though, Im less worried about government agencies and more worried about just how useful the information might be for identity theft.
if corporate "advertisers" will see the realities of using twitter to promote products.
Unlike banners etc, people can actually interact with the tweets and retweet just how much they hate the products.
Heated complains by the user.
Followed by dismissal for breach of contract and/or gross misconduct.
Followed by unfair dismissal tribunal.
Tbh, as long as it lets you redownload things you purchased its not an issue, but if its like the iTunes music/app store, then at some point youll be out of luck.
It's American way though, they turn anything they can into verbs, and it's horrific.
And most of the time, there isn't really any benefit, except they don't need to say as many words or syllables.
This is a good idea, but sometimes its not been sold, its been randomly guessed, stolen (as in hacked from the website somehow) or obtained because someone else uses a similar system and got compromised.
you can never be too sure.
Ever since they let the unwashed masses on, its full of people lacking clue :P
The distinction, in the UK at least, for a lot of crimes is how its used, for yourself or for others.
Hence why you copying your mates CD is unlikely to get you in trouble, but uploading it or distributing it probably will.
I think the biggest problem is that the "copy protection" components are too tightly integrated in with the rest of the system, if the Xbox were modable without being able to play pirated copyrighted material then there wouldnt be these issues.
Wouldnt 255.255.255.254 be the end of the internet? .255 is a broadcast address, not a host address.
I didnt say anything about the potential punishment, that part is irrelevant to having admitted being where he shouldnt.
And yes, i totally agree, its the usual case of demanding a scapegoat to cover up their own inadequate security. And that I do think is the wrong part of the case.
Your analogy is a very apt one, and most likely they hadnt bothered to secure the servers properly etc, because it would have cost them money they didnt want to have to spend.
Equally so, if my door is open, and you walk in, I can still detain you whilst I call the police.
What gets me
is where people keep saying things like "the alleged Pentagon hacker", its not alleged if he admitted to it, which he has.
I dont think hes ever denied the actual hacking, but regardless of the reasons for being there, he shouldnt have been.
In the way its been "sold" to the public its been implied that you go through, someone in a booth looks at the image and presses a button if it looks suspect, then you get groped.
It does seem that perhaps this isnt the case.