Re: "either the best possible landscape for Safari extensions, or the worst"
There are only 10 possible outcomes.
123 posts • joined 21 Jan 2010
There are only 10 possible outcomes.
I pretty certain, at least last time i checked, that horse, staple and battery were all in the dictionary.
Someone ban dictionaries, the damned things are full of passwords!!
I liked the bit where Facebook said they are "not in a position to resolve a dispute", they know most people cant, or wont, bother getting legal on them, so its a clever fob off.
Perhaps Facebook are under the impression that as part of any take down, the claimant also tells the other party that they have made the request.
And, of course, theres bound to be plenty of reverse-revenge too.
You break up, your ex posts pictures of themselves, from an account pretending to be you, because theyre an insane psycho/bunny-boiler.
Oooh excellent idea!
I'll get right on it!
The £58million has been derived by the usual method, "out the arse".
Probably some non-accounting, non-financial exec at that.
Sometimes, very very rarely, and only because its at some ludicrously low price, will I buy a digital copy of an album I already own on CD.
That said, I do like Amazons approach, if you buy the CD, you get a digital copy to play/download automatically. Even Apples iTunes Match is going some way towards common sense.
The BBC news website is often just as bad.
Incorrect words, inaccurate numbers and even duplicate words.
They also appear to have mislaid their thesaurus, as every event they report on apparently "triggers" something else.
The best one I ever saw was
"Error : No Error"
Although personally, I'm fairly sure most errors should read "Error: Something you can do nothing to fix has happened, just go google the following '0x80001234' and then do something else".
Embrace+ by any chance?
Same here. Current router has been reconfigured to use the WPS button as a WiFi on/off button instead.
It becomes very annoying when something requires UPnP to work, I'm sure its useful for the average low grade consumer, but I know what im doing dammit!
UPnP would be much better if you could control what was allowed to use it and/or when it was active, I really dont want random bits of software opening up my firewall without me knowing.
As with most things legal -
"Ignorance is bliss, but not a legal defence"
Its not like you cant read the T&C, and I'm sure Facebook and others do notify people if there is a change, the media/tech websites certainly do if they dont.
No, wasnt SoFA, thats an agreement between nations.
It was the ASPA, the American Service Members Protection Act, brought in to protect US troops from the International Criminal Court.
It even allows the President to use force to free US troops being held by the ICC, regardless of guilt.
Indeed, the US is very much against anything happening to them, whilst at the same time doing exactly the same thing to everyone else.
And if the US law isnt up to it already, they will rush in something that shields them.
The "our troops can do no wrong" law, i forget the actual Act name, is a good example of this.
Obviously its e in both cases, as "terrorism" is the bestest thing since sliced bread as everyone can be arrested for it without warning or proof or legal basis.
That is, until it gets into the media, the police get embarrassed and have to admit they were wrong and issue a full apology to Jonny, where in next time he does the same thing they dare not do anything incase they either end up in the media again or in the ECHR accused of infringing his "human rights".
Damned thing is a pain in the ass.
My Dell came with it, just the BIOS part, and even though I've disabled it in the BIOS, it still keeps installing its evil sneaky service and drivers.
I say evil and sneaky because it tries to disguise itself as part of Windows, using a service name similar to the RPC service.
Its worse than that though.
The people with common sense and technical knowledge DO speak out, regularly, just the Government doesnt listen because the hysterical screaming nutters from the "think of the children" brigade just start shouting and screaming louder even though they are in a minority.
Cookie and site blocking plugins can go some way to making your life less googley, google analytics is on my NoScript never allow list for example.
But every so often, some new google site pops up, or you use gmail and forget to sign out.
"We don't think for ourselves, maybe they don't trust us to think for ourselves as human beings, I don't know."
Probably right, but they're not paid to think, they're paid to be fast and efficient rather than waste time thinking and as some employees probably can't do both at once, all have to be treated equal.
If the warehouses were smaller, it would be automated, people are still sometimes cheaper.
"Just don't sit on it. If you are unwilling to continue providing it to the public, through whatever means you want, then it should become public property."
Which is exactly how patents should work too.
You should patent something to give you a head start on producing the item, as a means to recoup R&D costs, or licence it to someone else thats willing to make it, not sit on it so no one else can make something vaguely similar.
Its interesting though, that from the other perspective, ie when the public has something they dont use, we get told "use it or lose it".
Depends how you look at it, technically its an Internet of Packets, but packets are made of bytes and ultimately bits.
Again, thats the problem, almost the entire majority of the country do not go looking for things like that, and as such do not require a block to not look at something theyre not looking for.
It has nothing to do with thinking anything that is illegal should be legal, claiming its all about child material is the weakest and most feeble argument thrown about by screaming hystericals.
Driving over the speed limit is illegal, taking illegal drugs is illegal, but neither of those require someone appointed by the government to spend all day with me checking i dont do either of those things.
Either way, implementing filters only makes people complacent, when really education and taking responsibility for your or your childrens activities would be far better as those determined to access illegal things will always do so whilst the rest of us suffer snooping on our non-porn, non-illegal web usage.
Its not the right to access streaming such content that should be at issue, its the right to personal freedom, freedom to make choices for yourself and also the freedom to accept responsibility for the choices you made.
Just because something is available, doesnt mean it becomes mandatory to watch it, doesnt also mean others should make the choices for you, if they did, id start demanding they stop showing religious programs on TV.
*shrug* I confess, I watch TV and sometimes the dramas/soaps have such story lines, assuming Hollyoaks qualifies as either of those two.
Thats what im wondering too, 20 quid sounds very cheap based on how its portrayed on TV.
Of course, its entirely possible she wanted more and he was 20 short.
Excellent plan, that alone should destroy Facebooks entire business model.
Depends, if it was an iOS device, maybe it corrected or predicted his typing based on previous use of the F word.
Depends where youre located.
If its a public place, plod has no powers to stop you nor do they have the right to see or delete the images, unless youre taking pictures of certain things of a "national security" nature.
That said, its still good practice to at least listen to the officer before making sure youre on public land and continuing.
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.
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.
And thats why positive discrimination is far far worse than negative, it gives a hugely disproportional falseness to people, that ends up being reinforced and ingrained.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I never said they HAD proof, just that they would show it if the law were the same for both sides.
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".