9 posts • joined Tuesday 31st August 2010 11:13 GMT
ISPs providing content blocks tend to require evidence of age to remove blocks - a passport or driving licence, for example, with details matching those of the account holder.
What's not clear is how this sort of blocking would prevent the access via instant messaging (the Reg mentions only BBM, presumably being unaware that these new-fangled smartphones also do Skype, MSN, WhatsApp etc etc) - that sort of thing is not usually covered in any ISP level blocks -and , yes, blocks at phone level are usually only too removable by anyone.
Was that the sound of the point about hype and Google results going so far over the Reg's head that they fell over backwards looking for it?
I'm find that I get warnings from time to time that i'm not running the latest Chrome at home, usually from Google stuff. This is probably strictly accurate, since I'm running Chromium under Linux, not Chrome.
I wonder whether these statistics are treating me (and all other Chromium users) as 'not up to date'?
"The fancy name for black coffee isn't black coffee, it's an Americano. Which isn't just black coffee (filter) because it's made with espresso."
I suspect I'm not the only one who gets really really pissed off by repeatedly having to answer the question 'do you want milk in it' when I've asked for an Americano.
Which is rather than point here, isn't it? The Italian / pseudo-Italian terms are misused and misunderstood (even by those making the coffees) Perhaps Debenhams are right: let's have some plain coffees.
I just wish I could be confident that they'd be made well - as well as they are in Rome rather than as well as they are in Starbucks....
And then there's the tender rules....
One other issue which needs resolving is the formal process for tender which is required where a contract value of over £125k (or thereabouts - I can't remember exactly) is to be awarded.
Taking an unrealistically simple example to illustrate the point: say you were equipping a 1000-PC unit with software and think it's likely to cost you £150 per machine, or thereabouts. Then because anticipated contract value is over £125k, you have to enter a formal tendering process - which is rightly designed to get competitive quotes and so make sure you get the best value.
But the Open Source alternative has a purchase cost of nil, and no-one's making money out of it - so no-one looks for the tendering opportunities and puts in bids. So there's no Open Source response to the advertised opportunity, so Open Source not only isn't, but at this stage can't be considered.
That is simplistic - and presumably there'd also be support as a contract element, so an OS-based company might well have an interest in tendering - but the process of putting in a bid is often complex and costly, so there's a big disincentive to anyone not making big profits out of supplying things. And that biasses the whole process in favour of the big, and generally closed-source, companies.
So's Canonical; but Ubuntu updates are free.
Yes, M$ makes a lot more money, but it does it by loading up-front fees on software (so by the time you need any service you've already paid for software with problems). They could, of course, use a model under which they charged for support instead,a dn used support feedback to improve the product. Oh, wait, they do that as well, don't they -or at least the charging bit.
If Old Windows is really the big problem, make an upgrade/licence for the latest version available at a low cost, and in the course of that legitimise any versions people are already running, Then you can pursue a proper security and upgrade model from then on.
M$ has to decide whether it's going to act as a responsible body which, due to its own practices, has effectvie control of a large proportion of a market in which there are serious security and compatability problems, or continue simply chasing the dollar until everyone gradually gives up on them. It's their call, and the market's eventual decision.
Even more reason to regard Register hacks with suspicion...
As someone else pointed out (using longer words), that part of the report is simply untrue; Catholics can talk directly to God whenever they want to (unlike those poor atheists who haven't even cottoned on to the fact that God is there yet, and haven't a clue what they're missing out on).
The Register hack who wrote this bit is presumably a bit short in the religious knowledge department - but I'm sure s/he can find somewhere to confess to that....
And confession's free, so there's no money involved. Funny the ideas anonymous cowards can get in their heads, isn't it?
Hmm. Wonder if they've put in a quetion about worshipping false idols, like shiny iphones....
Not just Google Apps
Your report seems to say that this is only for Apps users - in fact Google's blog entry says it's for all GMail users - "Priority Inbox will be rolling out to all Gmail users, including those of you who use Google Apps, over the next week or so".