"Web bandwidth" - are we streaming over HTTP now? No wonder it doesn't work.
9 posts • joined 13 Sep 2010
Scantlebury is furious
Someone who deserves equal credit, and probably needs the money more than these guys, is Roger Scantlebury. He is a bit miffed about missing out: http://m.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/25/internet-pioneers-airbrushed-from-history
Three in a bed with Vodafone in Ireland.
"Crucially, they also dispensed with needing to grapple with another language: SQL. CouchDB devs can code using Erlang instead while MongoDB uses C++."
SQL is the language used to interact with a SQL database. Erlang & C++ are the languages used to develop those DBMSes you mentioned.
Facts, instead of FUD
FACT: "The desktop Widget requires Adobe AIR version 2.5 or above" - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/desktopwidget.html
FACT: "The last version to support desktop Linux distributions is AIR 2.6. AIR 2.6 is available from the AIR Archive." - http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/408/kb408084.html
AIR 2.6 download for linux is here: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/853/cpsid_85304.html
This took me about 5 mins to establish. This is a sensationalist report with a list of kneejerk comments. Please can we grow up?
Hello, people slagging of the US Government:
You do realise that UK police are also in the business of seizing domains without judicial oversight? Over 1,200 in December 2009 alone.
1200 .uk domains already seized
What everybody seems to have missed is that the police have *already* seized more than 1200 .uk domains with the cooperation of Nominet and other registrars. See here [PDF] http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/45676_Dealing-with-domains-associated-with-criminal-activity.pdf
What SOCA are now asking for is that Nominet be *contractually obliged* to do this at their say-so.
So the current voluntary system is clearly not enough for them. Why? Because currently a registrar can refuse to comply if they believe the request is mistaken or politically motivated.
SOCA wants full control. With no judicial oversight. Or any mechanism for appeal.
Reprinting a press release because it appears to confirm your prejudice isn't helpful to your readers, all of whom (judging by the comments) appear to have swallowed this unlikely story wholly uncritically.
Presumably you write this stuff for a living? Perhaps you could have tried to get some first-hand information for your story and subjected it to some common-sense tests before trotting it out.
Like *that's* a key combination that's never been used before. Oh, wait.
<checks date for April Fools>