Wow
The terrier has yapped.
282 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Dec 2010
a university level education is generally considered to be too advanced for a 11 year old
I kind of hoped you'd get that I wasn't suggesting teaching the subject at university level, any more than I'd suggest raising the standard of maths or biology to university level. There, I've spelled it out for you.
From the article: Tech companies aside, other employees have pressed for more general digital literacy too, saying that employees needed better computer skills.
Great though it'll be, we hope, to introduce proper academic computer science, let's not forget the above point. For instance, I hope computer/network/information security will be discussed, starting at the level of how it's not a great idea to put sensitive data onto an unencrypted USB stick and then lose it on the train, and moving on to questioning why people think they need USB sticks at all, even encrypted ones. That kind of thing. And, presumably, employers will still need people who know how to drive a word processor or a spreadsheet application (not necessarily or automatically Microsoft products).
What happens when the helium runs out, thanks to that bastion of the free market, the USA, dumping the world's supply at rock-bottom prices?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/ortiz-heymann-swartz-accountability-abuse
I read that, good article. The savage American "justice" system is politically-driven, in this case by Ortiz's political ambition.
And a good quote from Declan McCullagh, pointing out: "If Swartz had stolen a $100 hard drive with the JSTOR articles, it would have been a misdemeanor offense that would have yielded probation or community service."
Others have mentioned throwaway addresses. I've happily used spamgourmet.com for years, and sometimes update the cutoff limit for an address, so it's not really a "throwaway" address: there's that flexibility. It's a bit geeky, but deliberately so to put off Joe Sixpack types: nothing to faze any Reg reader.
The proposed regulation says “member states shall have the right to manage all naming, numbering, addressing and identification resources used for international telecommunications”
So we could have 193.1.0.0/16 (IE), 193.1.0.0/16 (FR), 193.1.0.0/16 (IN), 193.1.0.0/16 (MX), etc. Yeah, that'll work.
Wasn't there a 'power' granted to local councils that allowed them to spy on people who they suspected of terrorist activity, only for them to immediately use it to monitor anyone suspected of anything (not cleaning up after their dog, applying to a school while not living in the catchment area, etc...)
Yup, it's RIPA you're thinking of. See also the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, used to freeze Icelandic assets during the financial meltdown in 2008.
Remember that a key part of conservatism is leaving us alone to get on with our lives
That's only when they're in opposition, I think. Much like Labour who, now they're in opposition, are making much the same noises as the Tories did about Labour's plans for a Ministry of Snooping. Plus ça change...
“Click here for additional assets”, whatever that means. I know. You know
I don't, actually. Not that I have a smart TV, or want one, especially after reading the article, thanks! And I didn't know about the Panasonic EPG ads. Sheesh, I just hope I don't need a new TV for many years. My Sony Profeel was still going strong after 25 years before I junked it.
If they talk to each other I bet facebook could find out what you buy and the shopping site could find out who you are.
It's not only the IP address they could use. Browsers can be individually identified fairly well in most cases.
Browser Fingerprints Threaten Privacy (Computing Now)
Is Every Browser Unique? Results Fom The Panopticlick Experiment (EFF)
I watch BBC programmes only on iPlayer now, for just this reason. No pompous, plummy "oh, we're the BBC, we do all this stuff, aren't you all so grateful, you plebs" ads, no cutting off the end of the programme I've recorded because they started five minutes late (or, just to keep us on our toes, cutting off the beginning because they started two minutes early), no squeezing down the credits so you can't read them (so what's the point of showing them?), no cutting into your train of thought after a good programme with fake, cheery ads (sorry, trailers, sorry, TRAILs) for the next programme you're never going to see because you're watching a recording, or for some rubbishy programme next week you've no intention of watching, no prancing cartoon character jumping up right at the cliffhanger moment of a Doctor Who programme to advertise (sorry, TRAIL) the next programme.
Gah.
Channel 4 do it all *so* much more tastefully. They don't need to squeeze the credits because the credits are narrow anyway. You feel the continuity announcers are real people, and they talk about "filums". You know the programmes won't be exactly at the listed times because they show ads (real, commercial ones), which is forgiveable. Can't think of much else to say, really, they just don't get in the way or up my nose like the BBC.
If TV is to be delivered only over the Internet, people who want to watch TV will be forced to get an Internet connection. Does this mean the TV licence fee will be scrapped in order for people to pay for their connections? What about people with connections currently, but with low bandwidth limits?