Re: £50

I don't have to hand how Joe calculated that figure, but according to the National Archives, 1965's 4 shillings = 2005's £2.57. So Joe's £3.28 isn't far off the mark.

C.

Re: Citation needed

Ignore that - it was the price of the 1TB model :-(

C.

Re: Price

That price is for the 1TB drive :-( So ignore it.

C.

Yes, people were tweeting phone numbers and username+passwords for those inside Syria to dialup and reach the outside world.

C.

Re: Am I missing something?

"Since when did HTML5 allow any kind of DRM?"

Well, if Microsoft, Google and Netflix get their way...

C.

Re: Like it much ?

"without resorting to Daily Mail mode"

Och! Come on, now. Is there any need for that? It's not Daily Mail mode. I demand an apology and a correction.

It's Register mode.

C.

Re: WARNING !

Re: ac172 - no, it's just that B&N are really that rubbish. I failed twice to order one; they ran out of stock almost immediately.

C.

Re: NOT grasshoppers!

"aside from relative size they don't look much alike"

So, you're telling me there's a chance?

(Sadly, cicadas don't make quite so good a headline.)

C.

Re: 2.5" sequential read

According to the product brief (PDF), the SSD really has a 1.8GB/s sequential read speed, according to Micron.

C.

Re: Re: [sic]

I've added a footnote for the confused.

C.

Re: Re: A long time but...

I've added a bootnote about the Rothamsted experiments.

C.

Re: Re: +1

"The thought of the El Reg hacks sitting in the pub/office thinking up lines like this makes my day."

:-) It's sorta like the way the New York Post is portrayed in this vid.

C.

Re: Headline misses

So sorry not every headline, produced under incredible pressure, is comedy gold :-(

C.

Re: Civil Air Patrol Cadets

Yes, oops. The image seems to have confused a few people, so I've whipped it out for now.

C.

Re: Mods are touchy today!

Nah, just people who can't bring themselves to use the corrections button.

C.

Re: The other side of the fence

Clearly, something's gone wrong. Allow me to take a hammer to it. That'll do the trick.

C.

Re: countd

Tch-och. We have put in an FOI, but it can take ages (well, about a month) for a response to come back. So, here's the story for you now.

C.

Re: So very sad to see El reg delete comments

Tsk. The ones rejected so far were just witless walls of rabid swearing, or just rubbish. Pardon us for trying to at least enforce a little quality control.

C.

Re: Re: well the DT paywall doesn't bother me

"Given the mess it was before"

How long ago was that? The Windows 8 (shush at the back), iOS and Android apps should be all right.

C.

Re: I hate Boffins

"Please, lose this term"

No. It's a term of endearment. Of course, if this ridiculous UK publishing regulator ever emerges in its proposed form, no doubt you can pester us to death with complaints about :-(

C.

"it seems to get most of it's non-HiTech stories straight from the Telegraph's website?"

How very dare you.

C.

Re: Simon

The 1.5% is the "average monthly churn rate of total contract registered customer base", according to H-W's books (PDF, page 26).

Make of that what you will.

C.

Re: Er...

"Do you mean thermionic valves?"

Ah, the pedantry is strong in this one. Perhaps too much, though. There is no doubt that there is a flow of electrons from the filament, modulated by the grid(s) between the cathode and the anode. I used "electron valve" for anyone unfamiliar with the technology, to make it clear we're talking about controlling electric current rather than fluid or something else associated with valves.

To keep old-timers happy, I'll change it. I just fear you may have spilled your coffee over your yellowed pages of Practical Electronics magazine.

C.

Re: Re: Don't bring Lucy Meadows into this...

"The press should not have hounded her."

The Lucy Meadows case is, indeed, tragic. And the press coverage was rather unpleasant. But not every journo is a monster in the same way not every doctor is a murderer like Harold Shipman. And the Samaritans note that suicide should not be linked to one problem.

I've worked on a newspaper within the Daily Mail Trust empire that had exactly the same story a year or so ago: a teacher ended a summer term as a man and started the autumn term as a woman. Letters were sent to pupils and their parents at her school explaining the change. Her local paper obviously found out and reported it - on the front page, no less.

The editor-in-chief didn't name her, picture her "before and after", and (IIRC) didn't draw comment on her abilities, precisely to avoid the above mess. Not every hack is an unfeeling bastard.

C.

Re: Plenty of regulation of the printed word

"I'm still confused why newspapers don't think they they are currently regulated"

They certainly feel regulated enough already, trust me. I used to work in them and we all know people who still do.

C.

Re: Re: Ah, bless

Rampant Spaniel wins the thread.

C.

Re: TLS 1.2

The paragraph has been tweaked.

C.

Re: Lee D

"and every EU and other country cut off our gas supply, we'd only have a fortnight of gas rather than a couple of months. Which, on the face of it, seems incredibly unlikely"

The country risks running out of stored gas by April 8 based on the fall in its reserves seen since the cold hit at the beginning of March, Reuters calculations show.

Re: Hmm...

It's just a simple mistake. It was fixed ages ago.

C.

Re: Five Hats

Keyword: mainstream. That's not tech-world mainstream, that's the wider-world mainstream.

C.

Re: Re: Not allowed to criticize a Reg author?

"Fair enough. Thanks for your time."

Stop posting the same comment over and over in the TV tax thread.

C.

Re: Re: Not allowed to criticize a Reg author?

"Shouldn't you wonder why he attracts them?"

We do know why: it's because he writes things that people disagree with. Shock!

C.

Re: Re: Not allowed to criticize a Reg author?

"Why is it that commentards are allowed to be fairly nasty and impolite to each other, but professional journalists, whom one can reasonably expect to be a bit more thick-skinned than the average person, are beyond politely phrased criticism?"

You guys can do what you like to each other, within the rules. We try to keep discussions civil but that's not always possible when comments are auto-moderated an d thousands are flooding every month. The report button is there if things get out of hand.

As for criticising staff, again: attack the points raised, not the person. There is no point in allowing a thread to descend into baseless personal attacks. That applies to everyone. There's some leeway, I admit; for instance, if a writer has a pop at someone's dress sense then I don't mind a bit of backchat in the comments. It's only fair.

But mouthing off about bias with nothing to back it up just because the writer wrote something you don't like is pointless. Calling for a writer to stop writing about a topic is tantamount to supporting censorship. It won't happen.

In the example of Andrew, you cannot, for instance, accuse him of bias against the BBC when he's heaped praise on its output, investigated how the BBC news website was built into a success story, worked as a producer for the broadcaster, and so on. Criticising certain parts of the gigantic public-funded organisation isn't bias, it's journalism.

I can't enter into any more correspondance about this because a) I'm just repeating myself, b) moderating comments is perhaps 10% of job as a sub-editor, and these headlines won't write themselves.

So to sum up, once again: play the ball - not the man. If you can't grasp that, mate, then I'm not surprised you're getting rejected.

C.

Re: Re: Not allowed to criticize a Reg author?

"I'd be allowed to post about suspicion of bias here?"

As long as you can back it up, fine.

I just don't like meta-discussions getting in the way of on-topic discussions. You may argue that bringing up accusations of bias is on-topic, but these accusations are so wrong the vast majority of the time that I just bin them.

C.

Re: Re: Not allowed to criticize a Reg author?

"Are all posts on his articles delayed because we're not allowed to criticise him?"

No, it's because he attracts the more, er, vigorous of our comment-posting readers who seem to be bent on hijacking threads.

C.

Re: Re: Not allowed to criticize a Reg author?

"aren't we allowed to ask for some balance?"

Drop us an email or post here. Don't ruin threads by tossing in baseless accusations of bias (or worse). I wouldn't turn up at your place of work and wildly accuse you of incompetence to your boss; try not to do it at ours. Please.

C.

Re: Not allowed to criticize a Reg author?

"I've had about 5 posts, generally polite & civil ones, rejected merely for saying things like 'Could El Reg please find someone without an anti-$X bias to cover $X?' Are we not allowed to criticize the authors, even politely?"

I'm sure you were polite and civil, and that's appreciated, but I'm minded to reject comments that, to be blunt, just don't add anything to the conversation. It's not policy to take a writer off a beat just because they upset a few readers; thus, your post is as effective as hanging around outside our office shouting at the tourists.

Please, challenge our articles all you like. Just play the ball, not the man. I don't see the point in turning the comments section into a boring complain-a-thon about certain writers.

C.

Re: Re: Best value?

"El Reg should get someone without an anti-BBC bias"

Writing critically about an organisation isn't bias. Good grief.

C.

Re: Re: Pile of c**p being disseminated by the media

"The form of the regulator is entirely up to the press"

We'll see how that works out. As I understand it, members of the press are excluded right from the start in organising the regulator.

"The regulator is entirely voluntary"

And if you don't sign up, it's pay all costs if you successfully defend a libel case, and face huge damages if you lose. Now that's making an offer you can't refuse.

"the entire middle section of this article has changed"

No, that's overstating the mark somewhat. The first pull-out par in bold quoted the charter when it should have quoted the law; this was fixed up very soon after publication. The point being made wasn't derailed by this accident, but it's obviously a good idea to refer to the correct document.

C.

Re: @diodesign

"The place is known as a court and the person who mades the decision is usually referred to as a judge"

No, you're confusing defamation with non-defamatory reporting. There's no law* that enforces accuracy in articles beyond defamatory statements precisely because outside of defamation, deciding what is true and what isn't is a nightmare. Show me the act of Parliament that makes saying something incorrect but not defamatory unlawful.

Let's say we describe a company's decision as a U-turn. That's not a serious libel. But the company's PR doesn't want it described that way. It's a strategic stroke of genius, they'll say. We'll quote them in the story to that effect. But they want the headline and the copy changed. We refuse. They can't go to court. There's nothing to sue for.

So they go to the regulator. The regulator then decides the truth, the narrative and what can and can't be said. Isn't that chilling? Or will you wait until your free speech is taken away?

(All IMVHO)

C.

* Actually, Contempt of Court Act slaps down inaccurate reporting of an ongoing case if there's a chance of prejudicing a jury. I'll grant you that.

Re: The press have brought this on themselves.

"Given a choice between the government and the press I'd trust the government's honesty and integrity more than the press."

There are no words.

C.

Re: Re: Pile of c**p being disseminated by the media

"How's it going to cock things up?"

Because it will be down to a state-crafted regulator to decide what is true and what isn't. This isn't hyperbole. Putting aside defamation for a second, if you assert a fact or opinion that a PR or politician disagrees with, they'll take it to the regulator. That regulator will then decide what the truth is. Good luck doing that if the fact is based on protected but trusted sources who cannot be disclosed, or if the opinion is contrary to the panel's sensibilities.

We like to call the Dept of Culture, Media and Sport the "Ministry of Fun", and scientists "boffins". I can imagine the corrections on that. And this is the TRIVIAL stuff, let alone proper reporting. Every day we get PRs asking for headlines to be changed, and we resist because it's freedom of speech.

Yet now, the regulator decides what is truth and what is allowable opinion; it's state-licensed publishing by the backdoor. The watchdog will order you to run a correction and an apology if it deems so, and fine you up to £1m or 1% of your revenue.

Now, imagine struggling regional papers being bombarded with complaints from sniping PRs and pushy councillors who want the news told in their way. Imagine online outlets coming under fire from corporations who are already pissed off that you didn't just run the press release as written.

Ironically, the big boys - the media moguls this law was supposed to slap down - can easily afford this and may stick to soft celeb stuff more than they do now just in case. If you hate the press now for being lazy and ineffectual, you're really going to see some serious shit.

It's not automatically the end of the world; I don't think the publishing sector will collapse overnight. The regulator may roll over like the PCC. Everyone may boycott it and take up the ridiculous libel penalties to the ECHR. Paying all court costs even if you win doesn't sound like a fair trial to me.

But even so, yes, it will cock everything up. It will cock up complaints, apologies, legal bills, revenue, revenge, truth, facts, opinion, the works. Because this law is so vague and there are plenty of people with an axe to grind.

All IMHO. Views do not necessarily represent my employers'.

C.

Re: Pile of c**p being disseminated by the media

"Parliament fudged a way to try and stop big newspapers from excercising uncontrolled power"

And completely cocking everything up for the hundreds of national, regional and online outlets that haven't done anything wrong and were well aware of existing laws, which have been used to prosecute tabloid wrongdoing. IMHO.

C.

Re: What about forums on news related web sites?

According to the amendments, comments on articles are not "subject to editorial control" and thus not covered by the regulator. But I could be wrong, or a lawyer could argue it past a judge and make it so anyway. A huge number of comments are not moderated an go live straight away, but some are, ironically, for legal reasons.

This is going to end up as an expensive exercise for some, IMHO. It's a minefield.

C.

Re: There is no incentive if the technology is mandated

"Firstly, there are six national multiplexes, not five. There are five SD multiplexes and one HD. At the moment. "

Yes, you're right. God dammit, I hate it when this sort of thing happens. Can I make another plea for people to drop us an email via the corrections button; if you post in the comments, we may not get time to see it and it'll never get fixed.

C.

Re: FanniM

Please see the update at the end of this article :-)

C.

Re: Classic!

Ha! And not very far from Vulture Central, too.

C.

Re: Ancient news.

Yes, indeed. I used to live in the area (and visit quite a lot) and switching off roaming is just the obvious thing to do. You can also pick up French radio, zut alors, so I guess this is a multi-spectrum invasion of culture, communications and charges.

I was surprised to see it flare up in the headlines this morning. This article is a story about a story, and sometimes there's nothing wrong with that. Particularly if you can poke a bit of fun.

C.