257 posts • joined 24 Dec 2011
Re: @Condiment At Last !
the scholarly convention is to speak of the activity of the union during its entire history, as being the activity of the union, not the eec, nor the ecsc, or anything like that. which you'd know if you knew what you were talking about.
the equal pay act 1970 was barbara castle's random act of doing good, against the wishes of her prime minister who was on holiday and unreachable. it wasn't a requirement of eu law unlike all the post-1972 law.
@Condiment Re: At Last !
And where did those laws come from? That's right - the EU. Article 119 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. "Each Member State shall during the first stage ensure and subsequently maintain the application of the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work."
We signed up in 1972 not in 1993. From that date on, thanks to the European Communities Act 1972 s 2(1) all our courts were obliged to enforce domestically ALL Treaty provisions and CJEU rulings on non-discrimination, and hold the state itself liable where it had failed to implement directives.
@Rikkeh Re: Good!
Spot on except for a little warning which needs tagging on to your good history lesson.
The Charter rights - I'm not sure if they can found a cause of action on their own - but even if they can, they are only invocable when one of the EU institutions or Member States is applying EU law, and *weighed*, at that, in a balancing exercise alongside the other objectives of the measure which are at stake. They're not absolute rights, they're all very qualified inotherwords, and invocable under limited circumstances. Which is a shame as some of them are quite good, e.g. the right to competent administration!
Re: At Last !
Outlawed sex discrimination in employment terms and conditions including pay and pensions.
Re: Poor Nigel Farage
"You may have missed that it was the EU that created this problem in the first place, they are only rectifying the previous mistake now!"
I see so you want to ban "mistake[s]"? As long as you have mechanisms for continually refining and revising a legal order, which the EU seems to have, then it seems to me either you should take issue with the underlying legal order (the free movement of factors of production), or you should propose refinements, or you should shut up, but to just say that because there was a regulatory policy you disagree with (without even saying why) then the EU should not exist, seems to me a very a weak argument.
"Well the court clearly said that the directive violates Euro Human Rights law"
OK the Court of Justice of the European Union is not any kind of authority on human rights law - that role is for the ECtHR in Strasbourg which is an entirely unrelated entity to the EU. The CJEU ruling does not bear upon the UK's Human Rights Act s 6(1) or s 19 obligations (to comply with ECtHR rulings) or its general ECHR obligations. I think it's entirely possible the Strasbourg Court would take a different view. The CJEU is under all sorts of massive political pressure because of the incredible unpopularity of the EU as an entity within some electorates. The ECtHR is under no such pressure and can take a much longer view in theory.
"Of course someone is still going to have to take UK Gov to court to force them to obey."
The European Commission will do that if it's an important enough case, however, even Joe Bloggs can do that in his local county court afaik, thanks to s 2(1) of the ECA 1972
"As if UK cares. Just look what happened for example with importing cigarettes for personal use via Dover where Customs and Excise ignored EU and confiscated and crushed vehicles used as they deemed the, what was all accounts legal import, as smuggling."
Actually all EU law is enforceable in every court in Britain, and even conflicting UK law is automatically disapplied by the British judge: it doesn't matter if the UK cares, because it simply complies. Have a look at the European Communities Act 1972 s 2(1) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/section/2 Those vehicles were crushed because the imports were found to be illegal. Free movement of goods is a qualified, not an absolute right. The qualifications arises from the Article 36 derogations to Article 34 TFEU (http://euwiki.org/TFEU#Article_34) as well as the judicially created derogations.
Re: ARM vs x86?
"we would see no reason for Apple not to begin using the A8 in its laptops"
Quite so re the x86s - there is a very good reason why Apple might not begin using the A8 in laptops and that's Boot Camp. At the moment nobody has to make much of a decision between Windows and Mac - buying a Mac allows both. But the A8 wouldn't allow that. There are important applications where the Mac versions are very inferior to the Windows, e.g. Dragon Naturallyspeaking Legal.
@MrDamage Re: I find it amusing
"Most movies "fail to recoup", not due to piracy, or being bad, but by this wonderful little device called "Hollywood Accounting"."
While tax losses can indeed be valuable to some companies, and there have indeed been known to be some dubious arrangements involving investment banks, these are actually ways of injecting MORE actual revenue and investment into the industry, rather than less - the expenditures they incur, do genuinely go to hiring people to master their art, pay their bills, and keep their skills up for another day when they'll make the next masterpiece which will give you joy at the movie theatre. The accounting trick is to show that a loss was made.
However PIRACY is a different matter. It can only divert revenue away from the industry and the very real jobs it creates. The truth about business is when you're in it, revenue broadly must match investment in the long run. If there is some additional injection from investment banks trying to make a deliberate loss, that's a bonus, but at the end of the day, you can't buck the market, and the market needs buyers.
Re: Out of order.
"Looks like the advice is to pull your domains out of 123-Reg to another provider ASAP and say that you will take them to small-claims to recover any costs as they have not lawfully changed the terms of your agreement with them.
They will then allow you to transfer free of charge, but you need to do it quickly or else you might renew and then you wouldn't have as strong a case."
No, that's not true.
Because the attempt at a renegotiated agreement by one of the parties, lacks one of the essential four factors for a binding contract to exist (offer, acceptance, something FRESH of value exchanged or promised between the parties, and intention to create legal relations), it will not bind, and the previous agreement will continue to bind, unless certain possible conditions are met.
1) One would be that the web firm was going bust because it had promised too much in exchange for too little with that specific offer. Keeping going would be providing something of fresh value. However they would have to have 'clean hands', i.e. be in genuine difficulty.
2) Alternatively, *when the period of the original agreement is up*, they can say they no longer wish to offer services in the future unless the terms are changed, including a domain porting fee. For subscribers leaving at that point, there will be no porting fee. However this raises issues of fairness for those who do wish to stay, which have to be balanced with questions of fairness to the firm.
For those customers, the question of whether the firm ought to be bound by its original agreement will turn a) on the words of the original agreement, and whether they amounted to a promise to be bound for the lifetime of the customer's keeping their domain with the hosting company, and if they do, then b) on the reasonableness of the change of terms, and c) whether (in consumer cases) whether the new change of terms amounts to an "imbalance in the obligations imposed on the parties contrary to the requirements of good faith."
It may be that the offer to maintain no porting fees 'no matter what', was part of the original fresh offer in exchange for which the person joined the company. However if commercial reality says that companies really do have to change their terms at occasional intervals (and I think it does), then they may be bound - BUT ONLY until the end of the original agreement period, i.e. when you come to renew, you will have to pay for FUTURE portings-out, but NOT the one at that moment.
This could be disputed on the grounds that the sheer hassle of joining another company was something which the individual subscriber was keen to avoid by sticking with a company... and it goes on and on. Much will turn on the terms of the original contract, and whether a promise of a price fix was incorporated into it, and whether that clause can be changed fairly, etc etc etc.
Absolutely - putting financial barriers in front of people using this data for medical research purposes is utterly self-defeating if our aim is for medicine to be developed rather than us to turn a buck. I'd rather an extra year of life than a new coffee table.
As for the benefits to the biotech companies buying the data, exceeding the benefits to us, I'd say that these benefits aren't really easily commensurable. You can say an extra year of life is worth £10k or £30k but some people would pay £1bn for the privilege. In any case the sooner the medicines are developed, the sooner the patents will run out and we'll get access to these as generics, for pennies.
As long as the companies concerned don't 'develop-in' horrible side-effects or deliberately diluted health benefits, which 'new' versions of the medicine merely ameliorate... after all who would do such a thing...
@NumptyScrub Re: When Big Brother Is After You
"Feel free to keep insisting that each pirate download is a missed cinema ticket sale"
Straw man - at no point was that stated. I'm sorry but it's basic econ. Even if you argue that every dollar saved on buying movies is spent on skateboards, my moral premise still holds: those who've devoted their lives to giving you joy through their art are not being paid a penny for it. Why should we not likewise deprive you of your earnings? Why should we not support strong markets in the creative sector? Why should we not support the idea of markets and property as such, given they reward the efforts of some of the lowest-paid and most joy-giving people in our society, artists and those who support them?
The Freakonomics authors suggest the "skateboard" thesis but they don't account for misallocation of demand (see above) nor do they account for the possibility that macroeconomically there is a diminution of throughput because of transfer to sectors with lower monetary velocity, e.g. telecoms.
@JoshOvki Re: When Big Brother Is After You
What we're talking about Josh is expecting others not to be paid for their work. If we take either your earnings or that which you've bought through your earnings, that replicates the scenario in your life, which filesharers insist should be wrought upon owners and creators of intellectual property and their agents and assistants.
@Ross K Re: When Big Brother Is After You
Ross, Dowling v United States (1985) relates solely to handling of stolen property. It found for the purposes of the law relating to the transport of stolen property over state lines, which was "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", stolen intellectual property wasn't to be treated in the same way as stolen tangible property in a particular state.
That doesn't mean filesharing of copyrighted work is any less stealing, is any less a moral wrong, is any less economically and socially destructive, besides the fact it doesn't make it any less illegal.
I'm afraid you have no moral arguments or legal arguments whatever.
Re: When Big Brother Is After You
So he can sue me!
"Innocent until proven guilty" as you conceive of it would mean nobody should ever be charged, as we could never consider them blameworthy.
In truth the principle derives and has its FULL EXTENT in the doctrine that it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence charged, RATHER than the burden of proof being on the defence to disprove a charge. This relates SOLELY to judges' directions to juries, who are the final arbiters of fact in criminal cases.
If someone is patently, brazenly, obviously a thief, and dishonest, amoral, and destructive, then there is nothing whatever libellous in saying so.
By the way if you knew the first thing about the law you'd know all of the above.
@bigtimehustler Re: When Big Brother Is After You
I see, so there is a difference between copyright infringement in order to enjoy others' property without paying for it, and the crime of theft.
So what do you think the important difference(s) are exactly? Morally, lexically, economically? Morally and economically there is no difference. Lexically there is less than no difference. If you look in a dictionary for what theft means, it will say "stealing". If you look up "stealing" it will say "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it".
Legally it is a formal rather than a substantive difference. The difference is entirely accounted for by the coming into being of non-physical goods, i.e. intellectual property, in the C19th with the industrial revolution.
It's one thing (and a stupid thing) to argue that in every instance the "big bad corporations" (which actually are the agents of individuals) should not be able to hold intellectual property.
It's another thing entirely to say that artists and technicians who've given their lives to perfecting their arts and crafts should not be paid for their creations which you steal to enjoy.
Re: When Big Brother Is After You
I thought the moral objection to a Big Brother was that Big Brother prohibited mere thought-crimes, harms to self alone, and offences against mere morality, on an undemocratic and unaccountable basis.
Kim Dotcom has harmed OTHER people in a big way, by stealing, and helping steal their property and life's work, on a massive scale, and through this destroying thousands of jobs and careers, destroying assets legitimately built up, don't get me started. These are real crimes of which he's rightly accused, properly legislated, by democratically elected governments, acting on behalf of the people, legislation with proper and supportible purposes, please don't even begin...
The executive discretion is indeed broad, but it needs to be. Who will protect you when we come and steal your home and possessions if not fallible police, part of a fallible executive, but who act on the basis of morally supportible and necessary purposes? The warrant might have had a t not crossed but that doesn't amount to an executive beyond the reach of the rule of law, that's an absurd and out-of-place caricature.
Re: He's wrong
Haha I think you're technically right but basically misconstruing the guy slightly pedantically. He basically means ubiquitous handheld computers and the interweb and all that shit ;-)
"Make war on the state and expect war in return; you fuck us and we fuck you back good."
I agree except for that you missed a necessary emphasis. "The state" means, unequivocally, US, i.e. "we", the people, das Volk, die Leute. It really is, as you say, "us".
Re: I feel it in the air
That's a great point AC 08:22, with one or two problems.
This issue goes right to the centre of a problem of confused and conflicting principles at the centre of English consumer protection law. The duty of care extends only to fulfilling those obligations which are *established*. Until they are established, it is ordinary practice for every retailer including John Lewis, to resist all claims (return requests) at all cost. The ordinary practice is to pretend to the consumer that the consumer simply has no claim in law ("I'm sorry you're outside the manufacturer warranty so there is nothing we can do"), rather than admit that the retailer is merely resisting that claim. Your right to resist a claim is a basic right in law: it is no different from the right to defend yourself in court.
However. We can see that a basic objection to this "right" is that some companies base their business model upon resisting all claims including those of clear merit. I'm not sure how you resolve this except systemically e.g. bring in statutory penalties for manifestly wrongful rejections of claims, e.g. £40 or 10% of the price of the item whichever is more.
But even if we agree with all the above, there are reasons why OFT might not blink in this case - the obvious, that it could be argued staff are just jobsworths and need to be incentivised to look after the proper interests of the company, scrutinising return requests properly. Many return requests will be under the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 - a consumer will decide they just don't want the item. In that case the company is morally entitled to check to see very precisely whether the return falls within the permissible criteria.
To those who approve of Kim Dotcom
Fuck you. Either you subscribe to principles governing property which privilege all owners of property, or you advocate the abolition of your own. Do you advocate us taking what you own and working for free? If so then I suggest you demonstrate it by giving it all up now. Otherwise your argument is a chauvinist argument, that is to say it's based on "might makes right", and/or a solely egoistic maxim. "I" doesn't make right, nor does being stronger than a weak party.
When Karl Marx advocated out of pity for the starving proletariat of the 1840s, the abolition of private property, he didn't see that markets with state help and support for those working in them would become the most miraculous and incredible source of incentivising investment and work and growth and distributing material benefits. Markets do this. Music and film are special kinds of goods, they're not public goods generally, they're not free, they usually require paying for. Markets must be supported.
Yes so such a principle privileging property should be subject to qualification for special kinds of of scarce or strategically sensitive property e.g. land, but songs and movies are as far from falling into such a category as is imaginable.
Re: let me be the first to say ...
I spat in that beer.
What principled or coherent argument have you against agencies operating to protect industries and often on behalf of copyright holders including artists?
If a song is worth listening to chances are it's one of the greatest things that person who wrote it will ever accomplish. If you insist they not be allowed to do that full-time but instead have to take a dayjob, you deprofessionalise music, you steal people's work, you steal often that which they properly gave up their life to produce, and all for pleasure and not need, whereas those who work in a field need market mechanisms to operate such that they be paid.
Shall we force you to go without pay? Shall we P2P your work? How about we redistribute your possessions against your will?
Re: Does it
It's not that it's not replaceable, it's that it's not replaceable outside of a Motorola approved service facility without voiding the warranty.
Great news, but steady on :-)
While this is great and surprising, even shocking news given pricing patterns over the last two decades, and it doesn't hurt to be optimistic, and hopefully this endures as evidence of the mobilcomms market functioning like it should to bring low consumer prices and a good offering through competition, it's been an enormously long time coming, and is hardly a resounding confirmation of efficient market hypothesis as such!
The fact the likes of...all the other operators have, cartel-like, singularly failed to price-compete on roaming, indeed going backwards in many instances over the years, very solidly confirms the need for a Steelie Neelie. Would that we had her in other sectors. #bringbackthetechnocrats
Re: A case for the competition authorities?
"And in the real world car makers make their dealers commit to a certain volume as they need to commit to their production line etc. etc."
Indeed, however, unlike in the mobile phone industry, there is no single car manufacturer which has the market power to systematically extract supracompetitive profits from dealers, to the cost of other manufacturers and consumers of other products. Furthermore, unlike in the mobile phone industry, cars are not dominated by a luxury manufacturer whose market power enables it to load high costs onto consumers of non-luxury cars as a matter of course.
I don't think Apple are the commercial target; rather, other Android manufacturers are, I suspect, whose lack of price-competitive handsets with better than landfill specs may be being seen by Google as the chief constraint on greater OS uptake (?)
Re: Talking with passengers
"There are so many distractions. Single seat cars, driver pods, robotics, the only real way to stop accidents us to take the driver out of the equation, hey why not ban cars altogether?"
What is it about libertarians that they come out with obtuse and ill-thought-out either-or responses to any idea of state intervention to protect human beings from themselves or others?
You realize, Dr. Angelo...
...that my intelligence has surpassed yours...
Re: Get nothing for free
You can turn off the Google Plus spams. I used to get one a day or one a week but as a reputable company they do have an optout link. Haven't had one in a very long time.
@thesykes Re: This just in
"There are certain companies that wouldn't dream of doing such a thing as lowering the price."
Indeed quite right - this product seems to be deliberately aimed at forcing other Android manufacturers into proper price-competition with good handsets at the lower end, probably as a push to get half a billion or so more users using the OS. They've really avoided competing in recent years, except on the high-end.
Re: This just in
Very good phone which other people clearly with considerably less money than me can afford and therefore which can have no interest for anybody who matters to me i.e. me.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: Danger Will Robinson
You're essentially arguing for a return to city-states and town hall politics, but as Dahl, successfully I believe, argues, this is only a viable form of political structure until small regional political units such as city-states gang up militarily and economically on other city states, which is then absorbed until a large unit, a nation-state emerges. For this reason small politically sovereign units are obsolete.
Additionally, too much power delegated to local units in federal systems creates inefficiency and sclerosis and the inability to make national policies in response to national challenges, such as effectively managing an economy. The nation-state is a creature of political necessity.
Sounds like the perfect replacement for a Huawei Ascend G300
mine is an absolute PITA what with not picking up email reliably, not being able to cope with basic apps like swiftkey or whatsapp without slowing to a crawl, browser dying all the time...
There are frequent prime time TV adverts for non-mandatory forms of insurance? I find that hard to believe.
As for "the poor", gambling is not the only way out of poverty, we are not living in the third world, there are jobs, there is entrepreneurship, there is training, there is initiative and autonomy and freedom, there is a £140 per week minimum pension guarantee, and where people are so disabled that the former options aren't realistic, then the state ensures they have a higher income and quality of life than they would otherwise.
Granted, some fall between the cracks, and this isn't the most satisfactory setup in many ways, however, gambling is still a route to more poverty for everyone who does it, including the winners, partly because they're not statistically trained (if they were they wouldn't bother in the first place), and partly because most of them are addicts who studies show aren't looking for a win but to lose, that's the payoff, and they don't stop until all their money and assets are gone.
Re: This is England?
Hi Mage, you're quite right about the so-called "warranties", i.e. Applecare, being an unconscionable bargain and likely a transaction which could be mostly voided by the English courts.
However, I'm afraid it's nothing to do with the EU directive, this is the Sale of Goods Act 1893 as amended and reinterpreted through the common law. Additionally, the EU directive which mandates that goods must "conform to contract" for two years, isn't a maximum OR a minimum lifetime: directives never stop EU member states from having more extensive consumer protection, which the UK has, and "conform to contract" means "be reasonably durable considering the cost", which could mean it only need last for a day, if it only cost one Euro.
Claims for injury are barred after 3 years in the UK rather than 6 by the way. As for the above law applying throughout the UK, the "English legal system" is how we describe the law covering England and Wales, because Scotland have their own court system, who may do things differently.
This is England: the Sale Of Goods Act implies a term into all contracts for consumer goods wherein it must be reasonably durable (i.e. considering all factors including the cost), and which permits small claims cases against the company for up to 6 years after the date of purchase. A £1k laptop ought to last 5 years plus. Any less with careful use gives rise to liability for Apple to either repair, replace, or pay a partial refund based on reasonable expected lifetime less a deduction precisely pro-rata for usage, e.g. 5-6 years less however many you had it for.
So all this Cupertinian non-repairability nonsense just doesn't work in the English legal system. They'll be the ones footing the bill if people pursue their legal rights.
Alternatively, ensure you pay for it on a credit card because the CC provider has joint liability with Apple.
Looks great but I'm not sure there's any way of not routing UK mobile calls other than through their service which offers them for 5p per min, plus 1pm connection charge, which is admittedly much better than most UK payg, but much worse than UK pay monthly. Would be interested if they or anyone else knows whether using one's ordinary provider is permissible while retaining Bibitel for other calls. Plus whether there is any UK calling-landline option and tariff.
Re: No great loss
Of course I am being a bit reckless here in not warning you that the judge will decide what happened on a balance of probabilities, i.e. what was likely to have been true. So if there is any reason why he might think you used the thing as a football, you might not have any luck.
A claim would be on the basis that the item failed to fulfil minimum standards of reasonable durability. By swearing in court that the thing was treated with care, you've probably travelled most of the route of establishing that.
Re: No great loss
Lloyd, disputes over distance consumer sales within the EU are always triable in the courts of the country in which the consumer made the purchase. You're also covered by s75 of the Consumer Credit Act: if you paid by credit card and it was more than £100, your card provider would be jointly liable for the whole purchase price less a pro-rata deduction for use of the item based on fair expected lifetime (which is anything up to six years depending on the price paid). You may have a retrospective claim against your credit card provider - often they just cough up straight away over the phone. Alternatively, principles of European consumer law are virtually identical between major western European countries, both have to follow, e.g. the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, and a minimum period of two years of 'conformity to contract', i.e suitability, and often durability etc are required of consumer goods across the EU.
In reality, under accepted international norms of contract law, you were owed a warranty AND the ordinary protections of the consumer law of France and the EU (as well as the s75 protections mentioned above): indeed this is precisely what you paid for, and weren't granted. These are very simple facts you can bring to a small claims court in the UK for a fee of £20. Bring the whole story. Provide the evidence you already have, and no more. And I do believe the judge will poo all over Pixmania and grant your claim against them, which you can then have fun enforcing, either through a bailiff or other means. That's if ringing your credit card provider and telling them what happened, won't work.
All of this assumes you didn't drop/abuse the camera, of course.
Re: "Ann Frank's drum kit"
In addition to all the criticism levelled at you thus far, with which I thoroughly agree, I must point out that your statement
"Its a pet hate with me when people go off at half-educated-cock to protect one group of persecuted people yet usually are the same people who'll happily put the bums rush up the gypsies."
seeks to impute to the earlier commenter, hypocrisy which you have no evidence he/she possesses, based on your imagining he is probably intolerant of Roma. I wouldn't dignify such a risible assertion with even the designation of "fallacy". Being even half-educated might have prevented you from making it: alas...
Re: Trolls @ Joe Montana
"Yes competition is good, but given how much microsoft have done to stifle competition in other markets there are many of us who want to avoid them ever getting any form of traction in other markets out of fear of the same things happening again."
Do you think firms engage in competition out of charitable goodwill to mankind? No! You as a commercial market actor engage in only as much competition as you must. If you could charge £10 million per year as your salary, you would. As it happens you're obliged to compete with other people presumably offering much less to provide what you do.
The only reason you're not complaining about Apple is they're a luxury goods maker. Customers of luxury goods makers queue up to be ripped off, that's the whole point. So nobody is accusing Apple of anticompetitive behaviour because they're simply not involved in markets for essential products. Their products are unless you're a graphic designer completely superfluous.
Re: Nokia becoming more like M$oft alredy
I'm not so sure.
You say "M$oft" but a lot of people aren't so... adolescent about things like $s. Don't you need $s? Or £s or something? Doesn't Apple need $s? We can't all be Linus Torwhatever he's called.
In reality Nokia could have gone to the wall and sacked all its staff. As it happens it's been bought by a company which has taken over its debts. Good news for people who like great Finnish tech.
Re: Game over already
I've seen a review comparing both and on detail the Nokia blows the Xperia Z1 out of the water.
Does anyone know
whether it's possible to hack these things so they run Windows, and properly?
I need a lightweight Haswell Windows machine for university as only that will run the voice activated software I require in order to type more than a paragraph or two. Unfortunately the main lightweight Haswell machines thus far are nearly a grand a pop.
@ David W Re: Can I just say
To my mind half the point of paying big money for a luxury good is to emphasise one's identity. At my law school, the lecture theatre is a sea of Macbook Airs, with some Pros chucked in. I know they're good hardware. But when *almost everybody* buys into the "I've bought an expensive creative tool and I'm therefore more unique and individual" then that almost everybody has actually divested him/herself, in equal measure, of the very individuality whose increase was sought. That's a fashion thing.
Incidentally OSX doesn't run the Dragon Naturallyspeaking software I need in order to function as an ordinary human being (massive RSI) and I returned my iPad because Apple wouldn't allow Swype install, making the tablet unusable for me. So a disutility for the disabled user on the one hand and a contempt for him on the other.
Aesthetics and utility are not coterminous, contrary to dogma doing the rounds.
Re: Can I just say @Tapeador
I suppose OSX interfaces might not be intrinsically hateworth, but iTunes and iOS most certainly is: replacing perfectly good text menus within apps with hip icons which obscure rather than reveal; I can think of little more inane and infuriating.
Can I just say
I use the "Windows 95" interface option in Windows 7's settings. As far as I am concerned Apple can fuck off and die. Obviously as far as everyone else is concerned Apple is the new Jehovah. But I can't think of a better reason to despise it.
Re: A finger of fudge
You got there before me! I suppose the next question is how many fingers a year are lost this way. Come to think of it t the violent killing of the owner might precede digitectomy in a number of cases....
Save even more and get a petrol car and drive it gently. 1.4 VWs seem to get that at the mo. Or just get a small-engined diesel. My 1.4hdi Peugeot will get 80mpg on a run at lorry speeds.
Re: Sony... Oh well.
Unfortunately with Sony's involvement you know that the format...
- will be priced absurdly high.
Who's pointing a gun to your head to buy it? Tell you what - when you're ready and overjoyed at working for $3 a day, then you can argue always-low prices for discretionary purchases have some positive moral content
- will be smothered with poorly implemented DRM.
Right, because who needs property rights? By the way, I'm confiscating your house. Freedom of the bricks-and-mortar superhighway, see? Enjoy.
- will arrive at least 2 years late.
Hey I thought you didn't want it anyway?
- will, 'for your protection and enjoyment', require the installation if a root kit (a 'rights management driver') if you want to play the disc on a PC.
- will have absurd amounts of non-skipable adverts, dire warnings about piracy killing kittens etc...
Because piracy only kills kittens, it has nothing to do with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs and careers in the arts, industries even, being destroyed.
Who cares what a cretin like you thinks anyway?
- Analysis Oh no, Joe: WinPhone users already griping over 8.1 mega-update
- Leaked pics show EMBIGGENED iPhone 6 screen
- Opportunity selfie: Martian winds have given the spunky ol' rover a spring cleaning
- OK, we get the message, Microsoft: Windows Defender splats 1000s of WinXP, Server 2k3 PCs
- Episode 4 BOFH: Oh DO tell us what you think. *CLICK*