4077 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
... instead of splurging a boat-load of tax-payers' money on something which is liable to turn into another IT vanity project catastrophe, we deal with those who have committed actual crimes faster by stopping creating new laws and wasting time and money on prosecuting people for trivial "offences"?
42 16 12 3
Re: Definitely misleading
@Ian Michael Gumby
So what you mean is that my mouse which cost £3.99 is actually a lot more expensive because it has to be tied into my computer which cost me £300 to build...
Just as clever headlines [...] and other journalistic tricks
Phew! It's a good job El Reg doesn't use that sort of thing...
That joke is older than 6000 years...
Eee, that's reet grand!
Surely there's prior art...
... with the Jesus Phone...
...that some countries aren't willing to have the USA dictate laws to them.
Re: Ministry of Administrative Affairs, anyone
Jim Hacker: "We’ll have to do a time and motion study to see who we can get rid of."
Sir Humphrey: "We did one of those last year – it transpired we needed another five hundred people."
Re: Can see it now
... and that's a charming tattoo you have, Mrs Smith.
Oh, you don't have any tattoos... erm...
"If you have the right kind of data...
"...issues of anonymisation cease to be a problem."
In other words, "Let us snoop *everything*"
Yes, certainly, I'll co-operate...
... and since co-operation is a two-way street, I'm sure that you will allow me access to details of the Company Directors Remuneration and Bonus packages and details of any and all share options that they've been allocated...
Well at least...
... they're not talking about making adults opt-in before they're permitted to access adult content.
No, that's an entirely different repressive regime...
Re: I don't give ATOS
"those fucking annoying automated railway announcements"
I remember when those first started and you had a clearly automated announcer's voice telling you that your train was going to be delayed and then saying "I apologise for any inconvenience" which struck me as the height (or perhaps depths) of insincerity!
Great piece of music! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryrEPzsx1gQ
"The idea is straight-out stupid."
Oh, well no point in trying to develop it further, then...
Re: Right then
Ah, but you see it's *different* when it happens to someone else...!
Re: prescrption glasses
And what about those of us who have ditched glasses for contact lenses...?!
Re: prints black when colour out?
I use an Epson Photo Stylus D88 with a Chip re-setter.
I bought it because it was a cheap ink-jet and I've only ever printed in B&W on it, so every time the chip says the colour cartridges are empty, I just re-set them and get on with it. It may knacker the colour heads, but since I don't use them, I don't care.
(Oh, and buy compatible cartridges too, not the Epson ones where the ink is more expensive than vintage champagne!)
Re: Do my eyes deceive me, or...
I thought that was Elvis...
Sounds more like...
... an exercise in arse kissing to me!
... used to do a comedy routine like that!
Re: ..said to have prevented legitimate callers..
But there could have been people phoning about suspicious characters taking photographs of London landmarks or in Underground stations which obviously means they're planning a terrorist attack or maybe it was someone buying a suspiciously large number of Castor Oil beans (obviously going to make Ricin) or maybe...
... excuse me the Nurse says it's time for my medicine....
An American court says that an American company has the right to do what the American Government wants.
Wow, who'd have thunk it?!
"customers suspected of illegal file-sharing"
And that's the problem, it's not *proven* to have been engaged in illegal file-sharing, but simply *suspected* of it.
Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law", but it seems that Big Media doesn't need such stringent criteria and can just say "We think you dunnit, so we're cutting you off"!
'what it described as a "proposal"'
Are you sure it wasn't "An offer they couldn't refuse"??
Because (almost*) all the water on Earth hasn't been through a set of kidneys in the past...
*For the pedants
Re: So is the consultation over?
It was probably over before it began because it looks like they've already decided what answers they want and have "structured" the survey to generate those...
"Governments have started...
"...to put ICANN's massive top-level domain name expansion under scrutiny..."
Well, bravo, but it's a bit bloody late, isn't it? People were warning about the potential (probable) debacle this would turn into when it was first proposed, but only now the horse is well and truly over the horizon are the Governments thinking of bolting the stable door!
Re: Just the latest
Exactly, and what next? Requiring Government permission to buy my business' catalogue of bondage gear? Maybe I'll have to register with HM Inspector of Porn and get a licence?
"It would seem that...
"... the more people hear the arguments and study the policies, the less they like them."
Sure, because everyone in that survey has actually paid attention to the arguments and studied the policies and made a rational and sensible decision based on logic and facts.
Or maybe they've just seen so many "Tis!", "Tisn't!", "Tis so!" arguments (not to mention articles in various publications cherry picking data and skewing facts to fit the author's personal bias" that they really don't have a *clue* about the subject now.
So how would the robot fare against Ullr, Norse God of the Hunt and Games who always wins?
(See The Almighty Johnsons for details)
Re: One London listed business lost £800m
Perhaps we should put them on the B-Ark...
"Facebook is also attempting to retain its users on the site"
How? By pissing off a huge bunch of them so they go somewhere else?
"The vast majority...
"... more than 12,900, involved content hosted outside the UK"
Shh! Don't let Theresa May hear you saying that, she needs the "Paedos and Criminals and Terrorists Oh My" arguments to justify introducting more ridiculous laws to control the interwebs in this country...
"how many of those customers are sufficiently pissed off to move?"
I've looked at this and, because of the way I organise my finances, there's really no benefit for me to move from Nat West to any other bank as there's nothing to stop them having a similar cock-up in the future.
Ok, it was a PITA when I only had £15 in my wallet and couldn't get any more cash out, but it wasn't an absolute disaster. Yes, I could set up a second, back-up, account and leave some money in there, but it would be doing sod all (and earning sod all interest!) and it's not worth doing just in case my main bank (whichever it may be) goes tits up again.
"Everyone seems to be commenting on the intro clip...
"...and ignoring those showing the scientists, engineers, and students describing their work."
Probably because they're thinking "What a load of patronising BS" after watching the intro which makes them completely disinclined to look any further.
"ALL of copyright is a dangerous fiction. There is no proper way to square copyright with the public good in the age of computer networks. Without copyright, every one of us would essentially have access to the entirety of the world's intellectual and cultural output going back into the mists of time. Freeing this material would make the world a much, much better place"
Nonsense! Those who create works have the right to exploit those works themselves and be paid for their work and effort in developing them. Why should someone bother to create *anything* if there is no protection from them being ripped off?
We have "access to the entirety of the world's intellectual and cultural output going back into the mists of time" except that which is most recently created, the problem is the "copyright industry" which wants to control access to "life plus 75 years" which is ludicrous.
Also "patents are also a dangerous fiction" is also nonsense. However we need to fix the ridiculous situation of "software patents" or frivolous ones, especially when such patents are clearly based on prior art.
But that is not the same as getting rid of the whole system which you seem to want.
"The technology is aimed at...
"...thwarting the abuse of software bugs rather than preventing or even minimising the occurrence of vulnerabilities in the first place. "
So what they're metaphorically doing, instead of fixing the locks and the broken windows(!), is hiring more security guards to patrol the building in the hope of catching the bad guys before they do too much harm...
Re: What is
Wasn't it a rather naff film...?