Watch 'Failsafe' too (Clooney, Keitel, et al) ;o)
2850 posts • joined 16 Jul 2007
Watch 'Failsafe' too (Clooney, Keitel, et al) ;o)
Yep, the US is entirely dependant on cash, non-US cash. Make a conscious effort to buy non-US goods and those that you do, buy secondhand to deny first sale profit.
If everyone did that for just one month...
On that note, if anyone knows a good UK-based alternative to the Irish Amazon EC2 I'm using (price comparable, too) then let me know (yeah cloud-sourcing such info is lazy, I know)
I know I won't have to upgrade any hardware in the next five years to play games in surround from the comfort of the sofa on the 46" TV handily fixed to the wall, so my expenses are covered and I already have the sofa and the TV which I also use for non-gaming pursuits, too.
Beats the hell out of having a PC you have to upgrade when the next killer game comes out and your GFX card can't quite do max framerate at highest resolution (and then you find you need more ram and cpu hence a new mobo) and everything has to be arranged around your computer.
But then we're a family so shutting myself away in the office to play games would be a dismal and antisocial route to entertainment on a screen 1/6th the size. Fine if you're a single bloke/gal of course, I too remember being plonked in front of the computer as a single chap in days of yore and I wouldn't go back to those days for anything. Hindsight reveals they were indeed dismal.
Surely a PC would have been cheaper if you didn't want a games console...
Which would now seem to be the new definition of institutionalised robbery.
The USA. Classy to the last.
Is it me or are we now just the fucking Israel of Europe?
The EU should kick us out or suspend our 'membership' so we can fully become the fifty-nth State of the Union.
Then hopefully everyone who wants it will be given cheap emigration to mainland Europe cos David C-for-you-know-what keeps me _just_ poor enough to not quite afford to leave this shithole.
Surely only if it can be shown you're 'without authorisation' which implies that if you have to visit the site in the first place to determine your 'authorisation' then it's like shrinkwrap terms you can't read without opening the shrinkwrap.
Thus invalid. Unless the USA says so then you can be bombed, have your presidential jet grounded, your journalista relatives detained and/or not-stongarmed by their president presumably.
I don't pledge allegiance every morning, does that mean I'm breaking some US law too or is that only the kids at school?
A fucking _enormous_ lolcats image
Meanwhile 400,000 CPU hours wasted at the NSA.
ISPs could scan their clients quite economically and notify them / de-route them until patched.
You lying piece of shit.
Fox, though, eh? Was the headline like 'Thanks to the heroic efforts of brave anti-terrorism officers...' ;o)
The man's barefaced mendacity continues to appal us all.
This probably won't be reported (with any prominence) in the US media, the speed information spreads across social networks at must really piss governments off.
I shall be adding that into rotation with Farcebook, Failbook and Farmbook.
I'm just concerned that some non-Google idiots will think it's a great idea to do with a droid and drag Android users down to the same level of lackwit banality.
(I bet they already have, haven't they...)
More like the WBC of technology - fundie radicals.
Cos if it were popular opinion and 'normal' there'd be statues of Zuckerberg, Jay-Z and Elvis (oh, hang on ) everywhere, wouldn't there.
So, it's dribbling nutbags rather than 'mainstream popularity', obviously.
YouTube.com on the desktop certainly has <!DOCTYPE html>
Of course, if MS were actually _capable_ of building a decent browser they'd already have the ability to do this almost overnight.
It's no one else's fault they can't do HTML5 properly and if Google are picking on this particular failing to give them a spot of a kicking it really only serves to highlight the desperate paucity of coding chops at the world's biggest (still true??) software company.
Someone probably wants access to some user accounts for some sourcecode most likely, to attempt to inject something unpleasant into it without being detected.
So, likely not the NSA as they'd just put in an order for the data.
If you're AC you never know if your identity has been uncovered.
Now you'll have to be frightened of anyone with beards and/or sandals (with socks) every single time you venture out or the doorbell rings...
Mind you. Do bridges have doorbells under them these days? Or doors?
From orbit. Natch.
To write a chrome plugin that handles en/decryption client-side as a wrapper to Google Drive
Possible, surely, unsure off the top of my head exactly what'd be needed to achieve it beyond some download hooks.
Precisely my first thought.
If Apple were to go on mastermind their specialist subject would be the Bleedin' Obvious.
It's at very least a totally obvious extension of Samsung's bonk-to-share, the trigger event of the bonk is just being used to initiate a different action.
How quaint, someone who trusts HMG to provide all the information in an honest & open manner.
Not to disparage your good intentions, commiseration Friday pint!
@Dazed n confused
An excellent point :o) maybe it's actually the lawyers running apple and everyone else has yet to notice !
Of course it could be some elaborate tax-fiddle to move the money from apple's bank account to the lawyers' - has anyone checked who owns the lawyers (or are they all in-house?)
Well, yes, you idiots. It's a punishment so of course it is 'punitive'.
Now we'll see whether humility (they settle) trumps hubris (they bloody mindedly go all the way to trial).
Of course, this _is_ Apple we're talking about, I expect hubris to rule the day.
If the gov't can't control it then _you_ can't have it.
Especially when it comes to the movement of money.
Cook's in the corner with his head (still) up his arse.
Nope. It's capitalism.
Though the differences are largely subtle and semantic, agreed.
If you know that your buying of stock will inflate its price because people think you're 'a bit special' (and Icahn certainly fits into that category though perhaps not the one he intended), then isn't that insider trading?
+4.8% on 1BN overnight (pretty much) is a good enough close in of itself, too.
Like 15 quid?
Cos you'd be pissed off if I went into a store with your phone I'd nicked and bought a 50" LED TV and slipped the checkout person 50 quid saying 'Have a drink on me. This is me *wink*'
To have him replace the farcical HS2 train project.
Coincidence is a strange thing isn't it. I was just suggesting to someone yesterday that they could use stock exchange or forex values as a crypt seed or something bizarre like the humidity in Bolivia.
What could possibly go wrong.
Because Microsoft made them pay for it from the start. Including stuff like Netflix and Lovefilm where they get the privilege of paying _again_ for stuff they already paid for elsewhere.
The more sensible question should is 'Why should XBOX players have to pay for stuff other console gamers get for free, especially if they already paid the provider for that feature/service elsewhere'.
Is that actually the Playstation Plus sub? They've just rolled online MP requirement into that?
Disingenuous is the word for sure. Mostly, though, because although online gaming may now have been made pay-to-play on PS4, like XBOX360 has always been and XBOX One will continue to be, the writer failed to mention it was PS+ and that PS+ itself is pretty damned good value.
I must have had over £200 of top notch commercial games from the last year of PS+, including stuff like Battlefield3, The Cave, LBP Karting and some others I already had like Infamous, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed and so on.
So, rolling online MP into PS+ as a requirement is a bit of a blow to folks enjoying free MP on the PS3 admittedly, but I doubt everything else they discover comes with PS+ will keep them frowning for long.
Of course if it isn't part of PS+ (can't see it being a separate paid-for thing) then that's different.
There's a word in business and it makes all the difference to getting a kicking in court like this did and not getting such.
The word is 'honest' as in 'doing honest business'.
Mind you as with many things these days (peace, democracy, freedom, privacy, etc) the word 'honest' means what you want it to if you're in a position to try to redefine it.
No-one's stopping Apple selling anything at whatever price they like. At least, they _weren't_, anyway.
If there'd been no collusion this wouldn't have happened. The penalty for Apple is not because it sold books how it fancied, but because it was shown to have _colluded_ to seriously harm a competitor, regardless of the size of that competitor.
That is why they got their arse kicked, not for trying to run an honest business as they deemed fit.
innovative thinking around new use cases that can drive sales, collect data for analytics, manage inventory better and lower costs
B I N G O ! ! ! !
Lol. Apple Cultist strikes again
Always too ashamed or afeared to be known.
In the same sense as there's gear sensitive enough to detect a piano dropped from the fourth floor 30 miles away.
We can detect the light from suns a billion light years away but you'd never expect to get a tan from them.
You, Sir, are a miracle of nature.
Have a pint!
Because you'll not be able to get insured without some form of certification pretty soon if this all goes through.
Watch which firms are being invested in or bought by large insurance co's or (already owned by) their backers.
So can Sex, Gems, Food, Holidays, and just about anything else you can think of.
Perhaps the test should be 'Can you go shopping in Tesco and expect to pay with Bitcoin, Gems, Food, Holidays or errr.. Sex?'
If not, then it's not money, it's a token or barter value.
Except most contracts are 24 months in the UK, at least, these days