Don't diss Colbert
He's a jewel in the shite of American political commentary. And that's truthy.
329 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Jul 2007
</rimshot>??
Ignoring the fact that that brings something of a pornographic nature to my mind's eye, I can't believe that a poster to El Reg would make such a shocking XML error. You have typed a closing delimiter to the element <rimshot> there. But there was no opening delimiter! How do you expect us to parse this!!?? I can only hope that you meant to type <rimshot />, making it an empty element and allowing this tag to stand alone.
Semantic web my arse.
I very much doubt it. First of all, there are lots and lots of data losses we don't know about, either because they have been covered up or, more likely, no-one knows they happened.
Second, we do know that CardSystems lost 40 million Visa and AmEx records to a malicious hack in 2005; US Dept. of Veterans' Affairs lost 28 million records through incompetence in 2006; and TK(J)Maxx was soft-hacked to reveal 45 million credit card account details and personal data on a further 47 million people totalling 94 million people's data exposed between 2005 and 2007.
So, not to diminish the idiocy of our home-grown buffoons, I would point out that as with most things, the US has done it bigger and better already...
Usually companies in Renault's position prefer to hide these sorts of cases because they expose their profit margins. In this instance they appear to be quite substantial.
I wonder if anyone is able to supply the little tidbit missing from this write-up - how much did BALPA/FleetPro pay Renault for the affinity scheme?
Ah yes, the simplification of life that will come with a single, impregnable ID. Easy proof of ID for everything. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Well, you might want to ask a security expert. Try and find one that isn't hooked into the gravy train of ID database development. She or he might tell you that multiple ID sources for different purposes is inherently more secure than a single ID used for multiple purposes. One can fail, and the rest remain secure. In your brave new world, there is only one point of failure for your entire life to be screwed.
...one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.
I completely understand the sentiment behind the "so what?" response, because singling out any death of this nature for special consideration is logically unjustifiable.
Once you recognise the fact that this is only a story because of its "evil internet" slant, the pleas for compassion and humanity are exposed as nothing more than self-serving platitudes. It does nobody any good to post crap about "caring" on The Register comments section. It makes you feel better. That's all.
HSBC had sold these customers their accounts on the basis that they would get free overdrafts for a period after graduation. They then reneged on this promise by announcing that they would be charging for the overdraft facilities instead. So this isn't just a bunch of students expecting something for nothing - it's a bunch of consumers exerting their rights. Good on 'em.
Mr Idzikowski should not be using words like "trend" when he is making a singular observation. Unless he has evidence from comparable studies done previously, the limit of his comment should be "I have observed this behaviour today".
Hmm. Is the Luddite Army funding junk science now?
James, do yourself a favour mate and take several steps back.
First of all, you totally over-egg your pudding; if you had a valid point, you have buried it in so much rhetoric and anger that it has been completely lost.
Second, you appear to view the status quo of the entertainment industry as a permanent fixture, when in fact the studio/distributor/punter system is not designed to protect your livelihood, nor to develop great art, but simply to make more money for the big guys at the expense of whoever is stupid enough to contribute. If there is a problem with it, it needs to change.
Third, you simply cannot equate the participation of an internet user in downloading copyright material with real world theft - it is a completely different act, with completely different motivations and effects. If something is stolen in the real world, it has gone and the owner has lost it. Downloading copyright material does not remove that material. People like you end up counting the amount of money which the downloader might have paid had he decided to buy the item, and then blithely stating that that is what was stolen. It is, frankly, a ridiculous and unsupportable position to adopt.
If you want to convince people that there is a problem with what is happening, give up the ranting and the ridiculous comparisons. They don't help you one bit.
What a fantastically ridiculous line. If you want a wordprocessor based on the TeX engine there are several to choose from. "The open source people" did it years ago.
As for Oo.o being behind MS Office in features, I would call that a design decision. What features of MS Office that aren't in Oo.o do you genuinely use?
I remember when we used MS servers that quite regularly a patch would change a whole set of directory and file permissions for no reason whatsoever. I'm not entirely surprised that it's still happening.
But I would have thought that anyone who was serious about security wouldn't even think about serving data from a Windows box when free unix is out there. I mean, why would you try to convert an outside crapper into a secure home when they are giving away whole houses over the road?
Why do you think implementing DRM on Linux would be "pretty easily subvertible"?
Lazy DRM would be more easily broken on Linux, certainly, but there's no reason why the sorts of security systems that are already available on Linux couldn't be used to provide DRM.
The problem isn't implementation. The problem is that the content owners usually have no push to use something that would be robust in an open source environment. Well now the BBC, as a content owner, might just have that push.