That "google" is itself a misspelt word (was meant to be "googol" as I'm sure most of us know), and has been chosen by the Americans as 'Word of the Decade' is a source of mild amusement to me.

perhaps like this?

To: majordomo@google.com

subscribe PubSubHubbub

subscribe other-great-ideas-brought-to-you-by-google

subscribe 80's-technology

end

Wow, I think google have just invented the mailing list.

"... Sutherland Institute was founded in 1995 by Gaylord ...."

Bwahahahaha! hahahahahaha!

- http://sutherlandinstitute.org/sitePages/?section=aboutus&page=whoweare

Reminds me of a lecturer from my days at Bradford Uni, who used to have us sniggering occasionally. Dr Lu Ming Lai, occasionally referred to as Dr Potential Shag.

Absolutely agree with that one mate - It utterly baffles me that people put 5+ MP cameras in phones, and boast about some bloke who designed their lens (yeah, whatever - I don't care if Ronald McDonald designed the lens, as long as the pictures are ok!), and then some shitty flash which means photos taken in low light conditions are blurry and dark - often, indoor photos will have a very yellow tint too!

Dear Nokia - The Xenon flash was the killer app on the N82, without which I would not have upgraded. I read this article and was considering upgrading to the N85 (especially because of the FM transmitter, which I've been trying to buy separately for my N82), but the lack of xenon flash means I will not buy it. You fail!

Oh, and one more thing - please, for the love of god remove the sucky media/gallery/whatever it is called button - it makes me want to throw my phone at the wall/out the window/at the nearest Nokia designer/etc... on an almost daily basis, when it activates, despite my not intending it to!

(Thumbs down for the phone, not the article!)

The reason people people hate "2.0" is because it was invented by neolot^H^H^H^H^H^Hblaggers who were trying to be clever. I believe it is trying to suggest that the 'net has been re-invented in a second generation, which is total crap. The 'net has been evoloving steadily over more than 40 years, and there's been no single change that could suggest that it has been completely re-invented.

There are people who suggest that "2.0" refers to a web where content is "user generated" (and that *that* is the revolutionary change worthy of a new major revision number) which again, is total crap. Although prior to "2.0" and the popularity of 'blogs' and 'social networking' there was a period where the 'net was to some extent dominated by corporate content, before that, it was always generated by the people who use it

Even prior to the web, there was USENET, which was populated by "user generated content," which like todays so called "blogs" and forums was largely comprised of people talking shit, interspersed with the occasional gem of wisdom. The only two things that have changed on the 'net in the last 25 years are that there are more people using it, and that the UI has become easier to use - the latter largely accounts for the former - (okay, so maybe there's some more bandwidth too). The underlying use of the 'net hasn't really changed.

A much more accurate, although still nonsensical, term would be 1.297.43.8739 (I don't care if that number's wrong, I made it up)

There is nothing "Accurate" or "Properly used" about "2.0"

Of the other words on your list:-

Fail is not really a *net* neologism and can be used in a completely technology free context. It's just a harmless insult - fine.

Interweb is a form of mocking/parodying the less technically knowledgable, who originally misused the phrase accidentally rather than deliberately - fine.

pwn is, again, used to mock the original typo - fine.

Edutainment and Mashup are not really net related, but they are doubtless the result of idiots trying to be clever, so probably do deserve their place in the list.

LOL, ROFL, and OMFG are hardly neologisms - most of them have been in use for 20+ years - as long as they are used strictly for typing efficiency or where data fields are limited in size, they are completely out of place in this vote.

What I really have a problem with is people (mostly lesser educated hacks than your good selves, and marketing people) who make up words (or copy made-up words) that at least try to sound 'cool' or clever to try and impress people - i.e. blaggers. But the bottom line is that new words/phrases are useful, when meaningfully constructed; memory-stick (a stick with memory in it), electronic-mail (mail sent electronically), filesharing (sharing files), lap-top computer (a computer that sits on top of your lap*) are all words/phrases which bear some relation to the meaning. OTOH the word "podcast" bears no relation to its meaning "digital audio clip/stream" which is why it's creators should probably be made to suffer.^

* unlike notebook or netbook, neither of which, to the best of my knowledge, are books.

^ along with all the other neolotards (Sorry, I claim parody on that one! Readers: please never type/utter that word again - I mean it!).

No, you only need a licence if you *actually receive* broadcasts. You absolutely do NOT need a licence to operate equipment which is merely capable of doing so.

For example, you do not need a TV licence to operate a VCR, or the TV it is attached to as a player only - e.g. for rented videos - even if both are capable receiving TV broadcasts.

Similarly, if you use a device which is capable of receiving broadcasts, but in fact is only used for downloading information from the internet (excluding simultaneous broadcasts), you won't need a licence

See here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

"You need a TV licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top box, video or DVD recorder, computer or mobile phone to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV."

Notice the prase is "to watch or record" not "which is capable of watching or recording"

...unless/until they change the law

@AC1 - I'm not sure about the on demand stuff you're talking about, but any on demand stuff which works by using 10 different channels, all running the same programme, offset from each other by say 15 min, would probably still be considered broadcast - but then, they're not true on demand stuff.

Let's see:- http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/street%20value

street value

The street value of a drug is the price that is paid for it when it is sold illegally to drug users.

(Replace "drug" with "pirated disc" in the above definition. Note that it is the price that *is* paid, not *would be* paid)

Or maybe:- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/street+value

Main Entry: street value

Part of Speech: n

Definition: the price of a commodity if sold illicitly, esp. drugs

If you haven't yet died of bordom, try some of these:-

http://www.google.com/search?q="street+value"+definition

I'm more conderned that she was "evacuating in the face of Hurricane Rita" Does this simply involve going out into the wind, dropping her pants and letting it all go, or is some sort of contraption required to properly target the face?

And another thing, I know hurricanes have eyes but do they have entire faces?

Reporter is a fucking idiot!

As he/she/it states The Protection of Children Act 1978 bans indecent images of children. As we can all see with our own eyes (well, depending on our ISP), the blocked image can in no way be considered indecent (Reminder: nudity != porn - yes *even* children).

And frankly, this is the real problem here. If said image was actually and example of kiddie porn, I'd have no problem with it being blocked. The problem is that the IWF, as demonstrated by this incident, is apparently now a fully signed up member of the media fueled overreaction is more important than using our common sense brigade.

Is anybody forgetting that most (all?) consumer Internet access have monthly download limits? And at 10 or 50 Gb depending on which of the above you believe, that's going to trip the limit at anything between less than one, and four or five downloads.

.... about this nonsense, when I actually read more of the article. Specifically "This capability, as is so often the case, has been available to users of other smartphones for years." You clearly know that this is not news.

Why are you wasting our time with this nonsense! In what way is this especially newsworthy? Why do I only get to select 1 icon for this comment, when at least 5 of them are applicable!

Why am I wasting my breath posting this comment? Is my work really so depressing that I have to resort to such displacement activities to get out of it? Why have I only just realised how stupid and irrelevant the phrase "wasting my breath" is? Where is the nearest suicide booth?

"Apple's cloud vanished for another seven hours over the weekend, depriving some MobileMe users of their email and services despite status reports indicating everything was operating fine."

To be fair, Demon's pop3 server also went down for some time last night, leaving punters unable to collect mail, and it was a while before their service status was updated too. I'm by no means an Apple fanboi (quite the opposite in fact), but they're not the only ones who can be guilty of this.

Is this some sort of big surprise? I needed a spare key for my car, a good few years ago, and went down to my local Renault dealer.

In order to create the key, without taking it from me, they took a PHOTOCOPY of the key, and the serial number for the electronic / chip code.

Jake, I used to say the same thing, but then I decided to take the plunge and buy one anyway. SatNavs are fantastic, and a worthwhile buy if you do a bit of travelling, to places you have never been to before, or visit infrequently.

It takes a bit of time to properly work out a route with a map, and remebering every last turn on your route and getting it right is difficult - you can't exactly read your map/directions while you're driving, and the added advantage of satnav being able to deal with missed turns, closed roads, and the real selling point of the x40 range traffic, is sooo much more convenienet that a satnav is one of those "why oh why did i struggle to do it the hard way when I could have bought this" kind of devices.

Agree with comments about about lack of perfection, they don't completely replace your brain, but like much modern technology, they do make things quite a lot easier.

"Bye bye Reg", because they aren't available anywhere that I can see yet, and because this so called "launched" item is still not shown on TomTom's own website - no press release there either!

... that they don't get The Hamster to drive it

Right, I reckon that if I can get 500 of you, to pay me 25 quid a month (hey, inflation), I could set up a new ISP etc....

anyone with me?

... is the Motorola HS300.

Why? Because it operates not off a crappy internal rechargable battery which will have a useful life of about 2 minutes, 6 months after you buy it, but instead operates off a single AAA battery which lasts fookin ages.

"Yes it was but, of course they soon discovered the fatal flaw in that - if someone has stolen your card, they can simply read the number off the back!! DUH!"

So, some sort of Personal Identification Number number is in order then?

Srsly though, you could make a webserver secure, by not connecting it to the internet, you could prevent people dying in car crashes by banning all cars, and you could prevent credit card fraud, by not issuing credit cards.

At the end of the day, if you prevent people from using such things, or make them inconvenient to use, you defeat the object of having them. You have to draw the line somewhere, and IMHO, this sort of thing is a step too far.

At the end of the day, there will always be the kind of scum about who think it's okay for them to take other people's property, and they're really to blame. Whilst what they do is not acceptable, we have to accept that those people exist. As much as it is important to make it difficult or impossible for them to commit their crimes, it is as important to catch the bastards and lock them up (I know, I know, it's not an ideal world and we all have to lock our doors, but like I said above, you have to draw the line somewhere)

A stick.

Paint its feet yellow and turn it updside down.

No, I'm not gonna argue, there are clearly times when Chris Moyles can be a bit of a twat - (not often IMHO) but sometimes it's as much fun to laugh *at* him or just disagree with him. You don't believe that The Office+ is popular for David Brent's insight, intellectual wit, and gems of wisdom do you?

+ Actually, there's something which I really do fucking hate, but I don't go around bitching about it, I just don't watch it - easy!

Those of you who don't like Chris Moyles, can sod off and listen to Wogan or Vaughn, or something else or nothing. There are 7.7 million of us who think he's ok or better, and are fed up of pillocks like you who have nothing better to do than whinge about something you can easily avoid.

Why don't Ofcom simply ban text messages which do not have a valid/real sender number? Do that, and the offenders can be traced, and stopped. Simple, methinks!

Why the hell do you keep saying 'heck' ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7362480.stm

...from a Reg hack.

Any chance you could force Orlowski to read your article?

a beowulf cluster of these things coul.....oh, wait, wrong forum. Sorry!