I assume if this is successful we can see far more use of the words, 'pert', 'leggy', 'bosom', 'full bosom' and various other terms to describe the physical form of the fairer sex used by the Mail to crop up in search results?
Right now MailOnline parent the Daily Mail Group is worth at most £2.5bn, and the few content assets that Yahoo! is supposed to be selling, are already worth way more than that. But the issues go deeper. DMG – parent both of the Daily Mail print newspaper and the massively successful online site Mail Online – has no magic …
It would be a shame if the Mail got into fiscal difficulties as a result of this.
Funny if all those 'journalists' ended up living in cardboard boxes at Kings Cross.
Hopefully their UBS payments will terminated so they will be reduced to vermin.
I don't mind the Tories slashing their benefits
I'm certain many readers share my views.
I for one have not forgotten all the virulently anti semitic headlines they published in the 1930's when they tacitly supported the British Union of Fascists.
They never apologized for that.
Nice people though
My god, you can remember the original 1930s headlines? You must be the oldest ever commentard on the Reg – by my maths you must be pushing 90 years old!
Just one thing: can you also remember the Daily Mirror headlines of the mid-30s? In particular, this one titled "Give the blackshirts a helping hand" http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rc6PP2pjDqk/UokG8RevfYI/AAAAAAAALqU/Ti_gw9lHa8Y/s1600/daily+mirror+blackshirts+1.jpg
"But it still doesn't change what the Mail published, does it?"
You rather miss the point - You're basically punishing them for the sins of past generations of editors and journalists based on your present day political bias.
Remember also that many media outlets were rather keen on Stalin's Russia in the mid 40's when they were doing a fine impression of a steamroller over the remnants of the Nazi hordes - do we accuse them of being Reds-under-the bed too?
Hmmm well I have to say I don't always agree with Guardian articles.
I find this article more pertinent, especially the reference to Rothermere encouraging Hitler to slaughter Romania. Worth noting Rothermere owned the Mirror at the time....
Never mind the Mail & the Mirror supporting the Blackshirts. More to the point what about our wonderful grasping treacherous royals? one of whom with his American tart was a great friend of Adolf Hitler. When he abdicated, Churchill saved his rotten hide by shipping him out of the UK as Governor General of the Bahamas, no doubt to save him being strung up from the nearest lampost by the people who would have been enraged by this Nazi loving moron.
Welcome to the cloud, where you get little or no control of what happens to your data!
It can happen to any hosted service, either the hosting company screws up and deletes your stuff, or the service decided to close because they are bored or losing money. In short, if the ownership or future availability really matters to you then you set up your own (hosted if your ISP can't offer the bandwidth you need at a price you can afford), and keep your own mirror/backup in any case.
I totally agree, Paul.
It's the social media aspect that keeps me on Flickr - I have loads of views and comments on my pics, and that kind of stuff is hard to capture on a self-hosted solution as you don't get the same kind of traction. Obviously I have all my photos backed up, but you can't backup views, comments and social engagement.
We had this debate when The Reg reported that Flickr deleted some chap's account and people were quck to ask why he didn't have backups. He did have backups, of his photos. But that was not what he had lost. It would be like eBay deleting your account and you losing all your seller history and feedback rating - it's not something you can back up, nor something you can self-host necessarily.
As you say, though, you are at the mercy of the provider for stuff like this sadly.
"But that was not what he had lost. It would be like eBay deleting your account and you losing all your seller history and feedback rating - it's not something you can back up, nor something you can self-host necessarily."
I see an opportunity for the web equivalent of the credit reference agencies...
I'm always amused by the Anti Daily Mail rhetoric that any article that mentions them is strewn with. Based upon the opprobrium absolutely no one in the entire country admits to reading it or looking at its website and yet, it has 2nd highest circulation and its website is frequently cited among the top performers in the world. Someone must be reading it.....
I think all you naysayers don't realize just how bad Yahoo! has become. A high percentage of the "news" items on the page are now "sponsored", in other words clickbait advertising, and lot of the rest are just garbage. Near the top currently are two Brit. items torn from the Daily Mail but categorized as "U.S." news. One is about flytipping (we Americans are only familiar with cow tipping) and the other about girls school uniforms (ain't got many of those either). Yahoo! is already crap, but I guess at least we could maybe look forward to crap with better pictures if they join with the DM - but no pimple popping videos please.
Funny really, I just have a look to see what is happening.
Mail is not that bad really, you can access it unlike some of News International sites.
I ignore the gutter press (eg Sun).
Mail and Express are pretty similar and to be honest a bit funny, you cannot take them serilously.
Independant is turning into Metro, which is not as good as it was for one section Games Central.
Guardian is a bit up its own bum but OK. Telegraph is OK.
However BBC is one of the better UK news outlets.
But all news outlets do seem to be getting worse than they were.
"Mail and Express are pretty similar and to be honest a bit funny, you cannot take them serilously."
People do take them seriously.
Now, how's would The 'Mail's purchase of Yahoo! affect house prices and mortgage rates?
And will it cure cancer or give everyone cancer?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019