Re: Wordpress is NOT a CMS
It's a system used to manage website content, including - but definitely not limited to - blogs. That makes it a CMS in my book.
194 posts • joined 18 Oct 2007
"Another oddity: Squarespace and Wix, both of which advertise heavily to small business, have 0.9 and 0.5 per cent share among CMS-users respectively."
Not that odd. If you're a non-techie plumber looking to set up a simple website for your business, Wix is probably a reasonable solution (never used it myself, so can't say). But that website is unlikely to make the top 10 million sites on the web, so won't be counted in the survey.
Obama, Hillary, and the DNC would like to see him locked up and forgotten
If that's what they want, they've succeeded pretty well: Assange locked up for six years in the Ecuadorean embassy and largely forgotten by the world outside, and all without any expense to the US taxpayer.
So the BBC are looking to replace three presenters on a much-loved show. One older one and two younger ones. The show's mostly about larking about and innuendo between the presenters, rather than being a serious treatment of the subject of the show.
Mary Berry, Mel and Sue will soon be available...
There's a marvellous new invention I've heard of called a "pocket." Maybe you could get into the habit of keeping a bag in one?
Paper bags - surprisingly - have a worse environmental impact than plastic: they take more energy, and cause more pollution, to make; and they don't actually biodegrade much faster than plastic. Source: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/paper-plastic1.htm
That's why it's best to have plastic bags which you re-use.
> Difficulties with Prince aside, there’s little doubt that agile is going to be the way forward.
Speaking as one of those 50+ dinosaurs (though I've not touched COBOL for twenty years), I can tell you that agile will be identified as "the way forward" for couple of years, and then be replaced by some other half-arsed methodology invented by MBA-toting idiots and imposed by people who don't really understand it on the poor sods who actually have to do the work.
The fact is that there's no magic universal approach that works in all situations, you have to blend different approaches to suit your own particular case. Sometimes that might be pure waterfall, somtimes agile, most of the time somewhere in the middle.
Accoding to Polydore Vergil
[Edward III] appoynted his souldiers to wear white Coats or Jackets, with a red Crosse before and behind over their Armoure, that it was not onely a comely, but a stately sight to behold the English Battles, like the rising Sunne, to glitter farre off in that pure hew; when the souldiers of other nations in their baser weedes would not be discerned.
So the whole St George cross thing has nothing to do with crusaders (kicking the crap out of the muslims, and then having the crap kicked out of them a few decades later), and more to do with the 100 years war (kicking the crap out of the French, and then having the crap kicked out of them a few decades later).
"Statistically just one airplane will be damaged every 1.87 million years, says study"
No it doesn't, it says that one will be damaged for every 1.87 million years of drone flight time. Since there are (apparently) a million drones in the US, let's suppose they are actually airborne for a couple of hours a week on average - about 1% of the year - you're looking at a collision every 187 years or so. Still a pretty low risk, but not the one-in-two-million shot that you suggest.
"Google can provide their own maps (and other embellishments), but they need to provide the means so that if I want to use Bing, Streetmap, Apple etc. for my geographic search results I can."
You can now. By *going* to Bing, Streetmap, Apple etc. Nobody's stopping you, least of all Google.
I'm searching for a physical location - a local coffee shop - on Google.
Google provide me with their address (physical and/or website) but also - evilly - the put up a map with the location of the place highlighted. And no ordinary map, but one which they built and funded themselves (the bastards). That might appear pretty useful to me, the seeker of coffee shops, but actually it isn't because... reasons.
So, if they see the light, what should Google be doing instead? Not including a map, but putting in a link to Streetmap instead? That doesn't sound very competitive-market-friendly. How about a huge block of links, in random order, to all possible providers of maps in that part of the world? It would be no use to Google's users, but it would keep their competitors happy.
I have no doubt that Google do all manner of unspeakable things, and I'm glad people are calling them out on them, but it's not enough to say "this is wrong", you have to add "this would be better". And it has to actually *be* better too.
I've always assumed that my ISP has a complete record of every page I visit
Really? Why would you assume that? Could you be falling for the line that "internet connection records" are just the modern equivalent of phone bills?
The phone company have always had to keep records of who we called, and when, and for how long - because that's (usually) the basis of how they bill us. Those records have also proved pretty useful to Mr Plod over the years, so there are well established mechanisms of gaining access to them.
Your ISP has no particular reason to care which pages you visit. They probably keep some record of your bandwidth usage, but browsing history or "connection records" are of no relevance to them - you pay the same whatever sites you visit. Indeed - it seems to me - that creation and retention of such records would be in breach of the Data Protection Act as being excessive.
Looking through that Independent article, there seem to be quite a mixed bag of scams going on.
At least some of them appeared to be of the form "victim approached by somebody claiming to be from Wikipedia, paid them to get an article added/edited, and didn't get what they paid for." It's hard to see what Wikipedia could do about that scam, unless Andrew's suggesting that they be granted the right to vet every email sent in the world to check it doesn't make such false claims.
Wikipedia is big, it's high profile, and it's going to attract a lot of scumbags trying to make money off it. I don't see how changing the anonymity rules is going to change that. Any "wedding photographer in Dorset" who knows enough about wikipedia to identify an editor from their putative non-anonymous id should know enough to know that a page about a wedding photographer in Dorset is likely to be rejected for lack of notability - it's an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages.
PS. Since we're in the territory of "oh noes! wikipedia publishes untrue and unproven things about people," how about a credible source for "one Wikipedian who reported another Wikipedian to the police for serious sexual charges found herself vilified by members of the community”? I'm not saying it isn't true but, well, .
Most of the people searching this database will be schoolkids checking out their peers' parents.
School bullies clearly have a significantly greater work ethic these days (not to mention a much improved grasp of technology). In my day they just singled out a kid with the wrong hair colour/physique/aptitude for sport/accent/whatever else they chose to pick on, instead of trawling through a 9.6GB database to find potential victims.
Quote from original article:
"The new Apple encryption would not have prevented the N.S.A.’s mass collection of phone-call data or the interception of telecommunications, as revealed by Mr. Snowden. There is no evidence that it would address institutional data breaches or the use of malware."
So what are you complaining about, Mr Vance et al? If encryption doesn't stop the NSA snooping on our data, it won't stop law enforcement bodies doing so either. Sounds like phones aren't encrypted *enough*!
What law do ICANN think Vox Populi are breaking? From what I can see, they're just charging a vastly inflated price for the goods they are selling (in order to recoup the large sum demanded by ICANN in the first place, one might add).
If that's against the law, then there are other companies that should be a long way ahead of them in the queue to the courthouse. Starting with one from Cupertino.
> One copper told me years ago the reason they had not implemented a computerized system was because paper is tangible - it's simply harder to lose a piece of paper
His experience of the losability of pieces of paper is different to mine.
Even if you agree that paper is harder to lose, it's also harder to find. If you're trying to find out about a particular firearm, it's not a lot of use to know that the information you seek is on an unlosable piece of paper in one of 50 filing cabinets spread across the country.
We seem to have learned to store quite a lot of important information on these new-fangled computers over the last half-century, without the needing the backup of "paper forms." Why should firearms licences be any different?
I'll apologise to Mr Asshat when you've finished apologising to the whole population for describing them as the "unwashed masses."
And I'd be happy to call him a wanker to his face, were he not skulking in an embassy at considerable expense to the taxpayers of the UK and of Ecuador. Maybe, when he gets out, he could get a gig presenting this show:
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019