I do hope the got consent from the products* for this.
*The admen are the users, the products are the people uploading pictures of their cats and "Liking" crap.
3071 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
I do hope the got consent from the products* for this.
*The admen are the users, the products are the people uploading pictures of their cats and "Liking" crap.
"For those of you who don’t know, timesharing, whose heyday was in the late 1970s, allowed companies to use large mainframe-based systems without themselves having to purchase these huge computers and hire an army of support staff."
And people claim "The Cloud" and "Saas" is all the new sexy.
If you see these people, please give them a slap from me. Thanks.
"Nope. CHannel 4 and ITV are free."
Nope. They cost you, those adverts are not free; so you pay for those with increased product prices. Also, if you watch them, you pay an opportunity cost. Let's say you watch 2 hours of 2 a day. That's about 6-7 advert breaks. We'll say 6. Average time, 3 mins so that's 18 mins of adverts a day; or jut over two hours a week. How much do you value your free time? £10/hour? So you pay £20 per week to watch Channel 4 and ITV and you pay higher product prices. Nice. You can avoid the former but not the latter; and the situation is even worse with the likes of Sky as you pay again to get the adverts!
What's this "free" you are talking about?
"It shows us exactly the same "quality" entertainment as other commercial stations, with the difference that commercial stations don't charge us for it."
Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! The reality disconnect is revealed! You do pay for commercial stations, sometimes you even pay twice.
"be incessantly anti-tory (I'm not particularly pro-tory, but I can see the unfairness in BBC "journalism" over the last 10 years.) "
When Labour were in, the Beeb was called "anti-Labour". Now a different set of Etonians are in power, they are "anti-Tory". Sounds like the Beeb is getting it just about right.
"Perhaps it could come out of Newsnight producers' salaries."
Deal, right after we make all the bankers pay for the economic collapse from their own pockets.
Public or private, scandals will be scandals. You think it was a publicly funded agency that was involved in the phone hacking? Or maybe a publicly funded church that also engaged in paedophilia?
The Beeb, for all its faults, it a good counterweight to the likes of ITV and Sky, we lose it at our peril.
Just like the NHS, for all its faults, is better than a private healthcare system (just ask the USA).
"The BBC should become commercial"
Dear god, no, No, No, No, NO!
"anti-establishment mentality, that I do not share, and I know many others who don't. So I resent paying any money to them."
Aww, diddums. Did the big nasty Auntie ask you to consider an alternate point of view? Did she? Aww, issums itsy-wisty world view and little-wittle shakey-wakey? There, there little petal.
MS product is crap. Next up, sky blue and water is wet.
"No. Consent is specific, rather than vague."
Thanks for that answer. I'm still of the opinion that these people should have seen some like this coming. They are the product, after all.
I'll answer myself. California Right of Publicity Law, but I am not sure FB broke that because it says:
"Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent"
I may be being daft here, but isn't reading and agreeing to the User Agreement prior consent?
"Legal precedent dictates that if a contractual clause is illegal, it isn't worth the paper/ screen it's written on."
I will ask again - what is illegal? What law is being broken? I simply do not get it. They have agreed to let FB do whatever it wants with what they choose to give FB. It's not like they have signed away all rights to whatever they produce to FB, just what they choose to give FB.
But we are talking about a license agreement, not theft or signing away statutory rights (I think).
If "there are laws", care to cite? My question was genuine, I don't see why these people are complaining. They (should have) read the User Agreement and they (should have) understood what they were agreeing to.
From the Facebook User Agreement, section 2, point 1:
"you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). "
Surely that means FB can do what they like with your stuff (unless you've set it to private)?
So why do these people think they are due money?
I dislike FB as much as the next thinking person (which is why I am not on it) but if people agree to terms like the above, I really don't see on what grounds they can complain.
Came here to say something similar. Just lucky (for now) I guess.
"but should consumers know that?"
Yes. Just like consumers associate certain car makers with poor build quality or reliability, consumers should associate MS with what we know them for.
The "lightweight" RT is 8GB before applications?
...their tablet OS takes 16GB?
<Examines hard drive>
My current install, including office suite, hypervisor, games, media players, logs, etc just touches 16GB.
What the bloody hell are MS putting on there?
@h4rmOny - I know perfectly well what SecureBoot is, thank. I also know the impact that MS's diktat has had, and it can be summarised as "Pay us US$99 or piss off out of the PC market". Add to that the inability to change keys on Win8 badged ARM devices and you have, IMHO, more than enough for regulators to stick the boot in.
Oh, and do lay off the straw men.
I don't like the enforced choice either, but the "No OS" option seems the least bad to me as the current situation is untenable. Also, it does not force anyone to carry a competing product.
Now, this is where someone drags out a car analogy and asks if I want or buy a car with no engine. It's not the same. I have a choice of car engines, if I buy a Ford or Mazda or Honda I will get a different engine. One simply can do this in the IT world because there is effectively only one "engine" manufacturer and actively blocks any competitors. Would we stand for this? No, of course not.
Yet, somehow, because it's in the IT world it is somehow acceptable.
Competition is good, we need this in the PC marketplace to drive innovation and investment.
"I really don't fully understand the entire preoccupation with MS bashing. There are, in fact, far more dishonest companies out there ripe for a kicking (i.e. Google/Apple)."
Neither of which are convicted monopolists (yet). Look, MS has been found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour, faces massive fines in the EU and should face sanction for their actions of SecureBoot. Period.
I'm not arguing about Google or Apple, that's a different topic, but as the industry isn't providing choice - it's time to enforce choice. I don't really like regulation, but I don't see it happening any other way.
Came here to say something similar. As it is basically impossible to buy a non-Apple PC without Windows, it is pretty easy for MS to get the figures it wants. So a few doom-and-gloom stories, then have the OEMs start to ship Win8 "OMG! LOOK! Our Win8 got n% sales. WE ARE THE AWESOME!"
What the public need is some actual competition in the PC marketplace. Come on regulators, give MS a kicking, please.
Facebook is a public forum, and this is how you should treat everything you post there. If you don't want it known to the world and total strangers - don't post it.
I know they have privacy controls, but leak still happens.
Can't tell you, it's a secret.
Not if you are correctly handling the data. And that means not writing your own code, but using the widely available libraries for escaping etc. that exist for every major language. But you are quite right, if one has hired developers who just concatenct email addresses into SQL strings, then you will suffer.
The BigYin's maxim: If you think you know how to validate an email address, then you don't know how to validate an email address.
If there is some limitation, then that needs to be clearly documented and a proper error shown, not just crap like "Your address is invalid".
For example, I've worked on projects where we can't accept a backslash ("\") amongst other things in certain situations (not going into all the ins and outs of why - legacy is a bitch) - so we displayed a message along the lines of "The characters "\, £, and /" cannot be used in an email address". Clear, simple and let's the user know enough to use a different email (or call support and have a good moan).
No to worried about downvotes to be honest (check out some of my other posts).
I just don't follow how pointing out the timeline specifically mentioned in the article can be disagreed with.
I'm confused, not upset.
Gmail (to name one) does this, I am not sure about others. It also allows you to put a random "." anywhere in the localpart. The big problem with using a "+" is that most sites reject it, when it is in fact valid.
Are you a web dev? Read this, now go and fix all your no doubt incorrect email validation. So many sites fail on the "+" it's depressing.
How the hell is that worth a downvote? It says it in the article FFS!
...if the article is anything to go by.
...so why the FOOK would I want IE10? If I had my way, I'd delete IE entirely. Oh wait, I can't.
"If somebody has a new theory (different to string theory) then the BBC should not be able to say 'doesn't agree with our stance on string theory....not going to show it"."
So they have to allow every crack-pot, moon-unit a voice? Bollocks. The Beeb should give weight to proper, peer-reviewed results/theories and that's it. Otherwise we'll be having crap like Creationism given the same air-time as evolution and that is plain wrong (creationism isn't even a theory FFS) and homoeopaths given the same credence as actual medical doctors.
I'm sorry, but no.
Trying to deny climate change is like trying to deny gravity. You can try it, but it's pretty futile.
All that really remains to be debated around climate change is the rate, exact details on the feedback mechanisms (i.e. the finer details) and what (if anything) can be done. If the BBC has to be impartail about science of this nature, does it also have to be impartial about string theory, quantum mechanics and everything else?
Oh, and I forgot one, if you want to avoid paying billions in tax; it will only cost you a nice dinner and a handshake!
...government passes tax laws with loop-holes.
Government cuts HMRC inspectors.
Government follows advice from accountants and bankers on tax (those with the biggest incentive to avoid it).
Government engages in fiddles to avoid revealing true costs (i.e. PFI)
Government allows "non-doms" to get away with little or no tax (when they aren't really non-dom)
Government...it's long list...
What the government is annoyed at here is that the information is public. People only used to suspect that the major high-street chains and other paid little-to-no tax; but now we know. Up until they information was public, the government were very happy for their rich cronies to get away with paying nothing, whilst the lower-middle and working class get gouged for just about every penny.
These companies are wrong for not paying their due, but the government is even more wrong for trying to be all high-and-might about it. It was the Tories and Labour who created this mess in the first place.
@AC - "I'd imagine there would be a fair few people who know or knew people being honoured by the poppy who would love to express there free speech in burning this chap alive"
See, this is Daily Fail logic at its finest. So destroying a small paper flower = capital punishment. FFS. Here's a question....do you have all you poppies from previous years? No? You threw them in the bin! MY GOD MAN! The mob will be round to throw you in next!
"I'd probably break laws excercing my free speech rights on there ass's"
You want to impregnate their donkeys? Eh?
@AC - "You have a right to an opinion but only if it is the same as mine."
You have the right to an opinion, however you only have a valid argument when you can back it up with facts. The Daily Fail (or Daily Hate, if you prefer) is rather "facts light" and "vitriol heavy".
Amusing how irate you are getting about this.
@AC - Straw man,but nice to know you read the Daily Mail.
"What;s your view about peeing on a cenotaph - guess that's acceptable?"
Wrong question. Is peeing in public acceptable?
Tell me, how is this the fault of the immigrants again?
@AC - Do learn to read. There's a good fellow.
His alleged act was offensive to many, but he was simply exercising his right to free speech.
Curtailing that should be even more offensive. (Unless you are a Daily Fail reader of course.)
In fact, I find Kent police's action grossly offensive and as they were communicated to me electronically - can Kent police please arrest themselves?
Windows (any version): a pile of festering hacks that you can't see.
Linux (any version): a pile of festering hacks you can see.
In the former, you can only find out about the problem after the fact. In the latter, you can do some due diligence (or pay someone else to do it) before the fact (maybe even knock up a few test cases; whatever). Which one is better?
Oh, and most Linux devs are professionals who draw a salary.
As to GPL "infection"...if code has a license you don't like, don't use that code write it yourself! Who are you (or I, or anyone) to tell an author what license they should use? You could, of course, ask the author how much a dual license deal will cost you. Y'know...pay them.
People who moan about the GPL are fools who want to have their cake and eat it. Correction. They want to have your cake and eat. Then demand you do the washing up.
I'm not saying that open-source shouldn't be looked at seriously, I'm just pointing out that "free" is setting expectations too high. Also, the final item on my list, might make any savings in licensing costs moot.
If you are starting out new, and some says "Hey! Let's use IIS and SQL Server!" Unless there are some very good reasons for those (e.g. you entire company's skill-set is MS only) then you should take that person and beat them to a pulp. This is the perfect situation to go F/OSS.
Infrastructures still costs.
Support still costs.
Training still costs.
Migration will cost (assuming suitable alternative application can be found for those that are MS only).
I love me some GNU/Linux, but to call it "free" at the enterprise scale is rather misleading. "Much less likely you bend over and scream 'Squeal, piggeh!" is accurate though.
Pfft. That's just something to get a few headlines.
Here, Mark me lad. How's about getting a few OEM deals so we can buy Ubuntu pre-installed in the UK. You know, that country where you are based?
Pure and simple. Coca-Cola bottles? Sure.
The noise Harley-Davidsons make? Sure (although I will admit, it may have been trade-mark or copyright).
These are both unique and clearly identify something (not going to argue the toss about patent being the correct tool, just that these two example are unique).
But a rectangle with rounded corners though? A generic shape? That already was is use for a myriad of hand-held objects....really?
Uh...how do you know that old scans are not medically important?
Why not just let people pay for the service they want:
No fee, 100% ad funding (no skipping allowed); or
Small fee, but still partly ad funded (no skipping allowed); or
Bigger fee, but still partly ad funded (skipping allowed); or
Fat fee, no ads (a bit like the Beeb really - and my preferred option as I hate adverts).
Either way, advertisers are screwed once we move to 100% V.o.D. as there will be no gaps to put adverts into and they'll have to find a way to insert them into the shows (which probably means product placement - something else that totally hacks me off).
We record just about everything to we can fast-forward through the adverts at 32x. If MythTV worked with my service, I'd probably use that and have it nuke the ads for me.
...are these cheaper than a RasPi? You know, that little thing kids can actually learn how to do actual computing on? And if they manage to break it...no big deal? And it's a UK designed device? And...and...and...
I know the RasPi would still need a keyboard etc, but it strikes me as being a lot better than the latest MS "push the buttons and don't think" crap-ola.
"she's disappointed by illegal activity"
Were any laws actually broken? if not, then it's not illegal and that would be for a court to decide,
Sharp practice? Sure.
And if the conspiracy theory is true, then the laws might need to be changed to cover this situation. Certainly, the ability to weasel out of this due to the lack of any governing body is staggering.
But I wonder why she isn't going after Vanguard? Surely they are guilty of negligence or malpractice if what she claims is correct?
Of course, just like in the UK when the banks collapse, the rich can afford justice that simply isn't available to the rest of us.
And if you are losing at blackjack...you need to practice more memory and counting games. Ahem. Cough. Cough.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017