Re: Confusing
I read it as meaning "more gullible".
424 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Aug 2009
The first time I came across a site that used VillifiedByVisa it took me so long to verify that the - third party (ie. not the site I was on, Visa, or my bank) - website I was taken to was genuine, that the cost of the plane tickets had gone up by £50.
And in the process I learnt how completely pointless and, in reality, *less* secure the whole scam^W scheme is.
From the police website:
"Three North Yorkshire Police officers spent four months sifting through six million images and found more than 62,000 indecent images of children and 1,585 similar videos."
Over SIX MILLION images. On an IT geek's computer. Unencrypted. You know what that says to me? Automated leeching. And of those SIX MILLION images, 1% were suspect. I call that a statistical anomaly, not systematic child abuse.
Let's assume he started downloading porn at, say, age 13. That's 500,000 images per year; 1,369 per day. Giving him 8 hours sleep makes ~86 images per hour; or 1.4 images every waking minute for the last 12 years.
Do they honestly think that he saw and downloaded all these himself?
Guy being hit in the nuts with a football = Slapstick comedy.
Naked guy being hit in the nuts with a football = Extreme porn.
People watch these genital mutilation things for the same reason they go to see Saw movies and the like: Some people just enjoy being shocked. And there are certainly also a great number of people who enjoy shocking others, and these are exactly the kind of people who would keep the clip around.
You never know when you'll get an opportunity to record another "First Goatse": http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/firstgoatse/
It's been shown that the value of companies decided by "the markets" has little to do with long or even short term profitability, but about rumour propagation and groupthink.
I would posit that Apple have such a high valuation because their customers - the market Apple are targeting specifically - includes exactly those kind of people who directly affect "the market". So they see the shiny, they fall into the reality distortion field, and end up worshipping at the altar of Jobs.
"In all, he allegedly infected more than 100 computers used by approximately 230 individuals, at least 44 of whom were juveniles, prosecutors said."
So what they're saying is that these 44 juveniles had access to the infected computers, not that the perp elicited any material from them or had any desire to. From the article, it seems that he was only interested in 1 of the 2.3 people who had access to each computer.
AFAICT this is no more than the "authorities" cynically adding an emotive "think of the kiddies!" factor to sway the public perception against Mijangos: "Plead guilty and we won't add spurious kiddie-porn charges."
Implication is guilt in the court of public opinion.
Finally, someone is actually releasing a device like the OLPC XO-2. Unfortunately, it's running Windows. If they'd made this as a variation of their new ARM/Android netbook, I'd be taking a keen interest.
I was really looking forward to seeing the XO-2, which OLPC then scrapped, apparently on a whim from Negroponte.
Surely this just means that the health consequences of obesity only become apparent after 40, not that there are no consequences until then. I suspect that many of the problems are caused by long-term, gradual effects.
Sure, being a lard-arse may not be so bad *now*, but in 40 years you'll be on the horse tranquilizers, to cope with your chronic back pain. Unless you die of a coronary before then.
Forget what Billy G and Microsoft have been spouting for the last decade. This new iteration of tablets are not laptops, and not replacements for laptops. They are media consumption devices: web browsing, images, movies, books.
When you want to get shit done, you use a computer or laptop.
When you *don't* want to get shit done, you use a tablet.
Yes, Telstra are entirely within their rights to just say "give us what you owe", but doing this when a story gets to the media, they end up looking like right gits. Which is pretty bad for PR.
This is why you often hear of companies making "good-will gestures". Effectively paying off the complaining punter to appease the media and PR people, without setting any precedent.
Unless a piece of software has remained entirely unchanged for the time it takes for a patent to expire; therefore predating every potential patent threat (though this would likely still have to be shown in court, after you're sued by a troll); it is possible that the software in question may read on (ie. infringe) any number of patents.
I guess you're unaware of Palm's patent portfolio then.
Remember that Palm were at the forefront of hand-held computing when it was just beginning, so they hold some pretty fundamental patents in the area. If you want to make a smartphone, for example, Palm (now HP I guess) is one of the companies you will have get a patent license from.
I suspect this is another case of Microsoft making bold claims about a small sub-clause which had little to do with the main purpose of the agreement.
From the CNET article:
"Microsoft and HTC announced they have inked a new patent deal that specifically provides the Taiwanese cell phone maker with the right to use Microsoft's patented technologies in phones running Google's Android operating system."
Doesn't say there that Android infringes any of MS's patents.
The truth is that HTC need a license to use MS patents because HTC produce MS handsets. I'm sure HTC wouldn't mind very much if MS added language to say that the license covers _all_ of HTCs handsets. Then MS can go about saying that they licensed those patents for Android handsets. Which, technically, they did.
Typical MS bluster. They talk a lot of talk, but refuse to back it up when challenged.
Would the players have to file a customs declaration every time the ball passed over the border, too?
Unfortunately, being that annoying (yet correct) bastard, holding up the queue and irritating security, only makes life difficult for the staff at the port. It does nothing to those who actually make the stupid policies.
I suppose it might be different if you can get arrested/deported (for doing something entirely legal) and make a lot of noise in the papers. But in that case, acting like an ass isn't going to do you any favours.
He was charged with "making indecent images of children"? And put on the Sex Offenders Register? So did he actually take/create those images which he "downloaded" onto the victim's computer?
I would assume that this would have to be the case, were we not talking about a country so socially and legally steeped in paedohysteria.
The Reg made no mention of the species of Jo Margetson, only that she was female. Assuming one didn't view the Sun article (and who could be blamed for not doing so), it could've been a dog for all we know.
A dog with big tits.
Who can talk.
Hmm.
So I guess she could've been a anthromorph. This is the internet, after all.
It was certainly inevitable, and perhaps we should congratulate John Laker for providing a potential catalyst for (worthwhile, for once) public hysteria.
Of course, the good Jo Margetson should also be congratulated for making the incident publically known. And for her gigantic tits.
So Dell are (re)selling products whose licenses they are not abiding by?
Either Dell need to start selling a version of Windows with a different EULA ("do not use the software. Instead, return it [ALONG WITH ANY HARDWARE IT WAS INSTALLED ON] to the retailer for a refund or credit."), or they need to start living up to their side of the agreements they make with customers.