.. only 20 years behind the times!!!
6882 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
.. only 20 years behind the times!!!
" - let alone intellectual property rights - in the term 'Amazon'"
Or, at least, not any rights which *we* are prepared to acknowlege...
Who wrote those rules? Who agreed to those rules? Who benefits from those rules?
This is nothing more than governments trying to say "It's our ball and it's our backyard so you play by our rules (which let us win), so ner!"
... coming over here and lusting after our women...!
See icon for details...
This is the same IPT that came up with the ruling that British Law forbids mass surveillance, but even though GCHQ is troughing every bit of data on us as they can, they're *not* performing "mass surveillance".
Matt will now explain how many angels can dance on the head of that particular pin.
(Well, actually he won't, he'll just call people by silly names and dodge the question and move the goalposts as we've all come to expect...)
Spies keeping their spying secret from our elected representatives or those elected representatives condoning the spies breaching our laws and spying on us just because they can - who would have thunk it.
Sorry, *what* prequels?
There were only three Star Wars films and one Matrix and one Highlander film...
Apparently it was a condition of attending...
"... they spotted it."
- HM Government.
But then the scammers would just put a load of products on for a penny, immediataly buy them with their sock-puppet accounts and mark them as "shipped"...
Not forgetting those products with "Genuine Leather" in the title which then say (PU Leather) somewhere at the bottom of the description.
Thank you for that very helpful review of Amazon coders. I would up vote you a thousand times if I could...
(but I can't be bothered to create 1000 sock puppet accounts)
Err, no, it would be a bounty for spotting spelling mistakes in El Reg articles...
Pity El Reg doesn't pay a spelling mistake bounty...
"Hooray, hooray for the spinster's sister's daughter!"
And a damned sight more useful!
> So its ok for the third world to live in actual poverty as long as your salary is guaranteed to keep up with mine?
No, try a different Straw Man and, please, put the Racism Card away, it just makes you look silly.
"...is worth widening in rich country inequality. Others might not agree."
See icon for details.
Why don't we try getting rid of some of those top-level CxO jobs? You know, the ones that pay big bonuses for, frankly, doing fuck all or, even worse, give massive golden parachute pay-offs for screwing up the company, causing your workers to lose their employment and leaving them scratching around for minimum wage jobs to try to feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads?
Oh no, says Tim, those workers should be *happy* that someone else, somewhere else in the world is "getting out of poverty", meanwhile the bosses and the shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank. Trebles all round!!
The point is not whether anyone *uses* this capacity, it is that the Providers sell it as if everyone *can* use that capacity.
And that's a different matter (and not exactly credible either)
Oh look, Scorchio!! is back...
I've just had a look at his posting history:
Today, 9 days ago, 1 month ago and 4 months ago, virtually all of those posts about Assange.
I wonder whose sock puppet he is?
>> Shooting misidentified civilians or friend ground forces is not.
> I honestly think you've got that the wrong way round. In the very infrequent event that compensation is paid to foreign victims it will be paltry,
It's not the cost of the compensation, it's the cost of the
cover up full enquiry that follows...
Look at Lewis' previous
rants diatribes tirades articles on the subject and it may become a little clearer...
Oh don't worry, if it finds out it has done something illegal, it will just retro-actively change the law to make it legal...!
> What about the positive human side knowing you actually helped someone and at the same time had a small detour from your work run?
What about the positive side of you've just acquired a new lap top/ 4k TV, boxed set of CDs for nothing...?
And Call-me-David Cameron is doing his utmost to get rid of even those ones.
Equal access to justice? Not now the Tories have denied many people access to Legal Aid. Now it's "how much justice can you afford?" If you're wealthy, fine, if not, you're screwed. Worse than that, they want to outsource the system to their mates in G4S and the like (the same people who are likely to end up running the privatised prisons) so obviously there's no conflict of interest there!
"No imprisonment without trial"? Well, unless you're an immigrant being held without any idea of if and when your case is going to be reviewed.
And, of course, there's Cameron's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and bring in their hypocritical "British Bill of Rights" which really means "British Bill of the Rights we say you can have, provided you're someone we like". The only reason that's been kicked into the long grass at the moment is that he knows he can't even convince a lot of his own party to support it, but like the Snoopers Charter, it won't go away, they'll just do it slowly, chipping away at a Right here, a Protection there, a Liberty somewhere else...
Cameron, in his utterly hypocritical speech, said "We talk about the 'law of the land' and this is the very land where that law – and the rights that flow from it – took root". What he didn't say is that he's doing his utmost to uproot those laws and salt the earth so that those inconvenient rights don't get in the way of their control freak ways.
Icon: Our Rights going up in flames...
Yeah, but there was nothing that could be pinned on them, so they were quite happy to crap on someone else...
... what the grandstanding politicians with their accusations and speeches (more for the media than for information) were really thinking was "Thank fuck it wasn't anything that *I* am responsible for!"
No, it isn't. It's about who is responsible for the comments and what laws should apply to the hosting company which publishes them.
As the author says "in a case that was all about the principle" did El Reg's editor not read the article before commenting?
... but will actually only be used to prosecute foreign nationals because all UAE citizens are noble, upstanding people who would never break any law, especially not the ones who have lots of "wasta" [influence or clout]...
"... photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them."
So if I make a film in London which includes aerial footage of well known buildings or shows a statue or another public work of art in the background, I have to get "prior authorisation" from the "author or any proxy" working for *every single one* of them? And, presumably, if I don't, they can then sue for breach of copyright when my film is distributed?
Wow, what a
great fucking stupid idea!
... the Industry which wants to monetise us refuses to accept that we have any right to not be stalked by them everywhere we go?
Colour me surprised...
Of course the flip side of that is when my bank or gym scans my card and then says "Hello Mr Marsden" as if I should be impressed that they've just read my name off their screen.
And I can tell them where they can shove their T&Cs and go somewhere else.
Good to see Voda aren't putting barriers in the way of people leaving by letting them e-mail or phone to end their service...
You make very good poiunt. Thank s for this article.
I'm getting the same in Firefox.
I'd assumed it was due to my running NoScript and AdBlock which occasionally can cause odd errors like that.
Who else is having this problem and *why* can't El Reg get their Up/Down Vote system working without needing to refresh the page?
... and found the humour crass, the writing poor, the dialogue tedious and the characters unlovable.
Give me the Big Bang Theory any day!
... from watching James Bond films...
I was just thinking the same thing.
It's in the business' “legitimate interest” to make profits. Whether them selling our data or doing anything else with it is in *our* “legitimate interest” is another matter entirely...
... any reports of the recent loss of all those Background check Vetting Forms on *any* other mass media apart from El Reg?
After a bit of searching I can only find it on the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian's pages. I wonder why...?
Yep, you'll no doubt get many games which let you shoot, blow up or run down people in exquisitely rendered 3D graphic detail, but gods forbid you might get to see a pair of boobs...
... cui bono?
The Independent Living Fund, which helps around 18,000 disabled people work and live in the community, is being wound down.
The NAO has said that more than half of Britain's councils risk falling into serious financial crisis and may not be able to provide services they are legally obliged to offer.
Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC), has said that 17 out of the 43 police forces may "struggle to sustain themselves in the medium term in light of continued austerity".
Cuts to Legal Aid mean that many less well-off people are now excluded from the system and cannot "afford" to get justice.
Meanwhile the richest get a £100,000 a year tax cut, banker's bonuses (you know, the people who helped cause the crisis and the ones who have been fixing LIBOR rates etc) have risen, George has not "eliminated the public sector deficit by 2015" as he claimed he could (in fact he hasn't even managed to cut it in half) and British workers have had the longest decline in average wages since records began whilst minimum wage jobs and zero-hours contracts have risen "reducing" unemployment with near poverty level labour.
Cui bono? As always, not us...
Ah, there's nothing like reasoned and adult debate. Pity your post was nothing like reasoned and adult debate. Still, at least you don't call people by silly nicknames like Matt Bryant, so I suppose I should be thankful for small mercies.
As to the relevant parts of your post, yes, I'm aware that no voting system is ever going to completely and accurately reflect the wishes of *everyone*, but you appear to be arguing that since it's not possible we might as well stick with FPTP on the basis of "well, it is broke, but we can't find a perfect fix for it, so let's do nothing at all".
Naturally that suits the Tories and Labour fine because they know that they'll eventually get back in power by the principle of Buggin's Turn. Whether it's good for us, the people who they are supposed to be *serving* (not ruling) is another matter entirely.
No worries, Mate, but perhaps we can just call you Bruce?