Posts by Mark 3397 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Oct 2007
"Compared to the data transfer running through torrents, software patches, YouTube, iPlayer and so on this is hardly the Internet Apocalypse"
But you only get P2P when YOU join a P2P stream. Or download iPlayer.
Websites don't do that.
Users do.
So that point is what is known in English as Bollocks.
What do you mean?
If you mean that the page could have a zero-day exploit of IE that AVG link checking doesn't know about, then you aren't going to know about not clicking on it.
If you mean the page could have a zero-day exploit of AVG link checker, then it is autoclicking on the link for you, so not clicking and not getting the page is safer and clicking and getting the page is no worse.
If you mean that the page could have a zero day exploit, well, which is more likely to have the exploit? Complex fully-featured web browser or the single-purpose link checker plus single-purpose http proxy?
If you mean a zero day exploit of IE that link checker would have spotted, well, link checker checks when you click on the link, and tells you (in a wee popup) "this page is naughty", or (on the page itself) "this page has what seems to be malware on it. Click this link to continue". So no difference but has the better security by accessing only the pages you go IN to, not ALL the pages on a search engine page.
Don't take a proactive approach.
I mean, proactive is a shite word any way (what? You're "for" activity? What does it mean???).
So what you do is identify yourself as AVG (because you ARE. Stop lying about being IE6). Or run as a http proxy and cache (like squid) and only scan when someone tries to look at the page. The slowing down by scanning is less (though more concentrated) than the scanning being done anyway, and adding a proper cache should increase the responsiveness and reduce network load (and delay the rate of breaking the AUP) enough to make it seem faster.
No, put a 503 or whatever and say "We are unable to allow access because you are most likely to be AVG link scanner. If you are a legitimate user, please use another browser, such as FireFox or Opera".
Microsoft may then have "issues" with AVG for screwing the pooch for them and getting people to upgrade to a competing browser (some OS's can't take IE7 or IE8, so these cannot be advocated by your site).
However, in the UK, we have a little thing called "winter" where plants grow not so well.
So efficiency is better as you go south.
PS please talk to those who think that all this extra CO2 would cause plants to grow bigger and quicker so we shouldn't reduce. They seem to be labouring under the assumption that an over-abundance of one element for growth is enough for abundant growth. As you've said with light (and plants LOVE light), this isn't true.
And you don't want to be using oil in transport/processing of nuclear material or in construction of the reactor (or extraction of the materials for construction).
Because it means if you're still using oil, you are now increasing the cost of nuclear power because oil is scarce. Which is WHY you're moving to nuclear.
So you need to move your machinery over to electric FIRST. Then (if nuclear is cheaper than oil), you can power them from the electric you're generating from the stuff you're digging up. Or from local production (solar/wind/wave/gerbils/...).
Still people want to make reactors FIRST.
I dunno why.
OK. So solar power will make a tiny impression.
Power reduction will make a tiny impression.
Biofuels will make a tiny impression.
Wave power will make a tiny impression.
etc.
Now, add them all together...
(heck, do you have trouble walking to the shops because it's a mile away and one step makes a tiny difference to the distance left to go, so why bother?)
All "content" nowadays that is digital seems now to come with some draconian "Hobsons' choice" agreement and a built-in enforcement of an agreement you cannot disagree to.
So with HD what are we agreeing to lose?
The right (that we had on VCR) to record for later?
Probably.
Why? When are you going to change the pre-recording about how it's ALL P2P and it's responsible for congestion and FUP's (which for Bell Canada has been proven bunk: the court told them to release documents about congestion to prove they need to throttle).
Or are we only allowed to counter your arguments three times, but you're allowed to accuse use FOUR?
Learn to spell. Yours is so bad I can't be sure what you're talking about.
But if you're going on about BT having a contract that says they can cut you off, you're forgetting that a contract is a meeting of minds.
So what consideration do I get to signing the right to a fair trial?
None?
Then there's no agreement.
Yes, but be honest: in that scenario, WHAT are the damages?
Nil.
Since copyright for non-profit limited use is a civil tort, the UK will pay damages.
So they take you to court and you pay... nothing.
This was why there wasn't a "Fair Use" exception in copyrights in the UK. That there were no damages was considered enough to ensure personal use of copyrighted works (singing around the piano, for example) were not quashed by legal threat.
But by scaring up "billions of dollars" losses and how piracy "pays for drug smugglers and terrorists", laws are made to combat full-scale commercial piracy and (oh dear, sorry, we forgot!) LEAVE OUT the bit about it being to combat commercial piracy.
Well if you're given a copy with no restrictions by the copyright owner (they've put it on P2P themselves), you aren't in violation of copyright. Much like this page. Copyrighted material being copied willy-nilly (and if you haven't tried copying willy-nilly, I highly recommend it). Not a problem.
So, to put this on track:
MiVii.
Media Defender, acting as an agent of the copyright holders puts their copyrighted material on the internet in a P2P application. Freely shared.
If Media Defender were NOT acting as an agent of the copyright holders, why are they still being employed and not being sued?
So we have films and music placed on P2P for sharing by the agreement of the copyright holders.
And sharing it is not an offense: we have permission.
I still have the link to the leaked emails detailing this, for any defense I have to undertake.
However, if someone has already GOT the CD, they have a license to listen to the music.
That's what they keep telling us.
Tell you what, BPI, I will pass on all the profits I receive to you. And I'll give another 10% to charity out of my own pocket.
Can't say fairer than that.
Pfft. I've been doing that assiduously since about 1983! Look at all the affadavits I have! Yes, I know they look like restraining orders, but that's just proof of my dilligence.
I also make available other services:
Laundry cleaning (please wait 28 days for return of panties)
Cancer tests (breast only)
PI (I will follow acceptable clients wherever they go)
Others on arrangement.
(mine's the mac)
But patents aren't for IDEAS, they are for the IMPLEMENTATION of such ideas.
And in software, that's called "copyright".
You can't have "copyright" on a mousetrap, though. Even though it's implementing the IDEA of catching small rodents in a domestic setting.
So the confusion is entirely understandable given that software patents ARE copyrights, it's just that with lawyers interpreting their words, they are expanding patent to mean "protect the IDEA if you can copyright the implementation".
Worse, the external arbiters (the US court system) is under the assumption that, since the USPTO granted the patent, you have to PROVE it is invalid. The reasoning being that the USPTO have checked the patent for validity.
As you just pointed out, they have outsourced that to the courts.
Pity they didn't let the courts know.
PS: I read "crap" rather than "scrap". wishful thinking...
Indeed. However, the CEO and board are responsible to ALL shareholders, NOT Icahn. They are responsible for ensuring that the business continues to make a profit.
What do MS want to do?
Take their customers.
Sack the people.
Sell off the rest.
Why? If you add Yahoo customers to MS's customers, you get MORE customers. This benefits MS and THEIR shareholders but leaves MOST of the Yahoo shareholders taking it in the shorts and ALL the employees looking for a job (which is nice...).
So the CEO isn't responsible to Icahn. He's responsible to the company and the shareholders (note plural). Icahn may not like it, but he could buy up 51% of the company and sell it off if he likes.
Icahn wants HIM to make money off this. He doesn't give a shit about any other shareholder and DEFINITELY not the company or its employees.
The best way to get money to the shareholders is to sell ALL assets and give the money to shareholders.
This kills the company, but then again, what do you think MS want to do to Yahoo?
Oh, and Steven, if MS will lie, how do we know the offer wasn't a lie?
"Or how I would feel if it was my child and nobody stopped to help.
Sometimes you *have* to do the 'right thing', regardless."
Aye, but people get into strange ideas. They'd like to THINK they'd be grateful, but (as with the woman being pissed off at someone holding a door open: I hold 'em open for men and women) in some situations, they WILL be looking for someone to blame.
Heck, there's that story on another topic about a mum who shopped a bloke for taking a picture of a kid all dressed up as a tiger. Fully clothed. Disguised as a tiger. She STILL figured it was enough to get a paedo off to the races.
Shit, I've got pictures from a festival where a bloke with mutton-chops has his face done up as spider-man. Does that mean I'm a granddaddy-basher?
And if you've lost your child, worry doesn't make you more rational. And worse, it's easier to blame someone else than take it on yourself.
Well, imagine what would happen. If the Bricklayer is seen picking the child up, he's abducting the child. If he's seen carrying the child by the mother, THAT is why her baby went missing (how does he prove innocence? He has the baby in his arms). If he gets all the way to the cop shop or council offices with the child, will they let him go or will they be suspicious?
So if the county is right and this brings in $4.4M over five years from 1,000 execs, this would mean the execs are spending. $150,000 in taxes. Or $30 each exec in tax money each year.
Is this worth a downpayment of $750,000?
Annual ROI on 750,000: $75,000 - $150,000. Or $75-150 each exec each year.
Why not just give it to the local strip club? You don't have to have 1,000 execs turning up then.
Richard. This LHC is in the same universe as the universe.
If smacking high energy particles in the universe hasn't yet created strange matter, vacuum universes or nano black holes, then the little bit of the universe that is surrounded by the LHC isn't going to do it either.
Or, if you want to keep with your PC metaphor, we are on this PC. It shouldn't affect any other PC, but since that PC is another universe, if it DOES go titsup there, this will not have an effect on this, our PC (universe) here.
I know. I was trying to use that meme for the cause of good (sense).
E.g. lock the mother up for allowing her child to dress in such a provocative way that a picture of such an outfit is suitable material for kiddie fiddlers. She was obviously aiding and abetting such procedures...
Heck, what's to stop any putative paedo remembering the cute picture and stroking the salami in the privacy of their own home?
To counter this, the mother (obviously a deviant for allowing her daughter to dress so provocatively) needs some sort of all-over-body garment to hide the image of the child from those nasty kiddie fiddlers that are all around us (though not, obviously, manning the CCTV cameras...).
Some sort of burka should do.
Come one, people THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! (unless your a kiddie fiddler, in which case STOP THINKING OF THE CHILDREN!!!).
Well have a look at how JonB started. See if you can divine any "sanity" within.
Me: So just turn your TV off at the switch
JonB: So you're telling me to throw away my remote? NO WAY!
Go back and see for yourself whether this is a reasonable short version of how it started.
Now, with that reply, either YOU tell me where the dots join, OR I will remain with the idea that JonB isn't remotely thinking about listening to arguments or having a discussion. JonB seems to feel that if he EVER says "Sorry, my mistake" or "Oh, OK, I was wrong" his withered little lamb-prodder will fall off. Have a look at his posting history.
Now check mine.
When I've been proven wrong, I SAY "OK, my mistake".
And YOU (the coward with no name) call ME a raving lunatic???? You can point that accusation elsewhere with FAR more validity.
That you pointed it this way and that you have nothing to say apart from aspersions to cast upon me (despite much better fitted people here) means you're an ignorant twat and why the fuck should I bother to think anything other of you than I'm making perfectly clear I do?
The point of this isn't for you (you don't care, except to defend your misguided brainsickly ideas) and neither does that ignorant twat JonB.
However, because I don't hide and I don't pretend I'm being reasonable by not swearing at people who most assuredly deserve it, there may be some people thinking JonB has something.
Well, to those people who are willing to SEE what they think rather than have it spoon-fed to them, I say: go back and see.
And THAT is why I don't bother to argue a point with JonB and why I don't bother arguing a point with you. It's a waste of time. Your mind is made up because thinking would have the risk of finding out you're wrong.
Uh, no.
All that requires is that there are five comments requiring or even ASKING for a reply and nobody responding.
Say, for example, I'm away one evening and come back from the pub and (because it's a good idea to calm down after a drinking sesh) reading a little bit of El Reg.
Nobody else is reading or writing to the comments.
For hours.
So getting five in a row just means that there was a long haitus of responses from others.
Now, why do you deem and MUST REPORT that this is proof of "foaming"?
Because you're an ignorant twat who is trying to rubbish people who don't believe what you want them to.
You're a freak.
I stated right at the beginning that you can just turn your TV off.
your response?
So I should just throw my remote away?
You aren't interested in thinking in case you find by investigation that you're wrong about something.
Your LCD screen may be 0.3 W, but why are you spending 13p just so you don't have to turn the TV on at the switch?
I bet yuo don't even HAVE that TV (it's pretty modern, you buy it a couple of months ago?). I bet you just googled for LCD TV's and got the specs of one that was low.
Even if you have, how many people have such a new TV?
How about your HiFi? CD player? DVD? Computer?
Why the hell should I bother with logic when Jon's best argument for "why not turn the telly off" being "cos I can't turn it on with the remote"?
The TV still gets the same picture. Quality is unaffected by how you turn the frigging thing ON.
Given that a ZERO change in utility of the television can save, oh, 0.1% of your bill means a net profit of 0.1%.
It really would be bigger than that.
The magna carta and Queen Anne's bill of rights (both MASSIVELY preceeding the US bill of rights).
We have the right to a jury of our peers before money can be taken from us in fines.
That we aren't told this is our right isn't the fault of the population except in so far as our politicians and solicitors in the justice system are able to get away with it because of our apathy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
