
An update that just removes a plugin is a 66MB download????
178 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Oct 2007
But y'know dude... bookmarks wtf is that man? Der woz a toolbar for dat years ago... know one uses that stuff anymore. An if dey did... it would be in the cloud innit, synced in all da browzers. Word.
(That was really painful to write like that sorry!)
You jest... but you are either not a football fan or have no idea what I am talking about.
It's basically the best football podcast there is out there today, and many thousands would agree. James Richardson, Barry Glendinning, Sid Lowe, Raphael Honigstein, Philippe Auclair to name just a few of the excellent pundits they have. It's free and it's quite simply pure gold.
As I said this would be via donation. I wasn't suggesting that they block the site for anyone that does not pay. Subscription is also not the only source of revenue, there are others, including ads. Additionally they could also cut costs.
I'm with you on the "tax" idea. It's a non-starter. But hey.. since you are not willing to pay anything at all... how do you suggest that they sustain their business in the long term?
Was just thinking about this topic again earlier... have to say that Football Weekly is worth £2 a month on it's own! That's 25p per episode... that will get you what.. a third of a can of coke? A tenth of a pint? And you get insight and awesome wit for 40 minutes. Honestly... the Guardian has some bloody excellent products. I don't read the whole website... some of it is of no interest to me whatsoever. I never read the paper version cover to cover either.
I read The Guardian every day that I am online. And that must be about 350 days a year (for the past 7 years at least). It's basically one of the first set of websites I visit whenever I start my browser.
I would be more than happy to pay £2 a month to them. I have even told them this on their site. Twice. They claim that they set up a donation system before, and it cost more to run than they got in donations. They either need new staff who can run such a system for next to nothing, or they need to advertise it differently because I've never heard of it. Wonder if it got blocked?
Ahhhh.. .well there is the rub. Wonder if anyone can come up with a way to tell if someone is blocking ads on your site? Force those people to pay. I use Noscript and see no ads. I would not click any, nor buy anything. I would however be happy to pay to access sites, ad free, that enlighten my day (such as yours truly El Reg).
I do however strongly object to media outlets who want financing when they are not State companies. They have a business, they need to be successful. Most other businesses are streamlining and triming the fat to survive. Most print publications seem to be sticking their fingers in their ears and hoping everyone else will pay for the business to survive regardless of whether they provide a product that anyone wants. (The BBC is a hugely respected company throughout the world. That's another discussion entirely - they should charge the licence fee to anyone abroad who wants to pay it).
But he did let awful, embarrassing things happen. Stuff that was rushed to market, and full of problems...
MobileMe.
Now, I'm no supporter of rival companies/ products. I like the stuff they do at Apple, but there were plenty of examples of catastrophies while Steve was at the helm.
The reason there isn't a broader range is because independents, like the music label I do some work for, are sick of being ripped off by Spotify. Thus we removed our content from Spotify.
They pay only £0.0003 per stream, which gets rounded down to zero. Great... thanks, but no thanks.
It's great that you are trying to do the "right thing", which, as this article says, two thirds of people do. However Spotify is owned by the majors, who have already paid royalities to their artists, thus any income they see from Spotify they get to keep all of it. Thus the ridiculously low royalty rates. Spotify is doing NOTHING to create a viable economy for the future of the music industry. All it is doing is making the rich richer, and leaving the content creators out to dry.
The CEO of Spotify is in the top 10 richest people in the music industry in England, behind only one of the artists on his network. When you get that warm, glowing feeling that you are paying for the music you listen to, just remember it is going into his pocket, not the person who created the music you love.
Amazing... thought Andriod was so popular... yet no-one seems to have noticed the FAR WORSE action facebook did. On an Andriod phone, they have replaced the primary email address of all your facebook friends with the new facebook email instead.
I'm glad I'm not on facebook, and I don't have a "smart" phone either, but my friend was absolutely livid over this.
Is everyone at facebook too scared to tell the boss that while people love using the facebook website, the brand is about as cool as microsoft, maybe less. It's a crap logo, a tweeny name, and just does not have "it".
Also look at Google. They were great at search. They keep trying, failing miserably, to get into other industries. It does not work guys. Stick to advertising which is what you are good at. Facebook should do the same. What's wrong with being the #1 app on everyone's smartphone? Is that such a bad thing to aspire to?
Skype is just horrible. It's a lot more expensive than SIP, it's a lot slower and buggy than other VOIP programs, the video quality is ATROCIOUS! The software has no exit in it's file menu, only sign out. It's made by those nordics whose only real success so far was Kazaa. Anyone remember the huge fail that was Joost?
The sooner this pile of crap dies the better.
Interesting that just after this deal has been announced the Executive Director Mark Surman sent an email to firefox users asking for a donation of $10 or more.
Mozilla is non-profit. They have just inked a deal that was 3 times the previous one. The previous deal made up something like 95% of their revenue. Effectively they have been given a 300% pay rise and yet they are asking users for MORE money.
Now... I really like Firefox, and the addons that it has. And I am more than willing to donate to software that enhances my work and my life... but come on Mark... how much money do you need? And what will you do with it all?
How are they supposed to find torrents and test the validity of them to track them down without actually accessing the torrent itself? Almost as soon as you are downloading you are uploading as well.
I don't see where the scandal is?
Plus are their IPs fixed or dynamic?
No I do not work for the RIAA and their past actions have been neanderthal, however I am at a bit of a loss here....
"1. no master password" -- I have a screen-lock that requires a password and the door to my office has a lock on it ;)
Ok for anyone working on their own. Not in a public place. If you save passwords in the browser you should be prompted to use a master password. This is just plain common sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2. phantom installs without consent" -- huh? Any particular apps ?
Flash player for one. There are countless others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"3. the worst cache control I have ever seen. (client complains can't see changes.. are you using chrome? grrrr that's why)" -- No way, I find that firefox is the one that won't let go of cached items. One Shift+Refresh is enough for my copy of chrome to release any cached files.
Shift+Refresh - is not good enough. period. Just learn to see changes Google. If everyone else can do it why can't you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"8. new release number should be major new features not a couple of patches." -- I'm not bothered, who really cares about the actual version numbers ?
My extensions care. It is a PITFA for many FF users. They only did this because of bloody Chrome.
10 Chrome fails:
1. no master password
2. phantom installs without consent
3. the worst cache control I have ever seen. (client complains can't see changes.. are you using chrome? grrrr that's why)
4. browser inline ads. what? are you f*cking kidding me? oh right yeah it's from an advertising company where ads make up 96% of their revenue
5. installs in the user directory. do no evil? do me a Favour!
6. weird css eccentricities that no other browser seems to have problems with. can't you follow the current standards google?
7. auto updating. yeah thanks let's break stuff in the middle of a busy work day to waste my time.
8. new release number should be major new features not a couple of patches.
9. E.T. phone home. nuff said
10. web2.1orhea UI... it's like a toy.
My worry for Firefox is what happens if/when Google pulls their $5m annual funding... help!
I was still using a T68 up until last year. The reason I didn't get another one is I couldn't find one anywhere. It's just so easy to use. I can't deal with the nokia GUI, it's so clunky and awful to use. Farewell indeed. In their day they pushed boundaries but no point being in the race anymore, they stopped innovating ages ago trying to copy others and even failing at that.
Frankly, given the history of malware in the Android marketplace, and the fact that it is not a walled garden leaves this as no surprise to me at all. I'm happy with pcs; I'm happy with macs, but I do think the walled garden approach for apps is a good move to keep everything clean. One way to stop smartphone viruses and the like is just to block people who do not make any security checks on their marketplace until the horse has bolted. Good move China.