Posts by DavCrav 3894 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Nov 2007
"The BSA has also said that 41% of all software on personal computers is obtained illegally, and that the software used without publishers' permission would cost $53 billion to buy."
Doesn't that mean that, without software piracy, the population would have no money at all, and the only companies making any money would be software manufacturers?
In other words, STOP CHARGING RIDICULOUS PRICES FOR CRAP SOFTWARE, YOU IDIOTS.
Michael Dell can STFU. Writing this on a netbook right now, I can tell him that they are fine for general use, and people like me buy them because we do a lot of travelling and want something small enough to carry easily, but large enough that we can type properly. A 10" netbook is perfect for that.
"No, I don't want to mind your computers for a McDonalds wage .."
So you quote some of the advert, but not the rest. This is a student job for one hour before the start of class. They pay £7.40 for this hour. I think most students would be quite happy getting £7 for an hour putting paper in printers and switching on computers. I mean, in most universities the students are expected to do that themselves anyway.
Google claims that if I write a book and they scan it, I lose the copyright for that? If this were true, this would be brilliant! So I digitize records and the copyright is lost, right? Or take VHS tapes and digitize them, and I can do what I want with them?
Thought not.
What happens if someone sends the child benefit database to Wikileaks? Or something similar, like the customer database for Amazon, complete with credit card info? When it was a whistleblowers' site, it made sense. The list of postcodes can hardly be considered confidential information that needs to be leaked.
I think 'leaks' like this are starting to damage Wikileaks's credibility, and might make governments finally club together and give them a kicking. While they're at it, they can do all the other stuff they want, like removing filesharers and anonymity.
"re: the numberplates for bikes argument. How about we do a swap? Lots of cyclists get hit by drivers who fail to stop. We could locate them with a tracking device in their car. Similarly, this could also be used to stop drivers speeding and jumping red lights - I tend to view two tonnes of Mercedes Git Panzer going through a red light as rather more dangerous than 100kg of cyclist + plus.
So a fair swap - we get numberplates and you have a GPS activated tracking device and speed limit monitor?"
Or, you could identify them with the number plate.
All these people talking about VED/road tax (it is road tax really)
VED raised £5.4bn in 07/08 (source, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10306.htm , number 69)
Fuel tax raised £24.9bn in 07/08 (same source, number 59)
Maybe we should be talking about that. And while we are talking about non-motorists subsidising the motorists, the ENTIRE Department for Transport annual budget (although typically obfuscated) appears to be £16-17bn from http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/publications/apr/ar2008/annualreport?page=58#a1064 and so motorists are paying for two DfTs. Oh, and let's not forget insurance premium tax, the revenue from fines, charges for MOT certificates, etc.
Science icon because actual facts are being discussed in this post, rather than invective.
There's something I don't understand: I'm not an American, and therefore am not a part of the US Authors Guild or the AAP. If my book appears on Google Book Search (and it hasn't yet because it's still being written) why can I not sue the fuck out of them for copyright infringement? (I don't need to worry about money, because as we've been told it's a criminal offence now, so the CPS can handle it.) They can have all the settlements with US publishers that they want. If I'm not with a US publisher, then they don't apply. Also, how is this not against the WTO's international guidelines on copyright infringement?
" "People should have a better way to provide meaningful consent to have their account 'memorialized' after their death. As such, Facebook should be clear in its privacy policy that it will keep a user's profile online after death so that friends can post comments and pay tribute," the office said."
Really? Pay tribute on your wall? Something like 'zOMG!!11 just herd u r ded!!111 get well soon'?
Classical music is considerably better than any of the complete arsebiscuits that come out of the excuses that the recording industry makes for songwriters nowadays. And royalty free, so you can tell the NPAA (or whatever the fuckheads call themselves -- who cares?) to piss off. I haven't bought a copyrighted (in terms of the music; the performance is copyrighted probably) album for years. And I'm educated by it, as opposed to the barely cognisant idiots who listen to songs like 'Smack my bitch up' or the aforementioned 'Pussy monster' (whatever the hell song that is...)
In conclusion, fuck the recording industry. Fuck them in the ass.
(I might have had something to drink. Maybe.)
If the police walk round with shotguns that will fire electric shocks that sound like they'll kill people, then all criminals will walk round with real guns that shoot proper bullets. End of story.
This type of thing will do nothing but make criminals carry guns. And they will shoot first. And they won't be carrying a stupid shotgun that can't hit anything. The following people will end up dying:
1) Cops.
2) Innocent people.
Notice, not criminals.
"This has led to criticism that Gordon is a "professional plaintiff" who opportunistically milks anti-spam laws for his own personal gain. Those points weren't lost on US Appeals Court Judge Ronald M. Gould.
"For a person seeking to operate a litigation factory, the purported harm is illusory and more in the nature of manufactured circumstances in an attempt to enable a claim," he wrote in a concurring opinion. "
Isn't this the spam version of 'look at what she was wearing, she deserved to get raped?' How a lawsuit can be dismissed because the victim was trying to get spammed is the equivalent of dropping an assault charge because the victim was 'asking for a slap'.
It's not the device manufacturers that should be worried, but Apple. No other company has such restrictions on the uses of their devices, etc. and once Apple moves into #2 or #1 position as a device manufacturer, expect a massive enquiry, followed by swift and furious justice with multi-billion-dollar fines from the US, the EU, and so on. Apple have methods that would get Microsoft back in the dock in about five minutes. The only reason that Apple gets away with it is that it's not in a dominant position, but as its market share increases, at some point the regulators are going to mandate that Apple separate its software and hardware divisions and they will split up the company into two or three; Apple electronics, Apple hardware, and Apple software. (Maybe two of these would be combined.)
At that point, the entire reason people buy Apple disappears.
"... so unless you have some fancy system to flush the airspace inside the bottle with nitrogen before shoving the cork back in, drinking one's £10k bottle nip by nip over several years is probably a flawed idea."
Or buy one of those plungers that you use to evacuate the air completely. They cost about a fiver.
Obviouslt, only having a PhD and not being a regulator, I fail to understand the following basic question.
Microsoft+Yahoo = regulator.
Microsoft+Yahoo<Google (in terms of ad revenue)
Google != regulator?
In other words, if the Microsoft-Yahoo tie-up needs regulator approval because it would stifle competition, how about Google, which is twice as large as both companies put together?
"It's a very sad day when we look to france and think 'why cant we be more like them' in the uk the english nazipolice would have already shot them calling them terrorists."
That's because it is terrorism. What's the difference between them threatening to blow up a factory unless they get €10m and a terrorist threatening to blow up something unless they get money/prisoners out of jail/etc.?
You just have to remember that the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is whether or not you agree with the reason that they want to destroy and kill.
1) These are going to end up in other people's hands, and then this will be fun, because we'll have people making others puke up from a mile away. There'll be no way to find out who it is.
2) Innocent bystanders? If this has to hit eyes, then it either has to be very accurate or have a wide dispersion field.
3) Sunglasses/spectacles/goggles? What do they do to this. If the glass in spectacles causes a refraction, is that going to seriously mess up this device, perhaps turning it into a blinding ray? My bet is research not done.
4) This will be a new (and quite untraceable since it leaves no output) way for the police to torture people. Anyone who thinks they won't use it to do that should read about the way the police act, in news stories for example.
"After all the various nuclear accidents that have more or less flooded the whole stratosphere with radiation how do these self appointed gourmet boffins claim to be able to pick out these things? Next thing you know they'll spot Sputnik or Mir flying over the distillery. So, they can tell the difference between Bikini and Chernobyl? If they truly can I guess it's a whole new way to market vintage whiskey to yuppie idiots with more money than sense. You can glow in the dark with your favorite flavor of nuclear fallout."
Hmm. I think the following saying is useful here.
"It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Why do people feel the need to comment about things when they have not the slightest clue about them? Oh sorry, I forgot that I was on the Internet.
“The UK’s freelancers will be asking where are the helpful measures such as the repeal of IR35 and other distorting tax laws like s44-7; they will be sorely disappointed again by the lack of answers.”
---->
“The UK’s freelancers will be asking where are the ways for them to pay even less tax and shove even more of the burden of paying for this country onto other people; they will be sorely disappointed again that they have to pay some tax, however little it may be."
I think it's terrible that every time there's a police shooting, there's normally a policeman involved. Now there's no proof that all police are violent thugs that kill innocent people, but surely we should ban all police, because “when a chance to remove a probable cause exists, it must be used”.
While we're at it, every hospital I've seen is full of drugs. Now drugs are bad, mmmkay, and so while there's no proof that hospitals are evil, etc. etc.
STFU until you work out the difference between A implies B and B implies A.
That is all.
What the Australian government needs to do to make sure that they'll be able to trace these people without asking for help from Sweden is, say, build a big firewall, which they can use to monitor all communication on the internet leaving Australia. Since they have that anyway, they could start blocking sites that they don't like.
Oh, wait...
My thoughts exactly. And to the other posters that thought it was good, come on...
And as for
"... are getting as arrogant as the Yanks, thinking that *their* laws should be applicable all over the world..."
No, they just think that their laws apply in their country. They can't prosecute the journo, but they can prosecute the (Australian) source.
When it said that the proceeds were going to charity, I was thinking Macmillan, a hospice, maybe something like the RSPCA -- not a phone line. I can see how being sacked might not be the greatest thing ever, but I'm wondering what the person on the other end of the phone is going to tell you that would help, except for 'thanks to a guy from Woolies, we're hiring'.......
If the Italian courts say you're guilty, aren't Google simply going to shut down its Italian offices? Because a ruling against Google would mean that every website is responsible for the content it posts. That would include, for example, search engines, Wikipedia, and any website whose content is against whichever random Italian law they think applies.
Also, a quick check on Youtube's website confirms their address:
YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066
USA
NOT IN ITALY! Do you people who think that Youtube can be sued by people from a different country need to be hit with a clue-by-four, or something? It's bad enough the US thinking that all of their laws apply globally, without the bloody Italians getting in on the game. Remember, if all countries' laws apply globally, then for example we need some mesh of Chinese, (stupid) British, and Saudi laws on what can go on. You'll love that...
I'm ambivalent about this: certainly, the person to head up the taskforce should be at least mildly competent at mathematics, and Carol Vorderman is, not to put too fine a point on it, useless. There is a place for her in such a thing, but not leading it.
However, the country is at war with stupidity, and at the moment, stupidity is winning. Every year, the cohort of students arriving from school is worse than the previous, every year they know less, have fewer ideas, are more accustomed to being told that they are great when in fact they are terrible. I think we could do with every advantage we can get, and this mouthpiece, while vapid, could help.
I've never bought an Apple product. I thought I'd get that out the way. Now: There is not a person alive that should feel ill will toward anyone. Clearly this is not reality, as we see in the Middle East right now... Anyway, I just thought I'd wish him well, and a speedy recovery,.
So far, more than two years has passed since I found out that the government thought I had lived in Scotland, assigned me a temporary national insurance number while they sorted their shit out, then found that they screwed up the temporary number assigned to me because they screwed up the file the first time round. They lose the letters I send, can't decide what my name is, or where I work.
They are a bunch of useless fucks. This is not libel because (a) it's true, see case in point as proof, and (b) it's certainly in the public interest...
Not anonymous because I'm fed up to the back teeth with their complete incompetence, and they know that I'm fed up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
