Posts by The man not from delmonte

BT slams bandwidth brakes on all subscribers

Hands up who actually looked at the report?

Ok, so reading through the comments (and skimming most) it looks like noone actually bothered to read the report...shocker!

Look at page 11 (section 2.9). The only speed tests even mentioned in the report are various types of port 80 tests. I can't find *anywhere* in the pdf that mentions any other form of speed testing (apart from things like latency and DNS resolution).

Even the FAQ for the project does not list any other tests...so what gives? Where is the actual information that shows us what this article claims?

Windows XP given additional resuscitation

Spin

I love the marketing spin in this. So people want XP for low end computers that don't run Vista well? Last time I checked, it was mostly businesses and techies that wanted to stick with XP on ALL machines regardless of spec because of the complete ballache that Vista can be trying to get it to work with everything on the same network.

Anti-paedophile group targets child abuse sites

My experience with the IWF

I have been involved to an extent with the IWF before. I was spammed with a link to an appalling website showing some horrendous images of child abuse. I reported it to the IWF who immediately passed on the report to the correct authorities that were responsible for the countries involved. The website was gone within days.

Has anyone actually read the report? The exact quote is "During 2007, the IWF processed 34,871 reports which resulted in 2755 top level domains with child sexual abuse content being assess, confirmed as potentially illegal, traced and the appropriate intelligence being disseminated accordingly"

Although the use of the TLD phrase is technically wrong, they are essentially excluding subdomains from counting as an extra number. 2204 of the 2755 were classified as websites which people were making money (hence commercial). This does not mean 2204 separate people trying to make money though.

Whilst it may be correct that category 1 does not specifically mention nudity, it does not exclude it. The table comes from page 109 of the following, and is an official legal guideline document, not something exclusive to the IWF:

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/82083-COI-SCG_final.pdf

From this document I understand that "no sexual activity" simply means that there is no physical contact with another person.