Posts by Andrew Engel

Zuckerberg: 'Make partnerships, not war'

What a weasel

This is just a weaselly way of saying he doesn't want any competitors, he just wants everyone to use Facebook. I'm sure he'd love that. I wouldn't.

People have no bloody idea about saving energy

Alternatives?

The article talks about alternatives, but compares turning off lights to turning down heating, for example. Those aren't alternatives, you can do both. Relative effectiveness is moot.

As for the alternatives of glass and aluminium, I'll just go and buy a can of jam shall I?

Sky turns 3D on Oct 1

Logic Fail

If they're really early adopters they'll have had HDTV for years. You do realise HDTV didn't come out 1 year ago don't you?

How a Tory gov will be the most tech-savvy in history

Tosh?

Where is there *any* suggestion that they would *require* a response in seconds in that article?

Essentially, they're saying "instead of raising awareness of particular information via (costly) television or newspaper advertisements, communication streams such as twitter could be used more effectively and cheaply". And you're interpreting that as "we'd tweet a job ad and require responses in seconds".

The 'tosh' there is largely on your end I'm afraid.

Re: Meanwhile, on Twitter...

"Replacing "massive centralised government databases" with Twitter and the "open source iPhone" *snort*"

That's not what it says.

I mean, sure, he doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on what 'open source' means (although he at least clarifies what he *does* mean), but it looks like a load of you can't even manage basic reading comprehension yourselves.

Personally, I don't see that the general approach and principles that are actually outlined there are that unreasonable.

Beeb invites net comments from unconnected

Reg dumber than BBC

The bootnote is disappointingly idiotic in itself. Of course there are adults who use the web (and news.bbc) at work, but don't have internet access at home.

The 'so-called self-excluded group' of mostly older and retired people is 42%. There's another 58% who aren't in that group.

Then you've got the 30% who are currently offline who gave the main reason for it as financial OR lack of skills. Some of them may well use the web at work, but just don't want to spend the cash to have it at home. Would the question, "Would a free PC and broadband access persuade you to go online?" apply to them? Duh.

And then you've got the rest who aren't in either of those groups.

"So, nothing to do with just not having a net connection at home." <-- utter bollocks, not even remotely supported by the figures quoted. You're just trying to cover your epic fail in ignoring the existence of people who use the web at work but not at home.

Pirate Bay prosecutor argues for one year prison terms

Calculations

"He cited new calculations showing that the file sharing site brings in annual income of 10m kronor, after expenses had been deducted."

Translation: "I've made up two figures, one for advertising income per visitor, and one for number of visitors, and multiplied them together, then subtracted another made up sum for expenses. This proves they earned lots of money. Please jail them."

Classy.

Why the IWF was right to ban a Wikipedia page

Er... No.

The author of this article seems to miss several key points.

There is a fundamental difference between Wikipedia preventing editing access to Wikipedia, and a third-party preventing access to part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia naturally has the right to control access to their own service. A third-party does not.

It is simply not hypocritical to object to a third-party censoring your service, while still wishing to control access yourself.

Essentially, the author is attributing a position of "all censorship is bad" to Wikipedia, then attacking them on it. But they don't hold that position, even if you regard editorial control as the same as censorship. This is a third-party declaring an image illegal and thus preventing access to it universally (presumably they should, as the author says, block Amazon too...). It is simply not the same as a site preventing editing of their own site - those blocked are still free to state their views elsewhere, or start their own site if they wish. Presumably no-one in the UK is allowed to access this image anywhere, now it has been declared - unofficially - illegal.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. The author seems to have no objection to a third-party, with no real authority, declaring material illegal resulting it in being censored by ISPs for fear of having to go to court. Can the writer of this article really not see the problem with that?

US couple sue over McNudes

@Address on phone

@Anonymous: The address may have been on the phone, particularly if the contact was sent via bluetooth, for example, rather than being manually entered. It may also have been on the phone in a stored SMS. Even if it wasn't on the phone, it is not typically hard to obtain someone's address if you've got their name and phone number, and their husband's mobile phone.

Either way, the idea that knowledge of name, address, and phone number is proof of the involvement of McDonald's because only they, or someone who knows the couple, could have known those details is moronic.

And @Mad Hacker, read the article: 'US woman who sent some nude snaps of herself to her hubby's mobe' - if she sent the pics, her contact details were likely stored with the pic.

Not hard to prove, if you're an idiot

@Tony Hoyle - did it occur to you her name, address, and telephone number might just possibly be on the phone along with the pics?

It's a pretty safe bet that any one who picked up the phone had access to her name and phone number at the very least. The idea that only someone who knows her or 'McDonalds staff who were presumably told her details' would be the only ones who'd know that information is, frankly, moronic.