Nightfall
Those are boring names. I vote to change the stars' names to Onos, Dovim, Trey, Patru, Tano and Sitha, in honour of Isaac Asimov and his truly excellent novel Nightfall :D
1368 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Sep 2006
As a matter of interest, do you think the person who paid £900 for your car (which you bought for £20) got value for money? I'm not trying to be a devil's advocate, I'm just interested how the economics of the fund-raising work - at a cursory glance, it sounds like you're raising money by fleecing the locals in the charity target country.
I'm sure it's not like that, but I'm wondering how it does work - did you add £880 to the value of the car through running repairs? Or are budget cars worth more in that part of the world due to scarcity?
Anyway, I hope this excellent rally restarts - I dearly hope to take part myself one day, although my vehicle of choice would be motorcycle rather than car - I don't know how to repair anything with more than two wheels :)
If I have already set a privacy setting on Facebook, I expect it to stay set.
Unfortunately they keep changing the rules, and it's difficult to know what to expect.
I know email preferences are different to privacy; but I had unsubscribed from ALL Facebook emails by unticking every box in the settings, but about a week ago Facebook decided to re-tick some of those boxes without my permission, and I started receiving email from them again.
Seeing as I'd given explicit opt-out instruction, I think that's a bit off.
I've gone off Facebook, I'm only going to post private information on Twitter now. [irony alert]
If you use Firefox or popup blockers, you're probably canny enough to know a scam when you see one. IT illiterate types using IE and computers full of malware are the target audience; they're the type who might think that "Posting links on Google" is a profitable enterprise.
What strikes me is how long it takes to stop these companies when they're hosted in the USA. Anything like that in Europe is punched down within days by the authorities; America's 'free trade' appears to allow this kind of thing to go on until somebody pulls out a lawyer.
You know, the crayon-designed blobby primary coloured version that you have to endure for whole minutes until you figure out how to revert to the businesslike grey.
And calling the options the 'sidebar' reeks of Vista!
Still - I wonder if their intention is to make it look the same in all browsers and platforms. The buttons currently look different, for example, in OS X Safari to Windows IE.
I think David is unfortunately mistaking Facebook for a user-focussed website. It's clients aren't users, but businesses. Users are merely eyes for adverts.
After all, how much is David going to directly pay Facebook in revenue? Keeping a business happy is a much more productive act for them than keeping a user happy.
Excellent article and investigation, thank you.
I have long felt that Google is shooting itself in the foot by operating a 'no categorisation' policy - insisting on one set of search results, no user options at all. This is great when the search results are clean and the search query is suitable; but in terms of comparison sites, it's Google's biggest weakness.
I would dearly love to see the option to show or hide comparison sites, along with review sites, shopping sites (sometimes I just want to go to the manufacturer's site, not see where I can buy an item), or indeed any kind of for-profit site (sometimes I just want independent opinion). The problem lies in the fact that Google do not want the task of categorisation or judgement - hence the 'it's the algorithm wot done it' argument.
At a Google-run SEO conference a number of years ago I put it to the speaker that business-led SEO is not always in the best interest of their users, and that shopping comparison sites are a prime example - she could not understand, insisting that if a business has the resources to optimise or money to advertise, they must be providing the most relevant content.
This should be on all publicly accessible websites, worldwide, and I would also like to suggest:
[ Click here to report child abuse ]
[ Click here to report illegal pornography ]
[ Click here to report piracy ]
[ Click here to report suspiciously tall photographers ]
[ Click here to report terrorism ]
[ Click here to report deviant thinking ]
Sky and their hardware partners are obviously timing their service carefully, to make everybody change from HDTV to 3D. That is, after everybody's made the LCD to HDTV change; following on from the Widescreen to LCD change; following on from the colour CRT to Widescreen change; following the black and white to CRT change; etc.
I'm not saying I'd rather be squinting at a miniature 1950's black and white television, but I'd rather technology was driven by consumer choice and genuine innovation, rather than manufacturer profits.
My next bet is on Smell-o-vision.
Being the top ranked website on Google for one of the most popular keywords is worth a hell of a lot more than a million bucks.
Sure, you could buy companies out, but only the ones who aren't getting value for money out of Google - and, logically, those aren't the ones people are trying to find. Nothing of value would be lost.
I saw hundreds of them decomposing in a storm drain yesterday. I have a feeling a delivery man couldn't be bothered :)
They don't seem to be putting on much worth watching. You know the old adage about the driver of new technology? I can't help feeling it would have been more successful if Channel Five did it in the old days when they screened late night soft porn.
There are two things I think YouTube could do to make these ads acceptable;
1. Keep them to a second or so - like the 'sponsored by' ads before some non-BBC TV programmes.
2. (assuming the above is done) Include the ad in the main video stream. There's nothing worse than waiting minutes for a video to load on a crappy connection, only to find that the video that has loaded is merely an advert, and your actual destination video hasn't even started.