Posts by Ian 56 43 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Nov 2009
Might I respectfully suggest, that if security is in any way a concern, that you DO NOT USE PUBLIC WIFI!!1!
Ahem. Sorry got a bit shouty there.
Also, there's a fine line between mocking the type of beverages sold in coffee shops ("extra-hot fair trade soya decaf caramel mint chocka mocha focka carbonated Bulgarian snow forest chai espresso latte plus vegan sprinkles and a twist of lemming"), and mocking the type of person that frequents such establishments. I tend to the latter, though I realise there is more than a little element of reverse-snobbery involved. I'm sorry about that too.
Just dropped by to recommend the Star Wars Revisited fan edit:
https://swrevisited.wordpress.com/
http://fanedit.org/ifdb/component/content/article/79-fanedit-listings/fanfix/928-star-wars-episode-iv-2004-special-edition-revisited-purist-edition
Go for the Purist edition - which is as close to the original release as you will find. Han shoots first, the Death Star explodes without the extra ring-of-fire, etc, etc.
How old are you?
Have you heard of Saatchi & Saatchi? Do you remember Bernard Ingham's relentless propagandising? Do you remember Thatcher's image realignment, the voice-coaching?
The idea that spin is some kind of left-wing invention is just right-wing spin. Spin, and it's obvious utility to governments of all persuasions is here to stay. It has never been a partisan issue.
Never said it was. It's a response to the assertion that:
"A voluntary transaction is, by definition, mutually beneficial."
... which is obvious cobblers.
I might also take mild issue with the idea that submitting to Google tracking is "free". I guess it depends on your definition of the word and, specifically, whether you're only implying a financial meaning. Here's another:
4. (free of/from) Not subject to or affected by (something undesirable):
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/free?searchDictCode=all
I agree.
"A voluntary transaction is, by definition, mutually beneficial."
Hard to believe somebody could write that without irony.
It's only true if both parties have full access to all relevant information, and have the tools* to process that information. If not then it is, by definition, not mutually beneficial. It is, generally speaking, one party "leveraging** their superior bargaining position" - or in laymen's terms: a rip-off.
* Think: knowledge of the jargon, legalese, full awareness of the consequences of the transaction, full awareness of your legal rights and responsibilities, etc, etc.
** ugh
"In running the line that undersea cables were cut, Greenwald is straying far enough from what's feasible and credible that his judgement on other claims needs to be questioned."
You might want to go back and read the original article (linked back from this piece (via the last one)). I have, and I don't see anywhere Greenwald saying that the cables were cut. The closest he gets is this:
"Top secret documents provided by the whistleblower demonstrate that the GCSB, with ongoing NSA cooperation, implemented Phase I of the mass surveillance program code-named “Speargun” at some point in 2012 or early 2013. “Speargun” involved the covert installation of “cable access” equipment, which appears to refer to surveillance of the country’s main undersea cable link, the Southern Cross cable. [...]
Upon completion of the first stage, Speargun moved to Phase II, under which “metadata probes” were to be inserted into those cables."
Then he goes on to provide his evidence for those statements.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/15/new-zealand-gcsb-speargun-mass-surveillance/
So you have "access equipment", and "probes", which could mean almost anything. Nowhere does it say "cut".
"... Julian Assange, who may himself be under consideration for his tireless work in uncovering the truth about what US diplomats said about European politicians' personal hygiene and other such earth-shattering revelations."
Or you could have gone with the "Collateral Murder" video - some of the most shocking footage I have ever seen (not being old enough to remember Vietnam).
Still, carry on with the snark. It's what keeps those clicks coming in.
"95 per cent of our fellow games players – those who fill server upon server with online Call of Duty and Battlefield sessions – tend to disagree"
Citation please.
CoD and Battlefield players are no fellows of mine.
Heck, online multiplayers are no fellows of mine.
Why would anyone give the first shit about what is, in a very crowded field, the most notoriously abusive online gaming community?
When asked, my iPhone-using friends only ever mention two "features" - build quality, and the ecosystem (i.e. the fact that apps work together seamlessly), and it's the second that really matters to them. Neither of those need to be any issue at all - assuming Apple wanted to come over to the light side.
The OS "experience" is obviously weak compared to equivalent Android and Windows devices.
The appstore has a larger selection than the Play Store, but that won't last, and in any case Google's store is already large enough to support anything you're likely to need.
I am sick and tired of media types saying "what they did was against the law already, so where's the problem?".
The kind of justice available to ordinary people (i.e. non multi-millionaires) is a world away from from that available to the powerful. Our libel laws operate counter to their supposed purpose; the PCC is ineffective; and as has been shown multiple times over the years, the police are uninterested unless forced by overwhelming public or political pressure.
I honestly wonder what kind of person can sit down, and with a straight face, write: "The British media is, in fact, very heavily regulated already by the existing laws of the land."
Oh, and btw, the media is already regulated by government. It always has been. In the absence of a proper constitution in this country, *everything* is (or could be) regulated by government. The only question is to what degree.
1. Which Home Secretary famously made up a story about "having a cat meaning an automatic right to stay in the UK", claiming that "You couldn't make it up".
2. Who, or what is "Maddie"?
A. A blonde, blue-eyed victim of dastardly foreigners?
B. The major source of revenue for a national newspaper.
C. Both of the above.
3. In the average comments thread on a subject related, tangentially or otherwise, to "immigrants", what percentage of comments will be written by retarded xenophobic eejits?
A. 30%
B. 50%
C. 70%
"The five per cent of users who only ever used unlicensed material spent much less than the average: £13.80 over three months, compared to £77.24."
Eh?
Shirley, given the phrasing, I'd have thought the amount would be £0.00, y'know, by definition.
"The survey demolishes the myth that devoted pirates are also high spenders."
I've not heard this. I have heard that those who pirate also spend the most, but this is not the same thing at all - the "myth" as you put it does not refer to the top few percent.
I've read the article.
1) It doesn't say it's an "iPad App". It says: "It is a web app".
2) The word "sentiment" is not used.
3) It doesn't say that it is exclusive to Cameron.
So, to paraphrase, almost every piece of information provided about the article turns out to be fanciful and bogus.
Same old, same old.
My thoughts exactly - the economic "harm" would be zero.
Of course, if a load of bureaucrats started investigating this, quite a lot of people, including certain usual suspects (coughOrlowskicough), would waste no time complaining about the waste of taxpayer's money.
On the other hand, the economic benefits from liberalising the regime and allowing companies to officially target format-shifting as a service or feature, should be obvious to anybody (coughOrlowskicough) - if not so easily quantified.
"The researchers found that young people who were exposed to the most music, compared to those who listened to music the least, were 8.3 times more likely to be depressed"
This is called correlation.
"...research has shown that listening to music all the time as a teenager turns you into a doleful depressive"
This is causation.
How did you get from the first to the second please?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
