Posts by Chris Beach 151 publicly visible posts • joined 29 May 2007
On the surface this doesn't seem unreasonable, tie it in with some regulation around news reporting (factual checking, no-reposts of others work, no clickbait, errors and corrections reported with the same prominence as the initial article'.
The acceptance into to this special category and all the rules and decisions etc would need to be very very public.
My compromise is a 6 number letter prefix that looks random but it isn't, followed by the site/app/game/service name. Apart from stupid sites with length limits or 'special' char limits it works well.
At work all systems are inconsistent, so it's easier to just face roll on the keyboard and reset it every time I use the service.
That sounds entirely reasonable though, the publisher chooses what to put on their pages, so they should be responsible for all the content, and now, the corresponding consent. They choose which ad networks and trackers to link to.
Google can't ask for a users consent for a specific site, nor can they make the users consent to all sites that might use a Google backend service.
For the sites and pages Google publish on their domains then of course they are responsible.
Google might have lots to do for gdpr, but not this.
Yep, I've yet to see how it hurts consumers. I use their products because they are best in the market, and I've yet to see any proof that they've intentionally blocked a competitor.
There's an underlying issue in that due to the utter mass of sites, gaining any relevance in search results is getting exponentially harder...shrinking search engine companies though, is NOT the solution to that problem.
well given the widely different technical architecture why are you confused?
Sharing sites is a good idea, normally blocked by the NIMBY bunch that then complain (when they get a signal) its too big, or in the wrong place.
Sharing the exact same infrastructure and then roaming is a completely screwy idea by someone that knows diddly-squat about the way your mobile works.
Language is an obvious issue, there's a lot of different languages, with far more limited markets. US shows are far easier to market worldwide, so people know about them, and demand their local broadcasters show them...
That doesn't mean Europe isn't producing decent quality shows/stories, and one thing that the US producers have gotten better at is remakes, the Killing and the Bridge are both excellent, but based on Scandinavian shows. Maybe its because in both cases they had the original creators onboard.
tbh this seems reasonable and the judge's reasoning is sound. If you can get a warrant for the PC contents, I don't think you should be able to hide behind a cloud.
Ideally it would be nice if the law recognized the fast amount and scope of possible content and there were two types of warrant, a limited one where the authorities had to be more specific about which content they were after, and the less limited one mentioned in the article. The latter should be harder to get, i.e. must have some prior collaborating evidence.
Agreed, though the number of times I actually launch things from it on my two desktops can be counted on one hand. They're either pinned to the taskbar or opened via file association.
Unfortunately I can't justify spending 100 to upgrade the laptop, which I think would have a more traditional usage model, as I use it for development. If the £50 deal was still on, I'd have upgraded from 7Pro.
I agree to a point, trademarks did have a use. But does anybody seriously believe that in the current times that Coke/Nike/Apple/etc really need that little mark to 'protect' themselves? From who exactly?
From what I can see they do need legal protection from any potential damage caused by a 'competitors' product that might be misattributed to themselves. But that doesn't need the whole mess and farce of trademarks.
I think a similar argument could be said for patents and copyrights, some of the basic ideas are needed, but not as they currently are written and enforced.
Good, whatever you feel about the PirateBay and its ilk, blocking the site was never a workable solution to the problem, and the ISP's should never have had to implement it, so this is the right decision.
BRIEN, should now hire someone that knows how the internet actually works...
Sounds like there also going from well tested hardware (which is easier to test has it has a single task to do) to shed loads of software (on top of varying numbers of hardware bits (which are only really tested in isolation)).
This seems very risky, as apart from a few computer science projects very few bits of software are anywhere near bug/defect free. Modern development techniques do try to make this easier, but still, the complexity of the software components is going to far outweigh any complexity the original hardware had.
"How about you start calling it what it is. It removes cash from the pocket of the creator - it is theft. End of."
Cept that is precisely what it doesn't do. It removes the 'potential' cash that might have at some point ended in pocket of the creator*. So its not theft. * as not all legit sales end up with money for the creator, and nor should they.
You're making the same mistake the studios do, assuming that every pirate copy is a lost sale. Which is utterly illogical, as its assuming most people want to break the law, which has been shown many times is false. Its also assuming that their desire to want the content means they 'will' acquire it, which is also false.
People have multiple sources, they might buy the bluray, or dvd, or maybe rent, maybe stream. They'll pay as much as they can afford, but if the producers have blocked one or more of these for their own narrow minded reasons then people might see piracy as an alternative. And that pirate market was created by the content producers themselves...
Still not entirely sure why Google is responsible for increasing traffic to your site? Nor why it needs to make things easy for advertisers.
The first is down to the content on your site, so if its pointless drivel then no I'm not going there, wherever it appears on Google.
And of course the advertisers have a hard time, no consumer actually wants to see adverts. Some accept that they are a required part of having free stuff on the net, but that still doesn't mean they want Google to make it easy for them.
Also there's been no proof that Google is blocking or hindering the development of Bing or any other search engine...so its probably that the other services aren't as good...
I would say a lot of people are overlooking the medium of the communication. Written mailing list is different to one-one emails and utterly different ballpark to verbal face to face.
Personally Linus's first email came across as frustration and also fairly obvious that he wouldn't have used the same language if he were speaking to someone face-to-face, it wasn't even directed at a *person*. Also it was fairly obvious that this wasn't the only time or patch that had these issues.
Also his follow up mailings were clear, calm and precise, he gets angry (though he still explained what made him so in the first email) when there's something to be angry about, that's not abusive or unprofessional.
I sometimes do and sometimes don't ignore the warnings, I ignore them when going to my NAS drive site, because I know why Chrome isn't happy. And I ignore it other times as well, but I don't always ignore it.
It all depends on what I clicked on, if I'm fairly sure its just a miscategorisation then I'll proceed.
And there's no stats that is going to tell Google that.
For me to never ignore it, then they need to be damn (as in 100%) sure its a harmful site which isn't doable, or have a 'I trust this site checkbox'.
Then the stats might be actually be saying what you say their saying now!
Yep a PS4 doesn't have any self-updating mechanism that would enable Sony to add the self-same DRM...oh wait...
MS took the blow now, but the publishers will start demanding this again once the consoles are in peoples homes, and as they now know it can be done, they'll have Sony over a barrel if Sony refuses cause they honestly 'care about gamers'.
Hell the entire entertainment industry would love to take a cut (that they think they're due) on 2nd hand sales.
Not surprised thats controversial, it makes not a lot of sense. Arrow of Time is a consequence of entropy that always increasing in the closed system of the universe, not the make up of matter inside it. We don't see glass fragments reform, not because they can't, but because it would take a shed load of energy and time.
As for antimatter, not sure why having opposite charge & spin would effect time in any sense. We already have particles that differ in charge & spin they don't behave differently timewise to the others.
cept, that technically the PS3 was better than the 360...and yet almost every head-to-head showed the 360 having better visuals (obviously the gameplay was nigh on identical, apart from the 360's superior multiplayer)
It all depends on the developer support Sony and MS give, and MS have been historically better at this. Obviously having a department for development tools, and already strong relations with the graphics hardware guys via DirectX helps.
It also sounds like the Xbox One is closer to production (and more importantly dev kits) than the PS4.
Just to point out that on any modern phone your photos are already on about 3 different cloud services about 2 secs after you've taken them...photo recovery is not the reason for removable storage:)
It would have been great to take my existing sd of music and just shove it in the new phone...but then again all of the music's on Google anyways, so might as well just let it organise where its stored.
urm cost probly! PCI-E are still in the realms of fantasy/extreme enterprise usage, for a typical consumer they aren't even close to being a viable option. Even if the cost came down the installation/usage isn't as straightforward either.
Plus they are no use at all for laptops.
tbh they are temporary stopgap until the next SATA protocol appears and fixes the 6Gb bandwidth limit. (SATA Express is the current forerunner)
But that's nothing (even when combined with MS and Apple) to other industries like the drug corps, car manufactures or the entertainment industry. So I'd hardly call that a sign of evilness.
It's a sign that the tech corps are realising that its the only way to protect their businesses and their markets.
No such thing as the spirit of the law, it never has and never will stand up in any court as a defence or prosecution argument.
So the Dutch are doing the right thing (well according to the media, and maybe, just maybe their citizens), by changing the actual legal wording of the laws to prevent the practise from happening.
Ireland could do the same, cept they're in a slightly better position as the companies using the tax loopholes do tend to employee in Ireland, and Ireland desperately needs a job market (other than building lots of empty properties...)
If this was announced alongside their IPv6 plan, then that would have been a good thing. "look, we're investing in a proper solution, but in the meantime can you help us out buy..."
As it is it looks like they don't want, or can't make the switch to IPv6, and are happy to provide a sub-par service.
Do you know what travelling at .99999995%c looks like?
No, then it was important, it answered a question that had an unknown answer.
The fact they used a science fiction film just makes it more accessible...no point doing the science if you can't relate what you find to the normal person.
what? having installed Win8 on my very physical machine, there's no resistance or any indication at all that the corners do anything.
there was a immensely piss-poor animation during first start-up that kind of suggest they might do something, but there's naff all otherwise. They're also slow if you actually use the corners. To get the bars (charm or app switch) its best to go into the corner then down/up. esp as the charms are all in the middle, which is annoying, having to travel 2-3" to go from the corner to the first 'charm'.
Still not found if you can close an app with the mouse only.
Oh and the start screen not respecting snapped apps, or having a clock is damn annoying too.
And how are they working out which device is what? Esp as most Android browsers offer an easy to change the user agent, and due to lazy web monkeys, you used to have to change to imitate the iPhone, as that was the only device they tested for.
So Android user could be inflating the iOS (and desktop numbers).
Cept Microsoft really aren't going for the iPad either, they're going for the business market. Hence the touch, keyboard and pen...its productivity and creation.
The coding, is similar to the current .NET methodology, which business are already used to.
Think about how many of those little hand-held signature devices you see, or the ones the gas/electric meter guys use, what are they all running...Windows CE... That's the where Microsoft see the biggest market, running 'boring' but essential business apps.
Consumers are an secondary bonus, and so they can afford to just target the high-end iPad crowd...they don't need to worry about the mid/low end...that'll come by default.
I don't quite see what EU hope to gain from this. If you accept that Google's dominance in search allows it to enter other markets that are unrelated to search and that's not 'good'. Then aren't you pretty much saying once a company enters a market its stuck within the confines of that market? Isn't that pretty damn stupid?
Yes Google probably did use the profits from search to give Maps away for free, but when it entered it wasn't the only product and it wasn't the only free product, it just was, in most peoples opinion, better. Google didn't abuse the search to get it there though, a link to maps was added, but the integration of maps and search didn't happen for quite a while afterwards, Maps was already dominant by then.
I doubt anyone could argue Google has ever plastered a new product all over their search site, and even if they did, are the EU really trying to say that a company can't advertise its own products on its home page?
And you it seems like.
HD Ready was initially for the plasmas screens that due to their design didn't have either 720p or 1080p resolutions, 1024x768 I think was common. So on the crappy little sticker they had 'less' pixels than the cheapo LCD next to them.
But they did accept a 1080p, hence the 'ready'. And internally for plasmas the relationship between pixels on the screen and the content wasn't as simple as it is for LCD.
This was badly expanded to include the crap 720p screens, so they could con the punters, as they could all accept HD, that is 1080p.
So HD Ready has meant that the TV accepts a 1080p HD signal, nothing to do with its actual resolution.
