1850s Conestoga Wagon & similar era Buckboard
"No, Ma'am, I said *buck* board, but as the saying has it: 'a ride for a ride'..."
Posts by Graham Marsden
6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Page:
- ← Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- Next →
Ancient auto: still running, up for sale
Google lets newsmakers tag favourite stories
Monday 26th September 2011 18:39 GMT 
BREAKING NEWS!!!
[Insert micro-celebrity's name here] was photographed doing [insert mildly scandalous or salacious tittle-tattle here] along with [Insert another micro-celebrity's name here] last [day/ week/ month/ year]
This is obviously *SUCH* important news that it *MUST* take priority over everything else because we say so!!!
Google Wallet and PayPal in electro-purse war
Brits registering .uk domains mostly get first choice
Saturday 24th September 2011 07:54 GMT
@Ru
Are you in the legal profession? It certainly sounds like it to me, because you seem to be in favour of a system that is designed to give lots of money to lawyers.
When I set up my business on the web I decided to go for .co.uk because that was the most appropriate suffix being a UK company, not realising that world+dog (especially in the USA) would go for .com even if it wasn't appropriate for them.
So now there's a .com version of my domain which I'd like to get, but it's sitting parked, doing nothing because some greedy company wants $3000 for it, an amount that I'm not willing to pay (even if I could afford it given the current state of the economy) and neither am I willing to fork out similar amounts to register a trademark and then try to fight through the long and convoluted process of proving that I am entitled to that domain because either way I'd end up losing money.
Faster-than-light back with surprising CERN discovery
Yoof survey: 'Internet as vital as air'
Brit ISPs shift toward rapid pirate website blocking
Thursday 22nd September 2011 15:56 GMT 
Great...
... so protecting the profits (and bonuses) of the multi-million pound international music and film industry by allowing them to demand that sites that they say are infringing their copyrights be closed *immediately* is *so* much more important than protecting small businesses from unjustified take-downs because someone posted something which, allegedly, infringes copyright on Friday evening and it won't be until Monday morning that they find out that their site has been down over the weekend as they didn't instantly jump to delete the offending post when the industry said they should.
Facebook 'personal' news feed gets algorithm rejig
GM OnStar cars will upload all data unless owners opt out
Thursday 22nd September 2011 08:19 GMT 
"eCall...
"...will also put a mobile phone into every car in Europe"
Great! So if you have a crash and you were using your mobile, it's ok because eCall put it in there, so it *must* be ok to use!
Oh, BTW, "if you want to travel anonymously after 2015 then best get yourself an (eCall-exempted) motorcycle", that's all well and good, but the EU wants to add a whole load of "safety" requirements to motorbikes like compulsory ABS, banning *any* modifications to engines, gearbox, sprockets etc (basically anything between the airbox and up to and including the rear wheel!), the possibility of roadside emission checks by Police etc, they could also end up emulating the current rules the French are trying to enforce where bikers are to be made to wear full sleeve hi-viz jackets because it's obviously *their* fault that drivers didn't see them!
MAG are organising a country-wide protest on Sunday the 25th so bikers can demonstrate exactly what they think of these proposals see http://www.mag-uk.org/en/campaignsdetail/a6883 for more details and if you're on the M27 Rownhams Services eastbound on Sunday, I'll see you there :-)
1-in-3,200 chance* that a fiery satellite chunk will hit someone on Friday
Capital gets trendy address: .London on its way
Schmidt ducks antitrust questions lobbed from Congress
Hunt for long-lost Apollo 10 moon lander adrift in space
Hunt: Online file-sharing is a 'direct assault on freedoms'
Monday 19th September 2011 21:23 GMT
@Clare (web specialist)
"Society" did nothing of the sort. A bunch of Labour MPs desperate for some publicity, seeing a band wagon they could jump on (and exploiting the grief of a mother whose daughter had died in what was actually probably a tragic accident), forced a piece of legislation (supported by policy based evidence making) onto the statute books without letting our elected representatives have sufficient time to debate the entire bill it was contained in.
It was left to the Lib Dems in the Lords to question it but they couldn't get enough support to block it because, as one Tory Peer admitted to me, "Tory Lords don't vote on Lib Dem amendments".
So we ended up with (yet another) nonsensical and utterly unenforceable piece of legislation on the statute books and if you are *really* a "web specialist" you would know perfectly well that attempting to enforce *any* restriction "across the internet" (even if only in the UK) is utterly impossible.
Thursday 15th September 2011 22:00 GMT
@Clare (web specialist)
Well firstly this "cross industry body" is going to target exactly what that *industry* doesn't want out there.
And secondly, apart from kiddy porn, what other "more objectionable" content on the internet would you like to see blocked according to the personal opinions of the people on this or some other such body?
We already have the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Drawings acts, what's next to be banned because "We don't like this, so you're not allowed to see it"?
Thursday 15th September 2011 13:11 GMT 
"we must take care that...
"...power is never over-concentrated in a few hands"
Yet that is *exactly* what he is suggesting with a "cross-industry body [...] charged with identifying infringing websites against which action could be taken".
Does he *really* think that they are going to operate in the best interests of the public? Or are they just going to operate in the best interests of their profits and bonuses???
Smut domain scores big bucks for not handling smut
MPs probe social networks' position following riots
Thursday 15th September 2011 22:27 GMT
"Facebook has several hundred employees...
"...who constantly do damn all when people raise complaints about fake accounts, being unfairly blocked for 'spamming' when they haven't, and who block people from their own pages when the log in has been been hacked etc etc etc..."
There, fixed it for you!
Scientists discover Tatooine-style world 200 lightyears off
Microsoft demos creepy car stalking system
Facebook lets users have separated social, er, Circles
Defendant presents Playmobil rendering of court in court
IBM’s Jeopardy super hired to search healthcare data
Gravity wave detector gets more sensitive
Ten years after the Twin Towers: What's the Reg angle?
9/11: The day we lost our privacy and power
Monday 12th September 2011 07:17 GMT
@Well, we elect them...
... no, the blame is on those who, when we had the chance to *change* a broken electoral system, decided to believe the FUD spread by the vested interests in politics and the media and *stay* with that broken system after a choice of "FPTP or AV" was foisted upon us instead of us being allowed to decide amongst *ALL* the possible options.
Saturday 10th September 2011 13:20 GMT
Re: "We blindly accept new laws without so much of a squeak"
It's not that "we" accept them, but our "elected representatives" (who are supposed to tell Parliament what *we*, their constituents think) usually blindly follow their Party Whips' instructions "this is Party Policy, this is how you will vote".
A few have the courage to stand up and object, but their voices are generally drowned out and even if they manage to get an amendment tabled, it's usually voted down by the rest.
"[...] voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Goering
Saturday 10th September 2011 13:20 GMT
I remember the IRA attacks of the 1970s
The word then was "We will not let the terrorists change how we behave or let them destroy our freedoms"
Now it's "We must give up our freedoms, our liberties, our rights to 'protect' society from terrorists and if you don't agree, you must have something to hide like being on their side!"
Every time our leaders introduce another measure that restricts our rights and liberties "for our own good" Al Qaeda et al are sitting in their dens laughing their socks off as they watch us doing their job for them.
Time for Ben Franklin again: "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".
Parliament has no time for 100,000+ signature e-petitions
Monday 12th September 2011 07:17 GMT
@AC: re: Bombing
IIRC There was a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera which had a character called the "Chief Exploder" whose job it was to keep an eye on the Ruler of the Country and, if the Ruler got out of hand, the Chief Exploder would, well, explode the Ruler and then become Ruler in their stead.
Of course a new Chief Exploder would then be appointed...! :-)
Friday 9th September 2011 18:18 GMT
Re: Go back to paper petitions
Have you tried organising a country-wide petition? Even if you can organise one, it requires people to be in the right place to get others to sign. In the past I've seen a petition handed in to Number 10 and thought "I'd like to have signed that, but I didn't even *know* about it..."
(Oh and before now AIUI governments have tried and sometimes managed, to get a huge petition written off as a *single* comment!)
Apollo 17 Moon landing: Shock revelations
Saturday 10th September 2011 13:20 GMT
Ah, but don't forget...
... there's the new documentary Apollo 18 which has just been released which blows all the old conspiracy theories away and substitutes entirely new ones!
Of course they had to pretend it was all just a movie to get it past the censors, but now we know the truth!!!!!
(Oh and tell the gentlemen in the white coats that mine's the one with the long canvas sleeves and the tinfoil hat in the pocket...)
Windows 8 to boot in 8 seconds
Hey Commentards! [This title is optional]
Three in ten Americans urge feds to read their email
Thursday 8th September 2011 21:55 GMT
@Figgus
"The Tea Party can be lambasted for having 2 sets of standards (one for citizens and one for POW) but even I don't really see a problem with that as long as both standards are humane."
You really don't see a problem with that? Hmm, let me try a few expressions on you here:
Separate but Equal
Some are More Equal than others
American vs Un-American
Apartheid
There's plenty of precedents for double standards...
Cybercrooks prey on 9/11 anniversary
Satellite gives better picture of solar flares' effects on Earth
Swedish cops free boozy moose from tree
UK slashes red tape in apprenticeships scheme
End of UK local dialling in sight as numbers run out
Amazon solves wait-at-home-for-deliveries problem
Early Earth’s ‘golden shower’
Most bosses monitor or block social-network use at work
Page:
- ← Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- Next →
Biting the hand that feeds IT
