Posts by Tenacal 35 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Feb 2014
It's great that solutions like this exist to those in the know but you've also got to consider a few things:
1) Not everyone knows enough (nor cares to learn) to set up this sort of thing, and those that don't know far outnumber those that do.
2) Should we really need to put in the work to create these sorts of workarounds when my dead grandmother can understand the idea of "one off purchase"?
"I read that article as a positive outcome from the MEPs. They voted against dumbing down the rules with amendments."
I had assumed the same. Rejecting amendments is what Sir Tim et al were after and they have had their wish granted.
Any greater minds available to enlighten our possible ignorance?
While not an invalid question, I think it's a bit too soon to be asking. 14 'droid-meatsack collisions in 6 years against the large number * of regular meatsack-meatsack collisions isn't going to be enough to draw an analysis, even when weighted against the number of 'droid cars vs the amount of regular cars.
*I have zero stats to back up this claim.
And equally, not everyone cares for a top notch camera on their phone. I'd have to think back about 3 months to recall the last photo taken on my HTC.
I'd much rather have the day-to-day workings of my phone suit me than worry about a single feature being below average.
"We disagree with the Court’s ruling and will appeal to the same court that ruled in Pandora's favor in the ASCAP case last week"
Appeal to the court that agrees with you. Then a counter-appeal to the court that made today's ruling. Then a counter-counter-appeal.
How can you get away with picking whatever system favours you and still call it a fair proceeding?
So this is now an appeal against an appeal against a court ruling. Why does it take three separate inquiries to decide this, when a court is meant to provide a final decision in the first place? And how much are the lawyers just laughing at getting paid three times for the same job?
Would love to see fines against the initial court whose ruling turned out to be wrong as a penalty for wasting everyone's time and money.
While I'm not on board with this level of DLC, they've not gone totally insane to lock players out of joining each others games.
Everyone has access to all maps and the DLC will only change what you personally can play. In a game with 3 people who have spent that £80? No problem, you can game just fine with the 'base game' characters.
Interesting because it suggests we've been going about the wrong way to try and stop scams like these.
Rather than boosting email security and junk filters we just all need to start replying to all Nigerian/Ivory Coast/Congo/etc 'princes' and they'll eventually get overwhelmed by all the responses that don't lead anywhere. The scam becomes unprofitable and all the scammers will have to go and find other ways to get rich...
..probably by attacking all those accounts that now have less security as a result of the above...
That had been the way I'd read it. Saying that one race may inherently have a statistically lower intelligence is no different from saying that a race is statistically stronger or faster. Genetics is quite unbiased when used see averages. The important thing to remember is that individuals can and will stand apart from the averages.
Having said that, looking at his comment alongside some of the other things he's said does not do him any favours.
"However, most people tend not to do so. Because most people aren't arseholes."
While that may be a big part of the reason (especially in murder examples) there is also the inherent fear that you will get caught and punished.
With regards to copyright infringement there is very little to actually be scared of. You pirated a few films? All you can expect is a letter saying "please don't do that again".
Don't forget about speech patterns.
Written English is recognised much better than spoken English. You have a few minor spelling differences (colour=color, etc) against a whole range of accents that blend sounds or skip words, a multitude of voices that can all have subtle variations.
Then you've got all the actual words to worry about. A foreign visitor trying to type 'Loughborough' is just a matter of coping it down from a nearby sign, actually trying to pronounce it can cause a whole world of problems.
@Roger
Correct, it couldn't be considered solid evidence in a stand alone manner, but neither does a phone's Flashlight being turned on at a specific time. Try and convict someone on those two facts alone and you'll be laughed out of court.
It does, however, indicate that the phone was present at the burial site at a specific time. As the phone was later found to be in his possession (otherwise they could not have looked through the phone logs to discover Flashlight timestamps) then it would appear that the phone was not stolen.
If he's claiming that he did not visit that area then either: a) he's lying; b) someone else took his phone and went there themselves before returning the phone; c) the phone moved there of its own accord.
@A Non e-mouse
Fair point, it's not been proven to be correct. However, Verizon will have been tracking phones for a number of years. I don't know if they have ever been called to submit their data in court before but other companies have been. While copyright undoubtedly prevents their methods being identical it is doubtful that their whole tracking system is wrong.
"Verizon, Bravo's carrier at the time of the Aguilar's death, has provided information about his phone's whereabouts that the accused him at the location the deceased's body was found. But Bravo's lawyers have asked that evidence not be shown to the jury, arguing that Verizon hasn't properly explained how it obtained and prepared the data."
It's a great system at work that allows valid evidence to be ignored.
Phone Location tracking has reportedly been used in other cases to prove that individuals were at certain areas (either agreeing or disagreeing a claim). Asking for evidence to be omitted because of a lack of technical detail casts a really bad shadow over your defence. I could see it being a valid argument in the case of brand new technology that hasn't been verified as accurate but this sort of thing has been around for a while now.
I think you've stated the exact issue, "other people could use it".
If you're marketing under that name you want customers to be secure in the knowledge that the 'Maxwell' Electric Car they've just bought is one of the quality ones that you produce, rather than a cheap copy with an identical name.
Note he's not saying that the adverts will suddenly become interesting/engaging, just more-so than current pre-video adverts. He may even turn out to be correct.
Nothing will change in the grand scheme of things though - users will still click the 'Skip Ad' button as soon as they're able (or continue to use AdBlock, if they're sensible).
The bitcoins were deemed to have been profits/reserves (property, if nothing else) of the Silk Road website - illegal regardless of who ran the site. If Ulbricht is found to be innocent then the government would say the coins were never his in the first place and so there is no problem.
A judge ruled that Ulbricht's personal stash cannot be touched until he is found guilty, as would be the case for any currency/property in any case.
So what would happen if the same thing (or similar enough for the purpose of patents) is owned by different individuals in different countries?
Peter owns the patent in England, Pierre owns the patent in France. Assuming neither are patent trolls and that both actually produce something relevant, what happens next? Peter gets his patent approved first, is Pierre now left with nothing of value and the threat of impending court action over infringing products?
I am no expert but this appears to be problematic.
One with financial limitations, perhaps?
A "self respecting gamer" would presumably be buying high end cards every year and the most recent releases don't come cheap. For annual upgrades you either need a fair amount of spare cash around or you buy a card from a few years ago and constantly replace that before it becomes too obsolete.
Only issue I've had when running this is one of resolution.
My laptop is considerably older and smaller than my desktop monitor yet the streaming keeps settings from your host computer. This ends up giving me 1920x1080 on a screen generally built for 1366x768, resulting in quite a bit of eye strain. It's easy enough to change the resolution to fit my laptop but that change is remembered on the host machine, resulting in a fair bit of resolution swapping on occasions where I computer swap a lot.
Past that, I've had a small warning in the bottom left telling me of slow decoding but damned if I could feel the difference in a 4X game.
All well and good to say that any search engine operator falls under this ruling but how will that be applied over multiple search engines?
Mr. Gonzalez has won this ruling for Google to remove the links to him, will he now have to go through another multiple of cases to force Bing, Yahoo, etc take down links to an identical article? I can't see Microsoft saying "well, Google had a ruling against them so we'll also drop this from Bing without being told". The precedent set by that would cause their lawyers nightmares for future cases.
If Mr Snow is suggesting that this is the "end of history" then all I can say is "You know nothing, Jon Snow"
Back OT:
I find it interesting that Bing and other search engines have avoided all mention in news outlets. Apparently, only Google has this sort of data that can be searched through and all others are totally innocent.
While I think its a great move by HTC, I feel they need to look at some of the basic problems with support first. My HTC Desire X died on me about 8 months after purchase..no hard knocks just cut out while resting on my bed and refused to power up again. Sent it off for repairs through HTC and began a lovely series of events:
1 failed pickup due to not entering the request in system, 1 failed pickup due to not finding the address, 1 failed pickup due to visiting the wrong work building (same company, different office on other side of road). 1 successful pickup when I got bored and sent it to them myself.
11 weeks of phone being in repairs spanning 20+ calls to the support centre, 8 different excuses for delay, two letters to UK office (neither receiving a response).
One returned phone, powering on but with the internal call speaker broken.
After that, I decided to use the recently required insurance policy from home contents and they picked it up & delivered a new one the next day.
I can't fault the phone, but equally, I can no longer advertise a HTC phone to anyone.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
