Would love to, but it looks like here in NZ will beat you to it :)
12 posts • joined 31 Aug 2007
I'd love to wait for stuff on FTA - much as I find the incessant breaks between adverts intensely annoying :)
Just not the nigh on one year it currently seems to be for pretty well anything I might enjoy.
Or when it finally arrives on our remote shores, they don't take off air mid season with no notice & no apparent reason.
Here in NZ at any rate, Woolworths is akin to Sainsburys, maybe Tescos. All owned by parent Aussie company Progressive.
We're getting the same logo over here, albeit the stores branding Countdown
but Woolworths et al over here is certainly seen as a supermarket and not the dear tat bazaar we so fondly remember over in Blighty.
So, yeah, the logo to me makes perfect sense, conveys freshness. They may sell electronic goods too, but they're primarily foodstuffs. Always have been, I'm told.
In any case, I don't think they have "own brand" electronics goods - its just their food that is so.
FWIW, doesn't look exactly the same, but then it doesn't look entirely different.
Wow.. your comments are astounding. Yep, sure, big mistake not backing up the TB's of data that resided on the site, and how remiss of them not to have someone full time at the NOC there to run the daily backup.. after all, it was only two odd hours out of anyone's way to actually do that.
Its easy to say there should have been a more solid backup strategy, that's the benefit of hindsight, and it does seem a little reckless backing up web server (green) to ftp (purple) server.
That said, I'd like to think that there would be a little more sympathy from you for a site operator who had their site KO'd by some venomous little scrote with an axe to grind. No, I don't believe this was some random hack job, as from the looks of what happened, it appears that the hack was from someone with pretty intimate knowledge of the setup there.
I sure hope, Mr AC (16th May 2009 07:38) that you're just as smug when you need to restore from that Bluray disk to find it's corrupt to buggery.
But, John what you miss is that it's only an inhibitor if they've been caught/accused/suspected in the first place.. some undesirables DO seem to be quite good at not getting caught/accused/suspected in the first place, thus rendering any CRB check on them potentially useless, since they are, to all intents and purposes, clean.
Seems to me, that defeats the purpose of the system?
"We need to find a balance which allows rights holders to target the criminals raking in huge profits from this crime without threatening basic civil liberties or dramatically changing the relationship between internet service providers and users".
Another politician who has little idea of the facts and throws an ignorant comment into the ring to garner support/publicity.
Filesharers, in the majority, I am sure don't operate for financial gain. Last time I looked, copyright infringement was a civil offence, therefore not a crime.
Unauthorised trading in copyrighted material is a crime - and we have sufficient bodies to deal with that offence. They're called "the Police".
By all means, target those who sell copyrighted material without consent - you can probably find them down the local car boot sale or street corner.
But I'm afraid that using *free* software to download *free* copyrighted material to use on your DRM *free* device does not by default make you a criminal* interested in making profit, no matter how you try to convince yourself and other (simple) like-minded folk that it does.
The arrogant, coked up execs in the Recording industry missed their chance to make money from downloadable distribution, that's their fault, not ours. And you, as OUR public servant, should not be supporting legislation to prolong their archaic, dead and rotting distribution model. Thank you.
*Whether it makes you a "criminal" for downloading said copyrighted content is a different story...:)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021