Posts by yeah, right. 639 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Apr 2007
Sure, Rogers "relented"... by proposing a limited-time special that allegedly runs out in 6 months anyway. In other words, maybe enough and long enough to perhaps stop the growing calls for reform at the sudden realization by many Canadians that they're getting utterly raped by their mobile phone companies.
I want one because it is the first device (Crackberries included) that does everything on my rather lengthy requirements list. No other phone that I've seen so far does that, even the ones I saw on my last trip to Japan.
Will I get one? No, because at the moment I live in Canada, a technologically backwards nation with a small cartel of mobile phone companies that have conveniently carved up the country between them, and thus have absolutely no incentive to compete. Rogers, the GSM monopoly provider (who was recently allowed to buy out its only competition - how nice), only offers the iPhone WITHOUT unlimited data. $60/month for 400MB (yes, MEGAbyte) or $150/month for 4GB. That's in ADDITION to your actual phone plan. In other words, here it costs minimum $3500 over 3 years to own an iPhone. That's with the Canadian $$ at par with the US$.
And you thought you were getting ripped off in the UK? HA! This 3rd world colony has you well beat in that department. Unfortunately.
The BSA and CompTIA are against this proposal? Must be a good one then, something that we really need to see adopted.
Standards SHOULD be free of patents. Any corporation wanting their technology incorporated into an internationally approved standard should, in exchange, give up any patent claims to that technology. Otherwise, you get things like the Qualcomm bait-and-switch, or the Microsoft OOXML boondoggle.
Real standards are meant to increase interoperability. IP claims, by design, reduce interoperability. Therefore IP claims have no room being included in anything claiming to be a real standard.
In the USA, the complainant gets to "press charges", after which the police acts. If the complainant is somehow pressured into withdrawing that complaint, or if the complainant disappears, then the authorities is very restricted in its ability to pursue the complaint. It's a primitive system that encourages certain parties to make sure the complainants do, in fact, disappear.
In the EU and other more civilized countries, the complainant goes to the authorities and makes a complaint. The authorities then carry the ball from there. The disappearance of the complainant can be quite immaterial to the subsequent prosecution of that complaint. All in all, this type of system reduces the risk to the complainant, and also allows justice to be done if the complainant is "neutralized", as has happened this time with PSI.
Personally, I like the second system better.
Yes, the Americans really are excellent teachers. Having shown the world that it's possible to scam an election and get away with it by the simple expedient of not actually counting the votes, all sorts of countries and communities are getting in on that action. Democracy in action - dictatorial election boards (or bought-and-paid-for judges) deciding who wins, and to hell with the voters.
Other countries aren't getting it quite so cheap. Rogers in Canada has unveiled their pricing. First, you get to pay $199/8Gb and $299/16Gb for the iPhone. Then, you have to take one of their data plans, but you ALSO must have one of their voice plans. This drives the cost of the iPhone to over $100/month for most Canadians who want to use it. That's $1200 (600 quid) PER YEAR, minimum, and a compulsory 3 year contract. Oh, and all this is done in store, and you aren't allowed to leave the store until you've signed for and activated the phone with Rogers. (http://www.digitalhome.ca/content/view/2610/206/).
Yep, iPhone really is for those who have too much money to care.
Rogers in Canada also won't be allowing "unlimited" data, unlike AT&T. Their internal leaked memo was talking about the use of Rogers WiFi hotspots.
The actual mobile data plan ranges "from $60 per month for 150 daytime minutes with 400 MB of data usage, to $115 for a deluxe 800 minutes and 2 GB package." (Globe and Mail). That's right folks, a whole 400MB of data! Wow! Canadians are SO LUCKY! Note that Rogers then charges about $1 per kilobyte for going over their data limits.
I guess it's what Canada gets for being a member of the Commonwealth. Ripoff Britain seems to have extended its tentacles into Canada.
Gates reminds me of a politician. Rip people off for 30 years, arrest the development of a promising industry by hook or by crook for decades, then try to buy their votes just before an election. Unfortunately, the people in question have a very short memory.
Not to mention that his "philanthropic" ventures seem to invariably benefit Microsoft through is continued grab of market share in developing markets through what would otherwise be illegal dumping. It seems to be more of just another Microsoft marketing division than a truly independent organization.
I used to like working with youth, teaching them things, letting them learn. I was pretty good at it too. Now? Won't go near it. All it takes today is a single unfounded accusation by the child to basically end ones life as they know it. Children don't HAVE a sense of cause and effect - they'll lie when it suits them. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats in charge seem to think that the little darlings are all about truth only. The press is all about judging and sentencing without the benefit of a court of law.
It's bullshit. So no more working with youth for me. I've seen two people have their lives finished by kids who lied because they didn't get what they wanted. One committed suicide because the local press got ahold of the story and crucified him publically. The press, by the way, never apologized when it was found that the child had outright lied about all the allegations. The other lost his job, his wife left him, and he had to move to another country even though he was again completely exonnerated. The kids, meanwhile, got nothing. No punishment for having so completely ruined the lives of two dedicated adults who made the mistake of working with youth.
Won't go there again. Ever.
I don't have a problem with ads. Unfortunately, in a desperate attempt to make me watch their crappy, poorly designed pieces of crap they've made said ads jittery, moving, obtrusive, and very very annoying. So I've blocked most of them using, as most people here seem to AdBlock Plus + NoScript. Which works great for me.
So if they can only make a living by forcing me to be annoyed by this trash, then I guess they should just fold, and perhaps someone with a better understanding of consumers should fill their niche.
The sites have every right to serve up their ads. I have every right to do what I can to not have to be treated like a walking wallet and forced to put up with a screen full of jittery, flashing, moving trash. And I'm going to win that particular war, because it's my screen over which I have full control (so far anyway).
So, message to advertisers: don't piss off your customers by producing crap, and maybe you won't have to spend extra money to try to force people to watch your trash. Because you'll never win that particular war, especially when I can always just go elsewhere if you annoy me enough.
I really feel sorry for those sites whose revenue depends on ads, because they are being ripped off not by the people who use adblock, but by the people who write the adverts that make adblock not just "nice", but "necessary". Instead of trying to blame your (potential) customers, maybe you should be taking a good long look at your advertising providers as the source of your misery.
Well, there's Opera. It's apparently "much better", as in "faster", and "better designed". But wait, I can't do a site-by-site javascript denial as I can with Firefox and NoScript. I can't selectively block advertising the way I can with AdBlock. Those two functions alone make Firefox worth much more than other browsers to me.
So Firefox itself might be old and outdated, that's true. But it seems to me that it's more than happy to let the community add necessary functionality. Unlike Opera, that has taken the attitude that "this is what we're going to give you, and you'll like it". Much like another company I know of.
Wouldn't be able to pay me enough these days to travel to the USA. I wonder how long it takes for airlines to create special "avoid the USA" routes, since the Americans have somehow managed to get the airlines to implement their stupid security theatre even if you're just flying through their airspace, yet not planning to land anywhere in their backwards country.
Well, that's not quite true. Everyone has their price. Just mine is extraordinarily high if anyone wants me to travel to/through/above the USA.
Here's my suggestion: don't bloody go there. Really. There in nothing in the USA that cannot be found elsewhere, except perhaps the acres of really fat people waddling between breakfast at McDonalds and lunch at Burger King or Wendy's.
Just avoid the damn place. Let them stew in their own juices.
By the way, have you noticed that similarities between the reaction towards immigrants today and Hitlers opinions towards Jews and gypsies in "Mein Kampf"? It's actually quite remarkable that you could replace "Jew" with "immigrant" in Mein Kampf and get pretty much the same kind of vitriol being spewed out by the Sun/Mirror reading chavs who also seem to be commenting here.
Why should people have to access Google repeatedly in order to ensure that their private information is, in fact, private? Opt-out models suck.
I realize the UK is used to having cameras on every street corner and having their every move watched (one of the many reasons I left) but other countries, who take privacy somewhat more seriously, aren't at that stage and possibly will never be.
What google is doing is really cool from a tech perspective, but it does raise some very serious issues with privacy. At the very least, Google should have made more effort to remove people from its pictures. There are many good reasons for people to not want their pictures published in a public location, from abusive ex's to witness protection programs to none-of-anyone-elses-business "I was here".
Doesn't US laws against terrorism or other such activities make such actions illegal? Seems to me it does. When are these people going to be charged with the appropriate crimes? Or if it's not a crime, hey, free for all on DDOS attacks! Or is it only a crime if you don't happen to have bought-and-paid-for senators in Congress?
With copyright terms at 70+ years (or longer, depending how you read the wording of some laws), with "fair use" being roundly ignored, and with the rise of "Son of London Company of Stationers", I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this latest attack on "copy right" passes as well. Hell, they've almost managed to kill off the transfer of works to the public domain already.
They're trying to repeal all the rights granted by the Statute of Anne of 1710, and so far they're succeeding. Sad part is, we're letting them do it.
Assuming the story is true and not your usual run-of-the-mill fake, I'm... appalled. Not that they banned people from their site just because they claimed to be over 36. But because they thought it would make a single bit of difference. Last I heard, all the social-network based paedophiles that have been caught recently were using accounts where they claimed to be 15 years old or so, not over 36. So right there the website decision makers fail any sort of ability to think or process logical thought.
Alternatively, they're lying about what happened to cover something up. Exactly what they would try to cover up with such a ludicrous story is beyond my ken.
Just like Microsoft's email non-retention policy, what is destroyed can't be used against you in a court of law. Pity American laws about such things are so weak. If the evidence is there they can be tried, but when it's missing, even if there was a legal requirement to keep the information, then suddenly the justice system just gives up.
TV is dead. Long live cable. Let's clear the spectrum completely and use it for useful things, like massive 64k players a side wireless multiplayer Halo deathmatches.
(http://loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/228/halo_the_future_of_gaming)
I guess that's why there aren't any standards in the industry yet. Too many big players who have created their kit and want to be able to use their kit as the "standard" without any modification. If they could agree on a fucking frequency without all the damn politics this wouldn't be a bloody problem would it? But no, instead we have a bunch of political arseholes in large companies arguing about nonsense instead of just agreeing on a single frequency for medical devices.
Yes, other considerations. Like huge (tax deductible) donations and even outright payoffs from the pharmaceutical, oil, and other industries whose profits would be affected if hemp became legal again. It's called "bribes" in most places, "lobbying" in the US, and it yet again seems to have worked.
I guess the US "war on drugs" is firmly exported to the UK. Along with many other American policies. So, how do you suckers back home like being slowly absorbed into the American Empire?
Oh, and to the Christians and others out there arguing against it: If your God creates a miracle plant (oil, strong fibers for cloth, food and medicines rolled into one plant), and you then refuse to use it and even threaten people who do, who is the sinner? Who is the one that goes against God's creation just so that the temple traders can profit even more?
But what do you expect from politicians and religious nutters alike? They've put rational thought behind them in exchange for corruption and power. Hemp, unfortunately, requires a rational mind to see that the benefits FAR outweigh any downsides. Ain't much of that rational stuff going around these days unfortunately.
He is "charged" with a crime. He hasn't been CONVICTED of a crime yet.
Therefore most of the posters above are not only loony, but fucking dangerous if they are willing to treat people who are merely charged with a crime as fully-fledged criminals. Maybe the posters above should move to the USA and work for the people who set up Guantanamo?
Seems to me that censorship is alive and well in the USA. With DMCA takedown notices being so easy to make, and there being no real appeals process, and providers falling over themselves to be first to comply with any and all DMCA notices, it seems to be used as just another scare tactic to get material taken down. It also completely ignores supposed "fair use" sections of copyright law, as well as "innocent until proven guilty", as well as "due process".
Perhaps it's time for services outside the USA to fill that gap? Or are there any countries left that haven't fallen victim to the US lobbying for insane copyright laws?
My guess? Some big company exec, scared that they might have to spend some money fixing their product, complains to their school chum in government, who calls his mate at the appropriate bureau, who then arranges for this utterly ludicrous attempt to intimidate and silence yet another security researcher.
I see that the UK is well on its way to being a police state if they can arbitrarily confiscate anything while admitting they don't know what it is. I guess they don't even need warrants or anything else anymore.
Getting happier I left really. I still miss home, but the more I look back at the place the less I want to go back.
If they took security "seriously", would they have perhaps not incorporated said bug in the first place? Or are we going to continue rewarding companies for producing sub-standard, buggy and insecure code that we're then given no choice but to execute?
I say spiked shillelagh to the kneecaps for a first offence. Work your way up for subsequent offences. It's the only way to get the clue to register.
Yet look at all the press they get when they do it.
Not to mention that they don't HAVE to be competitive. They're still a de-facto monopoly in many markets after all, and have show a firm willingness to leverage that monopoly in all sorts of new, unethical, and (as shown in several jurisdictions) illegal ways. Meaning that nowadays they don't have to follow the rules, they just have to pressure (or buy) the right people to get what they want - from international standards acceptance to large government contracts.
Also, since the companies they buy will just get folded into the Microsoft banner, it doesn't matter much if the company was well known or not. Microsoft might be evil, but I don't believe they're completely stupid. It was probably a good deal for them.
@AC and sheets of old labels...
So the real problem is muppets with no training in using the computer systems they are given, or the processes that software follows, it seems. Which is typical. Oh look, we've gone over budget, let's cut training since it's all "intuitive" anyway. Hoist by our own petard when trying to sell the damn software in the first place I guess. Try to convince people it's "easy to use" and they turn around and assume you don't need ANY training to use it, or the processes that the software is supposed to automate.
So none of the commenters, or the author of the piece, are willing to consider that perhaps Zucker-whatsit-bitch might have actually stolen his idea from others, and that now those others finally have the resources to go after him? That perhaps, just PERHAPS, it takes a few years to acquire the resources to start a lawsuit in the USA, because that kind of action takes hundreds of thousands? That the law in these types of cases heavily favours the rich thanks to the kind of delay tactics that can be used by some parties to make things too expensive to continue?
No, of course not. It's easier to blame the victims (if they are victims) than it is to actually analyse the evidence or [gasp] even wait for the results of a court case to determine the truth of the matter.
Yep, sounds like tabloid journalism to me. Nice to see it's in the "Public Sector:Law" section rather than the "Bootnotes" section. I know that I'm supposed to take this kind of piece oh-so-seriously when it's not in bootnotes. Kevin said so!
Personally, they can all go to hell. I'm not going to get rich from this crap, so why should I care? Other, of course, than a firm and naive belief in a justice system that is supposed to weed fact from fiction, and a cynical belief that the press isn't perhaps as accurate or balanced as we might like them to be.
Looks like a target for "here be a sucker" painted by the "marketers" who sold them this pile of shite.
Can someone PLEASE institute the death penalty for bureaucrats who prove themselves to be utterly stupid? Because thanks to workplace accident prevention, it's getting harder and harder to arrange for Darwin Awards for these utter wastes of space. Just think of the millions upon millions of quid that could be saved if these complete morons could be erased from the gene pool?
"...it represents a real loss of $60bn in annual revenues to software companies."
Yes, because we all know that people who use open source would have purchased an equivalently powerful (and thus very expensive) proprietary version if the open source version didn't exist, rather than either doing without or buying a much less capable piece of software. This is just a rephrasing of the RIAA/MPAA fud that every song/movie copied would have resulted in a sale if it hadn't been available to copy. Which is utter, utter bullshit of course.
Why DO militaries celebrate those who lost against overwhelming odds? Wouldn't it make more sense to celebrate those who WON while facing overwhelming odds? As I recall from my own training, when you're in the military the whole point is to make the other guy die for his cause while not dying for yours. Celebrating horrible strategic and tactical failures like that doesn't seem all that wise, as it might encourage repeats in the poor planning that enabled such disasters.
The datalink seems like a good idea though.... until it gets hacked by the enemy and they use the infantry suit to electrocute and/or otherwise disable your soldiers.
Paris, because she could probably take on a whole battalion.
I think it's a job requirement to leave thought and ethics behind when becoming an American (or, for that matter, any other country) politician. Must be in a manual somewhere they're given when they get their first campaign contribution.
I wonder how much Verizon paid these puppets to start rattling cages in their attempt to have the "open spectrum" portion of the auction ruled invalid?
when I bid at an auction, I tend to first sent a maximum price I'm willing to pay before I go in. Otherwise, it might get really expensive for me. This was an auction. Google offered to pay a certain price. It was a real offer, with real money backing it, and they would have paid if they had won. Their offer was trumped. They elected to not pay more... that's how an auction works. That's how ALL auctions work.
Did these idiots leave their brains behind when they were elected, or are they just corrupt little sock puppets for Verizon? Has to be one or the other.
I'm wondering exactly what kind of IT folks work for Fastnet. Last I checked, and admittedly this was several years ago, the concept of "single point of failure" was something that needed to be mitigated. So if you have a "core" switch, you plan for when that switch goes dead by having another one available that things can route through.
Seems that either (1) the IT people at Fastnet were hired because they had newly minted MCSE certificates, but in fact don't know anything about high availability or redundant systems or anything else that makes a quality installation.
or (2) The IT people at Fastnet know this, but the company is run by accountants who nixed the idea because it was "too expensive".
Either way, the people responsible for the failure to have realistic backup plans should really be fired for being such incompetent twats.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
