Posts by Dom 1

Nobody's mentioned.....

that Nippon TV (widely regarded to be the standard for high quality - read: definition, not content) have already said that they are NOT going to be broadcasting any 4K. Instead, they are going straight to 8K.

So all these 4K TV's being sold may be obsolete before they have even started!

For god's sake

Keep it quiet!

Raspberry Pi is brilliant, but if we/they shout too loud, Apple will send in the lawyers (in their continued quest to sue everybody on the planet) and get some judge to ban us from having Pi (other than Apple)!

It don't add up

The maths doesn't work.

Sky have 10 Million subscribers. Let's assume that (very generously) 50% have Sky Sports. Seeing as all of those subscribers have purchased Sky Sports for the football, let's guesstimate how many will want to stop watching their favourite team, to watch F1. I doubt that Sky will get 50k viewers, let alone the millions they will need.

Why will they need millions of viewers? Companies want to advertise to the biggest audience possible. With Auntie Beeb, F1 was regularly getting 8-10 million viewers. How are they going to feel when this drops to tens of thousands? If I had a company that was paying millions to put the name on the side of an F1 car, I'd be pretty peeved right now. Who knows what will happen when the advertisers start deserting?

The Beeb only dumped F1 (in full, I know they will be broadcasting some of the races) because they wanted to keep Wimbledon - which according to a family member who works for Aunite, they are probably going to lose in 2014 to Sky anyway.

In the words of Nelson Muntz............

Ha-Ha!

Presumably,

They are going to get 368 individuals to buy the iPads, as the Great Steve Jobs (sic) has decreed that you can only buy 2 per person?

Well......

In a strongly worded statement, Chief Constable Andy Trotter, chairman of ACPO's media advisory group stated: "Everyone ... has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs ... is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place."

That was a complete waste of a strongly worded statement Mr Trotter, wasn't it?

It cannot be very comforting for you Mr Trotter, that your officers completely ignore your orders. On the other hand, it doesn't suprise us mere members of the public on little bit.........

Interesting debate....

Well, isn't this fun? A debate? Exactly what the PP offer in their manifesto. Yet some people (obvious by their comments) feel that the PP is "bonkers"? Huh? Isn't that what "Democracy" is all about? Debate? Exactly what the PP want.

All this was started by the "Mandybill". It's obvious that the history of this bill is conveniently forgotton by some commentators here.

Mandy has no interest in P2P. Mandy goes on a holiday with (and paid for by) David Geffen (of Geffen Records). Mandy comes home and within 2 weeks has the "Mandybill" written and ready to be pushed through Parliment. Suspicious? Industry dictating law? Possibly.

The bill includes such gems as giving Mandy the power to change the law without recourse to Parlimentary scrutiny, and a LibDem amendment (Clause 43 - previously Clause 42) which effectively strips all copyright from a photographers photographs. Ooops, all those arguing the Music Industry's corner, accusing all opponents (including the PP) as being a bunch of "Freetards", are effectively supporting a bill that destroys the rights of people who make their living from taking pictures. This would mean that a number of industries (Newspapers, Magazines, and, indeed the Music industry) would be making money by NOT paying photographers for their work. Who's the Freetard now?

To cap it all, the wording of the bill (Clause 120a), is almost word for word a copy of a draft written by the BPI. Industry dictating law? Looking more likely now.

Yes, we need to look at reducing/tackling illegal P2P, but not at the cost of democratic freedoms - it's not worth it.

Yes, the music industry needs to compromise, and adopt new technologies - iTunes are a good example, proving the internet can provide a place to make money. In fact, iTunes now makes up 25% of ALL music sold in the US, yet the Music Industry (and it's supporters) seem to conveniently forget this fact.

Some may want a country without scrutiny of the law, where industry dictates law to the [elected] lawmakers for forced approval, but I don't.

As for the PP, a good point to note is it's not just about P2P. Excessive surveillance (the UK has 1% of the world's population, yet 20% of it's CCTV cameras), and freedom of speech are also in their manifesto. If [at the very least] they can be the cause of debate and scrutiny, then we can only be the better for it.

Fail!

This country has approx 2 million criminal cases per year, and the legal system is near collapse under this weight. How the hell is it going to handle another 7.5 million - regardless of the other arguements against Mandy's Law? The only way, is for every working person in the UK (not guilty of downloading) to become lawyers! Then nothing will get done!

And?

The Gov has been giving us misleading information for years - don't you just love the way they throw their toys out of the pram when the opposition do it?

A good example is road deaths caused directly by speeding. With all the Gov PR about, you would be forgiven for thinking that ALL road deaths where caused by speeding. Yet the Gov's own stats show the figure is only 7%!

Now that's what I call misleading.

As for violent crime, try sitting in the centre of any major city on a Friday/Saturday night. You'll soon get some drunken 14 year old and his mates taunting you to fight them. At least you'll have comfort in the knowledge you will be carefully monitored by the CCTV system, ready to provide footage for "Street Wars".

Paris? Even she is clever enough to detect a politicians bullsh1t!

Err..

If Apple (in the future) bring out an iSpot, would Google bring out the gSpot?

I'll get me coat.........

Why

are so many people pi$$ed off at M$?

Any company manufacturing a product will seek to develop it's product - it's called progress. I am using Office 2010 on a 6 year old Dull running Win7 - works perfectly. At work, I use a 2.6 dual core running Win7 x64 and x64 Office 2010. Again, works perfectly. And I love the multiple Exchange function of Outlook 2010. If the machine you are trying to run Office 2010 on is unable to run it, go buy a new one you cheapskate.

Do people really think that M$ should NOT evolve their product? Try using that premise in the car industry. Oh my god, F0rd have had the gaul to actually make a new car! How DARE they do that to us? That's it - the sky is going to fall on our heads because our favourite car maker has stopped producing the trusty Escort and started making the Focus. Shocking (sic)!

I work in IT as a support tech. So I see everything from Office 2000 to 2007. The people who made the switch from 97-2k3 to 2k7 soon get used to it (if they have some semblence of intelligence). If they are thick as 2 short planks then they will be the ones who winge and moan, then throw their toys out of the pram. One client that I upgraded (H/W & S/W) went from Win 2k/Office 2K to XP with Office 2k7. OK, it took them a while to get used to it, but they are now whizzing around, working a lot more efficently than before.

If you don't like Office, then don't use it - simple. Go get open office/Star writer whatever, just don't start complaining if you aren't going to use the product in the first place (that's called CHOICE, by the way).

And to those who are shocked (huh?) by Word using 100M of memory, does that really matter on an average PC that probably has at least 1G inside it? With prices of memory at an all time low, I'm building PC's with 8G of RAM - and you want to convince me that a program should be rejected because it uses a paultry 100M? Get a life (and more memory)!

Paris? Because even she could use Office 2010!

I doubt

that the spineless labour government will ever have the guts to stand up to the Americans. The one-sided extradition agreement should be torn up, and a fair and equal one be negotiated. This case is not just about McKinnon, it's also about an unequal treaty and it's inadequacies. Americans are quite happy to send in the Seals to save one of it's citizens from getting a parking ticket, why is our government (sic) so ready to give it's citizens up?

Yes, McKinnon broke the law, but the reaction of the Americans has been disproportionate, misleading and down right dishonest.

And to David, who wrote "If I forgot to lock my front door would any random UFO nut be allowed to give my house a going over looking for evidence of UFOs NO!", just remember that McKinnon used a program that scans systems for administrator accounts with no passwords! Every machine that Mckinnon broke into had no password at all protecting it. To use your analogy, that's like you not having a front door at all - just a open hole. If that was the case in your house, that you had no front door at all, would you be suprised if you where burgled?

And what of the other 5000 hackers that managed to amble through the open door? You don't hear the American politicians calling for the ones from China, Nth Korea, Iran etc. to be executed? Yet, because this is Britain, and a bunch of greedy, house-flipping, self-centred ***** are in power, its citizens are a "soft" target.

If anything, I think McKinnon has done a service to the Americans, by highlighting just how poor their security was. Come on - no passwords at all? That's just a joke.

Paris? Because even she knows what a password is used for....

Sky Player?

What happens if you use the P2P Sky Player? That uses P2P technology. As do many other things. TVOD will probably use some form of P2P.

As Mandy (and indeed the Labour Government's recent policies) is preposing a "Guilty until proven Innocent" situation, Joe Bloggs could have his broadband disconnected and be dragged into court for LEGALLY downloading.

What if someone hacks your Wireless? I'm sure that with these laws, Wireless hacking will increase dramatically as downloaders try to evade detection.

Err.....

This already exists in the UK. ANPR and traffic cameras already record and store ALL passing vehices data - regardless of wether or not the driver/vhicle has been involved in crime or has no Tax/MOT/Insurance etc.

@James 100

Why don't you look at the case before passing judgment? OK, I can't stand hackers - he has admitted to hacking in to the computers, and should be punished.

BUT, the computers he "hacked" into has NO or BLANK PASSWORDS! To post a message on this fair site, you need a password! You would feel that the largest military power on the planet would, at least, require passwords to access top secret servers? At least it was him breaking in, and not some unfriendly government. Maybe he actually did the US a favour, by highlighting the fact that sensitive data was so easily accessable?

Secondly, the US initially said - in court - that he had NOT done ANY damage to the systems he broke into. Yet in subsequent court hearings, apparently, he did. Strangely enough, the amount (in Dollars) of damage he did was EXACTLY the minimum amount required under US law to prosecute/extradite. Odd that.

Thirdly, if the extradition law was the opposite way round - with the UK Gov not requiring to provide information, but the US must - the US population would be up in arms! It's just unfortunate that the UK MP's are such a bunch of money-grabbing self serving spineless tossers.

Paris? Cause even she can spot bullsh1t!