Posts by VinceH 3483 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Nov 2009
Although with the YouTube video removed we can't check what was in it, so this is still not proof of anything, it's worth reading some of the replies to his tweet in which the video was linked.
From those comments, it appears he included some of the data he obtained in the video, which is why he subsequently removed it. Allegedly.
"@DDH - There's probably no specific motivation. More like a lack of awareness and understanding.
They're presented to punters in a nice friendly way leaning heavily on brand-awareness and the convenience."
I think in some cases they are offered as part of something else, so there's a tick box to clear if you don't want it, and the average punter seems to be incapable of reading things like that, let alone deciding to remove the tick.
I've been asked to look at people's browsers on countless occasions because "it's slow" and/or "it doesn't show a lot of the page" and the reason "it's slow" and/or "it doesn't show a lot of the page" is because so much real estate in the window is taken up with stupid extension bars.
I used to ask why they installed the bars, but the most common response was "I didn't know I had - it just appeared one day," so now I don't bother asking.
I was looking for the "All of the above" answer for Q4.
But if they're torrenting it, you're right - they aren't wasting their money: They're wasting yours when you get a fine for the 17.65 quadzillion pounds lost by the music industry for that one song being downloaded, even if you then go out and buy it for the rugrat because the download failed. Because even then, they still lost that money. It was somehow diverted from their pockets and instead funded terrorists who want to steal cars.
Or something.
Hey, Barrow-boy, if you want to be an invasive creep, here's another suggestion for you:
Add number plate recognition technology to it as well - you can get that off those nice people that run car parks - and if you see us looking at your adverts, you can then send additional material to our home addresses.
Please be sure to include a postage-paid return envelope so that I can send off for further information your advertisers a sample of my excrement.
"So if you don't have a 3D TV, how do you know it is crap?"
I know I'm the sort of person who posts to El Reg, which may run counter to the next bit... but I do actually leave the house occasionally. Just because I don't have a "3D" TV, that doesn't mean the same is true of friends or other members of my family - nor, of course, the local cinema.
"Plus at the end of the day, no-one is forcing anyone to have a 3D TV or watch TV content."
Where did I say anyone was trying to do so? I merely pointed out that one of the things I could see happening was skewed stats being used to declared "3D" a roaring success, based on sales of "3D" equipment and media, even if the purchasers aren't buying it for the "3D" - or may even have purchased it because they couldn't see a 2D alternative.
An example of the latter being given: I've purchased "3D" movies on Blu-Ray because I couldn't see a 2D-only version.
Another example can be found further down the page, where DeathSquid confesses to have "bought a 3D set because it was substantially cheaper than the 2D equivalent from the same manufacturer"
And to some extent, that counters your suggestion that no-one is forcing anyone. The choice was there... it would have just cost more money: The "3D" option was "substantially cheaper" than the 2D option.
"what the BBC has done for 3D is pretty inconsequential, and won't be missed."
I'd say what "3D" has done for 3D is pretty inconsequential, and won't be missed.
I've said all along that it's crap, and that it'll either be abandoned because people come to realise it's crap, or stats will show a huge take-up of "3D" TVs, media players and media being sold simply because of an increasing range of TVs that include it, so people buy a "3D" TV (etc) without having any interest in that aspect of it.
(For example, while I do not have a "3D" TV, I do have a number of "3D" DVDs and Blu-Rays - which include 2D versions of the movies - simply because I wanted those movies and couldn't see a 2D-only version.)
Hand sorted... because the optical character recognition sucks.
The optical character recognition (or non-recognition, as the case may be) presumably happens after the address is scanned, otherwise it would suck 100%*. That scan, right there, that's the image for the database - regardless of whether the OCR worked.
* It would be incredibly impressive if it could read the characters before it's been given the scanned image.
Shit my effing brains sideways, I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Ah, okay. I thought you were mistaking Lady Penelope for Penelope Pitstop - you clearly know they are different, though.
However, @Suricou Raven:
"It's more complicated than that. The studio liked to reuse their popular characters in different settings: Dick and his sidekick appeared in three programs: Wacky Races, Perils of Penelope Pitstop and Stop that Pigeon."
My recollection is that Dick Dastardly didn't appear in The Perils of Penelope Pitstop - the only one in which they appeared alongside Penelope Pitstop was the Wacky Races. I'm pretty sure Penelope's nemesis in The Perils was a character called something like The Hooded Claw (who I think was the alter ego of someone she thought was a friend).
It was exactly the same for me; I was logged in all day mainly because of Reader, and now I no longer have any incentive to do so. However, I used it via the iGoogle gadget, so it was part of my browser home page - and that gadget stopped working for me on 28th June, which annoyed me greatly: Last time I checked, 28th June != 1st July.
So now, not only does Google lose my log-in, it's no longer even my default search engine by token of being my browser's default home page. Hello DuckDuckGo.
"Hello, is that Sky? Yes, I'd like to make a complaint. I visited your island the other day and I was very disappointed by the lack of high definition sheep."
What would be entertaining now is if a Sky customer* actually did that, recorded it and uploaded the results.
* Where the value of "a Sky customer" is actually "lots of Sky customers".
On Thursday, President Obama cautioned Russia and any other country considering granting asylum to Snowden to "recognize that they are a part of an international community not as tough as us and they should be abiding by international law doing what we tell them."
There. Fixed it for you.
Interesting and relevant YouTube video rant type thing.
I had a 512. I bought it around the late 1980s (1987 at the earliest, but it may have been later). It was from a b&w advert in some magazine or other, and I'm fairly sure the company was Memotech Computer, and I think it cost a mere £43 including p&p and a smidgeon of software (including Speculator).
And 22 LY is a lot closer than most of these candidates (IIRC the last one was 100LY+ away) so perhaps close enough for some people to start asking "What's it take to do this?"
I say we send a ship called Icarus, commanded by someone named Taylor.
What could possibly go wrong?
"I understood it to mean you buy a days journey on the carnet valid for 20 journey days not individual journeys.
Once stamped the ticket is valid for the whole day you travel."
Hmm. And from the article, the relevant part that everyone commenting in this thread so far must be very familiar with:
"A commuter paying £22 for a 20-journey carnet (at £1.10 per trip, enough for two weeks commuting) will instead have to buy two seven-day passes at £12 a pop, more than doubling the cost of travel."
"20-journey" (not "20 journey days") and "enough for two weeks" (which fits with twenty individual journeys - five days per week, one trip each way) - all of which strongly indicates that the increase over two weeks is £2, and not "more than doubling the cost of travel" which it then goes on to actually state.
I think Bill Ray may have read (and quoted) that it more than doubles the cost, and read the 20 journeys without realising it meant journey days, doing his own maths to establish that it lasts two weeks, without spotting that the two things are contradictory.
I am one of those who make good use of Google Reader. (It's probably the only reason I actually sign in to Google on my computer on a regular/frequent basis - so they'll be losing that sign in once it goes).
I will not be setting up a new FaecesBook account* to get RSS feeds through them.
That is all.
* I used to have one, but I "deleted" it earlier this year.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
