Try watching a Grand Prix or other sporting event without seeing any adverts;) If they mean "that you saw in the ad breaks" then a DVR can remove them, but they're more focused on the hoardings and putting "realism" in there by using real ads.
I think the idea is one of the appropriate of the lot (although I still wouldn't want them scraping extra money out of my gaming because of the ads) but I do wonder how (for example) Fifa 10, which is the 2010 football season, would do being "realistic" and up-to-date with its pitch-side adverts when you're playing it with the 2010 teams in 2011 or 2012. Surely you then want to keep the 2010 adverts because you're playing 2010 teams?:)
I thought it was in this case (I saw it on the BBC teletext pages a couple of days ago and laughed and the innovative idea - people will love the "win money" together with "spy on people like the Big Brother house" idea) but I wasn't sure and couldn't be bothered to RTFA. Not that it'll stop people whining about how terrible Britain is as a CCTV nation.
Personally I'd rather have the CCTV that can help catch criminals by tracking their movements while police get to the scene than having any idiot who has the money carrying a gun!
That depends entirely on whether they are council-run CCTV cameras (ones out on the street to spot muggings, littering, vandalism, etc) or ones in stores that are run by the companies in the store/shopping centre (ones to catch shop-lifting). In the case of the former I think we technically do have access under the Freedom of Information Act. In the case of the latter I don't think you have a foot to stand on, since it is private surveillance for a company's own protection run by the company or one of its contractors.
Well, Novell have got OpenSuse built in to Suse Studio, which lets you do something you can't do (at least not without a hugely expensive license) using Windows - deploy ".Net" apps as virtual machines.
As for why - why not? People use Java, so why not Mono? If you want a higher-level language than C and C++ and want some extra features that Java doesn't have (proper delegates, custom events and properties) then Mono is a good choice. You don't have to go Microsoft-dependant and develop for.Net, just for Mono.
Depending on which angle you're looking at the communication from, I agree with what you're saying. The thing is that most of those examples are the wrong way around for HTTPS (which is what we'd strayed towards as an example). In those analogies HTTPS is more like *makes random example* the person you're passing the note to sending you a padlocked box first and they've signed it in permanent marker. You know you've got something secure to send your response and you know it is from them because it has their signature on it.
The comment I was replying to explicitly said that security is implied by talking to a known individual, which isn't true since even when talking to a known individual then you're still liable to interception (which is breached security).
Talking securely to someone is implied by fact that you really know who you are talking to.
Huh? A->B does not mean B->A. Knowing who you talk to doesn't imply it is secure. The two can be separated out quite clearly - obvious real-world examples being "talking in a crowded room to a friend" (authentication without security) and "whispering to someone you've just met" (not the greatest example, but it should be fairly secure even if you don't have a clue who the hell they are).
It's a shame this got rated as "funny". It doesn't surprise me that it happens, and it is "funny in a tragic way", but it's probably more insightful about the state of business than it is plain funny.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the intention is for anyone to read all of it. I think in general even people who are Security Checked tend not to have access to all of the document, even though it is only Restricted and SC lets you have regular access to Secret material.
Doesn't quite excuse 2400 pages, but it does make it seem more like "we've mashed what could have been lots of documents in to one".
Why should companies be allowed to trade anonymously online? You can't trade anonymously in a street, and having registered addresses gives a known location for the company. I'm always suspicious of companies who anonymise their domain registration - if they're happy to take my money, why aren't they happy for me to know that they're legitimate and not just a front?
If you're a trading individual then you're a company and you have to give out certain details anyway. Contact details are important to know who you're dealing with and where they are (or at least where they claim to be, which can then be checked up on as to whether it exists etc), plus a trading individual can buy a £60 PO Box if they're trading from home.
If you're an individual then the content you're putting up on your site can have zero relevance to where you live. All adding your address and phone number does is ties your physical and less changeable contact/location details to the content you publish, making it very easy for millions to billions of people to get hold of them and know what they're associated with. Yes, they could look you up in the phone book but a) you can go ex-directory in the UK and b) they just know that they've got a name and a phone number, nothing more in terms of interests/opinions/affiliations/etc. Buying a PO Box for a personal site is overkill (£60 was about equal to my hosting fees for the year before I moved to a VPS).
I don't know how they check, but that's what they do for UK (and apparently Canadian) domains. Yes, some companies might lie and say they're "non-trading individuals", but if you make the penalty sufficiently severe (like seizing the domain) then companies won't risk it and anyone who finds a mis-labeled domain (a trading domain marked as non-trading) can complain about it. At the end of the day, if you make it easy for people to say "this domain claims to be non-trading but isn't" then domains that are mislabeled but that people don't care about won't cause any additional work load.
Registering a personal domain is one thing; registering a domain as a business should bring with it the responsibility to publish valid contact information and keep it up to date. It should be illegal for registrars to hide the identity of their business registrants.
So the companies will just put in fake details instead and people still won't be able to track them down. The.uk system still shows details for companies, just not for individuals. If companies use it to hide details then their WhoIs record will say "Registrant type: UK Individual" and anyone looking at it can go "no they aren't" and tell the registrar, who can then correct their type and show the details.
Why should my details be on display just because a company could hide theirs by pretending their a non-trading individual? If someone has a legitimate need to contact me as a non-trading individual then they either a) do it through my email, b) contact me and ask for postal details or c) it is sufficiently important (read: has legal or other reasons) that they have a strong enough case to get my details from the registrar.
I didn't mean "sites with adverts should show details". There's a difference between "spam site that is purely adverts and paying searches" and "personal blog with adverts to support the costs" (although some sites making it a close-run thing with the number of adverts they try to plaster in there).
Supporting your costs is just supporting your costs, where as squatters with sites full of junk are "trading individuals" because they're registering to either profit off the domain resale or to profit off the ads on hits to a domain that was once someone else's.
The right balance is what.uk domains have - free information hiding for non-trading individuals, but information displayed for companies. They still have your information, but you don't have to show it to the world and you don't have to pay someone to hide it. As long as "squatting on a domain and pumping it full of ads" is considered "trading" then it's the perfect balance.
Ditto for Dawn of War - the community content is great. The original textures were buggy in places and low-spec, and the badges and banners weren't great. In comes (amongst other people) Hangar-8 and he makes some fantastic quality banners that blitz everything in the game already, then he works on improving the 512x512 pixel textures as well and does a great job of those. There were some big mods and maps as well, and I know some of the Mods got lots of interest but I never looked in to them as much.
Then along comes Dawn of War 2. Relic abandon the moddability, make some things like extra colours "bonus content" in special releases, and general try to kill off the custom content side of the game. All that on top of the fact that they've ruined half of the graphics by making things glow and shine when they shouldn't because they thought it was something kewl to add while they upped the resolutions.
I wonder how much of this is dislike of adverts and the tracking and how much is the way the question was phrased? Would the "general public" have been so against it if it was just "tracking ads" rather than "tracking ads across multiple sites"? And are the marketing companies now going to come back with their own survey worded to say "would you prefer useful and relevant adverts or a random collection of anything?" to prove that people do like being tracked?
On the plus side, at least people think that CEOs and companies should actually be punished for misusing information rather than just going "oh well, never mind".
White gold and platinum are two very different things. Platinum is a completely different element, where as white gold is just normal gold with other elements "polluting" it (the same as red gold). Not that I have any idea what any of that has to do with the original topic or the parent comment!
Warner Brothers are probably getting in there so that they can keep getting a cut of the money, even if people aren't playing their franchise games.
AT&T are probably in there because they can make a killing through the extra bandwidth people will need!
Other than that I've not heard of them (perhaps they're big in the US and not outside, or maybe they're some "behind the scenes" names who are big really but most people have just heard of the sub-companies).
Companies have been outsourcing the processing of enormous amounts of vital, confidential information for time immemorial.
Yes, but the purpose of those companies that they outsource to is to be better at the task and be cheaper than doing it in-house. The main purpose of most of the HR/accounting/other outsourcing companies isn't generally to data mine all of the data it can find for its own benefit!
And yet some companies (presumably the smaller ones) are willing to use Google Apps for their emails. Personally, I never understood that for exactly the reasons you mention.
For that matter, nearly half of the music produced since about 1900 SHOULD BE in the public domain. With reasonable copyright law, much of what the record labels claim to "own" would be completely free, and completely legal to download, as well as legal to distribute by any means.
And how much interest will there be in original recordings of songs from the 20s, 30s, 40s, etc? People either want new takes on old songs (which would be under new copyright) or they want new junk that has been mass-produced, in general. Teens are probably the ones with least disposable income, and they're probably the ones most likely to pirate, but they're also the ones most likely to want the latest songs that are going to be under any copyright term's length.
I've yet to work out where the sweet spot is for copyright. It obviously shouldn't be too long, because why should an artist record one track once and live off it forever by going back and getting more and more fees, but at the same time there needs to be something to stop people just ripping off someone else's work and claiming it as their own once the period ends. It's the one area that Open Source needs as well that anti-copyright groups ignore - the GPL relies on copyright, so too much messing with that and big corporations can treat GPL code like BSD and public domain code without any recourse for us getting their source code.
Hopefully the AU pirate party can stay on message and educate people there's much more to be concerned about.
How much of the general public is going to listen beyond the "free music" point? If you say your party politics revolve around "copyright changes that would allow them to download music for free, implementing fairer copyright terms, ensuring political civil liberties and protecting against censorship" then all they'll hear is "copyright blah blah blah download music for free, blah blah blah blah blah".
The majority of people don't care about the more important values that could be the focus of these policies, they just care about getting something for nothing and not having a potential law suit or internet connection threat hanging over them.
I would say sat navigation makes the road safer overall.
Except for the idiots who a) take it too literally and ignore road signs the satnav doesn't know about (like some one-way systems that aren't on its maps, or junctions that aren't really there, or U-turns that you could take but probably shouldn't), b) just enter a destination and get lost because it isn't accurate enough or it picked the wrong one, c) decide that the best time to fiddle with the route is while still driving or d) leave all of their indicating and moving to the last minute rather than having planned ahead even vaguely.
Troll? I was pointing out that, being a predominantly American site, the people around here don't know about the Daily Mail and how close that is to one of its actual headlines. Pah, you're a negative bunch:P
Slashdot Mirror
Try watching a Grand Prix or other sporting event without seeing any adverts ;) If they mean "that you saw in the ad breaks" then a DVR can remove them, but they're more focused on the hoardings and putting "realism" in there by using real ads.
I think the idea is one of the appropriate of the lot (although I still wouldn't want them scraping extra money out of my gaming because of the ads) but I do wonder how (for example) Fifa 10, which is the 2010 football season, would do being "realistic" and up-to-date with its pitch-side adverts when you're playing it with the 2010 teams in 2011 or 2012. Surely you then want to keep the 2010 adverts because you're playing 2010 teams? :)
I thought it was in this case (I saw it on the BBC teletext pages a couple of days ago and laughed and the innovative idea - people will love the "win money" together with "spy on people like the Big Brother house" idea) but I wasn't sure and couldn't be bothered to RTFA. Not that it'll stop people whining about how terrible Britain is as a CCTV nation.
Personally I'd rather have the CCTV that can help catch criminals by tracking their movements while police get to the scene than having any idiot who has the money carrying a gun!
That depends entirely on whether they are council-run CCTV cameras (ones out on the street to spot muggings, littering, vandalism, etc) or ones in stores that are run by the companies in the store/shopping centre (ones to catch shop-lifting). In the case of the former I think we technically do have access under the Freedom of Information Act. In the case of the latter I don't think you have a foot to stand on, since it is private surveillance for a company's own protection run by the company or one of its contractors.
Well, Novell have got OpenSuse built in to Suse Studio, which lets you do something you can't do (at least not without a hugely expensive license) using Windows - deploy ".Net" apps as virtual machines.
As for why - why not? People use Java, so why not Mono? If you want a higher-level language than C and C++ and want some extra features that Java doesn't have (proper delegates, custom events and properties) then Mono is a good choice. You don't have to go Microsoft-dependant and develop for .Net, just for Mono.
Depending on which angle you're looking at the communication from, I agree with what you're saying. The thing is that most of those examples are the wrong way around for HTTPS (which is what we'd strayed towards as an example). In those analogies HTTPS is more like *makes random example* the person you're passing the note to sending you a padlocked box first and they've signed it in permanent marker. You know you've got something secure to send your response and you know it is from them because it has their signature on it.
The comment I was replying to explicitly said that security is implied by talking to a known individual, which isn't true since even when talking to a known individual then you're still liable to interception (which is breached security).
Huh? A->B does not mean B->A. Knowing who you talk to doesn't imply it is secure. The two can be separated out quite clearly - obvious real-world examples being "talking in a crowded room to a friend" (authentication without security) and "whispering to someone you've just met" (not the greatest example, but it should be fairly secure even if you don't have a clue who the hell they are).
It's a shame this got rated as "funny". It doesn't surprise me that it happens, and it is "funny in a tragic way", but it's probably more insightful about the state of business than it is plain funny.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the intention is for anyone to read all of it. I think in general even people who are Security Checked tend not to have access to all of the document, even though it is only Restricted and SC lets you have regular access to Secret material.
Doesn't quite excuse 2400 pages, but it does make it seem more like "we've mashed what could have been lots of documents in to one".
Why should companies be allowed to trade anonymously online? You can't trade anonymously in a street, and having registered addresses gives a known location for the company. I'm always suspicious of companies who anonymise their domain registration - if they're happy to take my money, why aren't they happy for me to know that they're legitimate and not just a front?
If you're a trading individual then you're a company and you have to give out certain details anyway. Contact details are important to know who you're dealing with and where they are (or at least where they claim to be, which can then be checked up on as to whether it exists etc), plus a trading individual can buy a £60 PO Box if they're trading from home.
If you're an individual then the content you're putting up on your site can have zero relevance to where you live. All adding your address and phone number does is ties your physical and less changeable contact/location details to the content you publish, making it very easy for millions to billions of people to get hold of them and know what they're associated with. Yes, they could look you up in the phone book but a) you can go ex-directory in the UK and b) they just know that they've got a name and a phone number, nothing more in terms of interests/opinions/affiliations/etc. Buying a PO Box for a personal site is overkill (£60 was about equal to my hosting fees for the year before I moved to a VPS).
I don't know how they check, but that's what they do for UK (and apparently Canadian) domains. Yes, some companies might lie and say they're "non-trading individuals", but if you make the penalty sufficiently severe (like seizing the domain) then companies won't risk it and anyone who finds a mis-labeled domain (a trading domain marked as non-trading) can complain about it. At the end of the day, if you make it easy for people to say "this domain claims to be non-trading but isn't" then domains that are mislabeled but that people don't care about won't cause any additional work load.
So the companies will just put in fake details instead and people still won't be able to track them down. The .uk system still shows details for companies, just not for individuals. If companies use it to hide details then their WhoIs record will say "Registrant type: UK Individual" and anyone looking at it can go "no they aren't" and tell the registrar, who can then correct their type and show the details.
Why should my details be on display just because a company could hide theirs by pretending their a non-trading individual? If someone has a legitimate need to contact me as a non-trading individual then they either a) do it through my email, b) contact me and ask for postal details or c) it is sufficiently important (read: has legal or other reasons) that they have a strong enough case to get my details from the registrar.
I didn't mean "sites with adverts should show details". There's a difference between "spam site that is purely adverts and paying searches" and "personal blog with adverts to support the costs" (although some sites making it a close-run thing with the number of adverts they try to plaster in there).
Supporting your costs is just supporting your costs, where as squatters with sites full of junk are "trading individuals" because they're registering to either profit off the domain resale or to profit off the ads on hits to a domain that was once someone else's.
The right balance is what .uk domains have - free information hiding for non-trading individuals, but information displayed for companies. They still have your information, but you don't have to show it to the world and you don't have to pay someone to hide it. As long as "squatting on a domain and pumping it full of ads" is considered "trading" then it's the perfect balance.
Ditto for Dawn of War - the community content is great. The original textures were buggy in places and low-spec, and the badges and banners weren't great. In comes (amongst other people) Hangar-8 and he makes some fantastic quality banners that blitz everything in the game already, then he works on improving the 512x512 pixel textures as well and does a great job of those. There were some big mods and maps as well, and I know some of the Mods got lots of interest but I never looked in to them as much.
Then along comes Dawn of War 2. Relic abandon the moddability, make some things like extra colours "bonus content" in special releases, and general try to kill off the custom content side of the game. All that on top of the fact that they've ruined half of the graphics by making things glow and shine when they shouldn't because they thought it was something kewl to add while they upped the resolutions.
I wonder how much of this is dislike of adverts and the tracking and how much is the way the question was phrased? Would the "general public" have been so against it if it was just "tracking ads" rather than "tracking ads across multiple sites"? And are the marketing companies now going to come back with their own survey worded to say "would you prefer useful and relevant adverts or a random collection of anything?" to prove that people do like being tracked?
On the plus side, at least people think that CEOs and companies should actually be punished for misusing information rather than just going "oh well, never mind".
White gold and platinum are two very different things. Platinum is a completely different element, where as white gold is just normal gold with other elements "polluting" it (the same as red gold). Not that I have any idea what any of that has to do with the original topic or the parent comment!
Warner Brothers are probably getting in there so that they can keep getting a cut of the money, even if people aren't playing their franchise games.
AT&T are probably in there because they can make a killing through the extra bandwidth people will need!
Other than that I've not heard of them (perhaps they're big in the US and not outside, or maybe they're some "behind the scenes" names who are big really but most people have just heard of the sub-companies).
Yes, but the purpose of those companies that they outsource to is to be better at the task and be cheaper than doing it in-house. The main purpose of most of the HR/accounting/other outsourcing companies isn't generally to data mine all of the data it can find for its own benefit!
And yet some companies (presumably the smaller ones) are willing to use Google Apps for their emails. Personally, I never understood that for exactly the reasons you mention.
And how much interest will there be in original recordings of songs from the 20s, 30s, 40s, etc? People either want new takes on old songs (which would be under new copyright) or they want new junk that has been mass-produced, in general. Teens are probably the ones with least disposable income, and they're probably the ones most likely to pirate, but they're also the ones most likely to want the latest songs that are going to be under any copyright term's length.
I've yet to work out where the sweet spot is for copyright. It obviously shouldn't be too long, because why should an artist record one track once and live off it forever by going back and getting more and more fees, but at the same time there needs to be something to stop people just ripping off someone else's work and claiming it as their own once the period ends. It's the one area that Open Source needs as well that anti-copyright groups ignore - the GPL relies on copyright, so too much messing with that and big corporations can treat GPL code like BSD and public domain code without any recourse for us getting their source code.
How much of the general public is going to listen beyond the "free music" point? If you say your party politics revolve around "copyright changes that would allow them to download music for free, implementing fairer copyright terms, ensuring political civil liberties and protecting against censorship" then all they'll hear is "copyright blah blah blah download music for free, blah blah blah blah blah".
The majority of people don't care about the more important values that could be the focus of these policies, they just care about getting something for nothing and not having a potential law suit or internet connection threat hanging over them.
Except for the idiots who a) take it too literally and ignore road signs the satnav doesn't know about (like some one-way systems that aren't on its maps, or junctions that aren't really there, or U-turns that you could take but probably shouldn't), b) just enter a destination and get lost because it isn't accurate enough or it picked the wrong one, c) decide that the best time to fiddle with the route is while still driving or d) leave all of their indicating and moving to the last minute rather than having planned ahead even vaguely.
Troll? I was pointing out that, being a predominantly American site, the people around here don't know about the Daily Mail and how close that is to one of its actual headlines. Pah, you're a negative bunch :P
Surely that'd be "250-foot hybrid airship in which to spy on Afghanistan" or "250-foot hybrid over Afghanistan in which to spy from"?