If they wanted to be at all relevant, they should have tested their development version against the development versions of the other browsers. At the moment they're comparing where they are now, where Opera was in March where and Mozilla was in January. Fair.
And aside from that there is some major JS abuse going on here: all the links have hrefs along the lines of javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$MainContent$Threads$ThreadsRepeater$ctl00$LinkButton1','').
I wonder if they ever stopped to think what on earth the URI was invented for. To me this makes their technical incompetence quite clear.
The question is: who on earth does this help? The BBC are a public organisation, so it's not like they were losing money over it, and corporate rightsholders were perfectly happy beforehand. On top of that, it's DRM, so it's not exactly going to stop any copying in the long run, just annoy a few people and cost a shedload of money for the BBC.
I imagine this must be a decision pushed through management, because the BBC's IT department seems very savvy indeed and probably all hate DRM.
The paid version always scores superbly (i.e. it is almost always in the top three) in the AV-Comparatives tests 1, 2 (although its award status often suffers due to a slightly higher than average number of false positives). If the quality of the paid versions has any bearing on that of the free versions, Avira absolutely smashes AVG and Avast!.
If only someone big, like Google, would set up a real alternative. (I reckon they would make a point of not blocking people's accounts for no reason, though I'm not sure if I want them controlling any more of my life)
Yes, I agree with you apart from 2), which is probably a bit tenuous. I regard it as important that I am able to pirate things if I need to, just in case (i.e. 1 or Ubisoft goes bust and shuts down its must-be-connected-to-at-all-times DRM servers)
Whether she was innocently infringing or not isn't really the point because it's fairly obvious that no teenager on the planet who pirates music doesn't know that it's illegal.
The problem is that she's in court for downloading 16 songs. Randomly attacking people who will find it difficult to defend themselves legally isn't the right way to go about reducing piracy.
In fact, this could be seen as even worse for the environment than the current process. Seeing as we/are/ going to run out of oil/gas at some point, having a more efficient way of using them just increases the time before this occurs. The idea that these devices are more environmentally friendly is a false one, as they will have the same eventual net impact (having used the same amount of methane as would have been anyway). However, I'm sure that this incorrect idea is the impression the public will get, both from marketing and wishful thinking. This could lead to delayed development of genuinely green power sources as the public are fooled into thinking that they are no longer necessary, causing more damage in the long term.
A few days ago, most of us were still waiting to see if this story was in fact exaggerated and/or untrue: what about the school's side of the story?
But it appears that the initial impressions were correct: the school is in fact just scrabbling around for excuses ("It was a security feature, promise!"). This suggests that there was in fact no good reason or alternate story.
Which is good, because I can go and get properly angry now.
This is true, but they won't just click on a random browser: they'll just close the ballot window and ignore the fact that it keeps popping up.
I see people every day open Internet Explorer and immediately close the 'please set up your browser' window, completely ignoring it and utterly oblivious to the fact that they could change that search bar at the top right ('oh, that's a search bar?') to something useful instead of Bing. When you tell them that they should probably just click through the extremely easy set of setup screens they look at you as if you're completely insane. I have also seen somebody installing FarCry on Vista, who, having ticked the DirectX9 box even though I told them not to, when presented with a message saying something along the lines of 'Um, you can't do that', had already ejected the disk and closed the installer by the time I could open my mouth.
This can be condensed into the first rule of interface design: people ignore everything you tell them, even if it is blindingly, patronisingly obvious. Yet, somehow, they still manage to click on adverts to install Zwinky.
Think you may have missed this one by some margin.
I signed up to the newsletter when this was first announced, thinking the thing would be out in about a month. The earliest email I received (entitled "It's the first ever LEGO Universe Newsletter!", fyi) dates from 6 September 2007.
Still, only out by 900 days. Better luck next time,./.
Slashdot Mirror
If they wanted to be at all relevant, they should have tested their development version against the development versions of the other browsers. At the moment they're comparing where they are now, where Opera was in March where and Mozilla was in January. Fair.
And aside from that there is some major JS abuse going on here: all the links have hrefs along the lines of javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$MainContent$Threads$ThreadsRepeater$ctl00$LinkButton1','').
I wonder if they ever stopped to think what on earth the URI was invented for. To me this makes their technical incompetence quite clear.
A property this post has in spades.
The question is: who on earth does this help? The BBC are a public organisation, so it's not like they were losing money over it, and corporate rightsholders were perfectly happy beforehand. On top of that, it's DRM, so it's not exactly going to stop any copying in the long run, just annoy a few people and cost a shedload of money for the BBC.
I imagine this must be a decision pushed through management, because the BBC's IT department seems very savvy indeed and probably all hate DRM.
Another +1 for Avira.
The paid version always scores superbly (i.e. it is almost always in the top three) in the AV-Comparatives tests 1, 2 (although its award status often suffers due to a slightly higher than average number of false positives). If the quality of the paid versions has any bearing on that of the free versions, Avira absolutely smashes AVG and Avast!.
Are there any?
If only someone big, like Google, would set up a real alternative. (I reckon they would make a point of not blocking people's accounts for no reason, though I'm not sure if I want them controlling any more of my life)
No, I'm not in America.
You practically have to be a pirate to navigate through this many comments.
That is the beginning of a much better solution.
But do WOW, Hulu or Netflix shut down instantly and remove your progress even for a small blip in service?
Yes, I agree with you apart from 2), which is probably a bit tenuous. I regard it as important that I am able to pirate things if I need to, just in case (i.e. 1 or Ubisoft goes bust and shuts down its must-be-connected-to-at-all-times DRM servers)
Whether she was innocently infringing or not isn't really the point because it's fairly obvious that no teenager on the planet who pirates music doesn't know that it's illegal.
The problem is that she's in court for downloading 16 songs. Randomly attacking people who will find it difficult to defend themselves legally isn't the right way to go about reducing piracy.
Especially seeing as what you're doing by providing wifi is essentially wobbling stuff on a very small scale.
(Yes, I know, don't tell me how wrong this is as an explanation of EM radiation.)
My pessimism has been proven wrong!
Yes, sorry, I can't think of anything intelligent or witty to say. I'm too happy.
considering that this is a wee bit of a non-story, we can rest assured that any sections on manipulating social marketing will be good.
Seeing as Bill Gates no longer works at Microsoft, I doubt they see eye-to-eye at all. Nor do they need to, or we to know whether or nether they are.
Now explained for the first time!
In fact, this could be seen as even worse for the environment than the current process. Seeing as we /are/ going to run out of oil/gas at some point, having a more efficient way of using them just increases the time before this occurs. The idea that these devices are more environmentally friendly is a false one, as they will have the same eventual net impact (having used the same amount of methane as would have been anyway). However, I'm sure that this incorrect idea is the impression the public will get, both from marketing and wishful thinking. This could lead to delayed development of genuinely green power sources as the public are fooled into thinking that they are no longer necessary, causing more damage in the long term.
Are excellent, though I have no idea how big they'll scale.
Their support is literally incredible: they replied to my question (before joining) within 7 minutes.
Also, see the article 'Finding The Best Web Site Hosts The Googalistic Way'---'s awesome.
A few days ago, most of us were still waiting to see if this story was in fact exaggerated and/or untrue: what about the school's side of the story?
But it appears that the initial impressions were correct: the school is in fact just scrabbling around for excuses ("It was a security feature, promise!"). This suggests that there was in fact no good reason or alternate story.
Which is good, because I can go and get properly angry now.
Slashdot swallowed my tag.
Even worse, s!
It's 2010, and this was created by a company with $58bn revenue.
How on earth did this get past all the 'legal BS' (to quote AC below)? Accessibility?
This is true, but they won't just click on a random browser: they'll just close the ballot window and ignore the fact that it keeps popping up.
I see people every day open Internet Explorer and immediately close the 'please set up your browser' window, completely ignoring it and utterly oblivious to the fact that they could change that search bar at the top right ('oh, that's a search bar?') to something useful instead of Bing. When you tell them that they should probably just click through the extremely easy set of setup screens they look at you as if you're completely insane. I have also seen somebody installing FarCry on Vista, who, having ticked the DirectX9 box even though I told them not to, when presented with a message saying something along the lines of 'Um, you can't do that', had already ejected the disk and closed the installer by the time I could open my mouth.
This can be condensed into the first rule of interface design: people ignore everything you tell them, even if it is blindingly, patronisingly obvious. Yet, somehow, they still manage to click on adverts to install Zwinky.
Think you may have missed this one by some margin.
I signed up to the newsletter when this was first announced, thinking the thing would be out in about a month. The earliest email I received (entitled "It's the first ever LEGO Universe Newsletter!", fyi) dates from 6 September 2007.
Still, only out by 900 days. Better luck next time, ./.
I'm loving comment #115 on TFA: