http://doctorwhomedia.co.uk/ -- however, the domain is being transferred so the content might not stay there for long. At the time of writing (23 Aug 16.45 BST) there is roughly the story above and some chats at http://doctorwhomedia.chatango.com/, and whois shows the domain still owned byJonathan Carlyle.
No real indication why it was taken down... talking about Dr Who cannot be a problem. Was there copyrighted material hosted ?
As a smaller organisation a better strategy for you would be to install free s/ware on machines where it can do the job as well, eg: firefox instead of IE; thunderbird for outlook (depending on what you do for calendaring); LibreOffice instead of MS Office;... Most (say 80%) user's requirements are simple and free stuff will work well for them. When a user's PC dies, you look to see what they are using - if it is all free s/ware you replace their box with one running a free OS; if not then you give them one running MS Windows or OS x
More to the point the web site needs to comply with disability legislation. In the UK blind/partially-sighted people must, by law, be able to use the web site. This is one of the advantages of CSS - you can keep the site clean so that it works well with a screen reader. In theory a web site (owner) can be prosecuted for disciminating against people who have sight problems, in practice this does not happen very often.
So: all the bot would need to do is to claim to be blind and so avoid the game playing CAPTCHA.
Reading TFA I suspect that the sorts of problems are:
* Interoperability with third parties. Eg document exchange. In a world where most others use MS software then there will be issues, moving to ODF will help, but not eliminate all issues -- incompatabilities between the way that MS and Open/Libre Office interpret the spec will remain. People will still use other formats where Open equivalents may not exist - eg CAD
* Munich have gone out on their own, few are following their lead. They thus have to pay the first implementor's penalty. Those who follow will find things easier and cheaper.
* Hardware devices (eg mobile phones). Although many of these might have Linux as the base, the vendor will make sure that it works with MS products and not worry about Linux equivalents
* Users are using something that is new and will blame problems on it. This time they have a name ''Linux'' - this becomes perceived as the root of all evil.
* Similar problems would have happened with a roll out of a new MS system and these problems would just be accepted as teething problems of a new system. But because Munich is doing something different by having software running on Linux systems this will be seen as the cause of it and thus blamed, with a belief that return to MS will fix all the problems. It will fix some but cause others, but until then Linux systems will get all the blame.
The best way to fix Munich's problems is for others to grab the LiMux distribution and use it. This will:
* Reduce compatability problems. A tipping point will eventually be reached, look how MS IE was king and then it went to less than 80% and suddenly slid as web sites had to take web standards seriously.
* Hardware vendors will have to test against more than just MS Windows and its ecosystems
* Others will contribute software and patches, the cost to Munich will drop.
* Munich IT department will not be seen as maverick since others are also doing it. Eventually they will, hopefully, be lauded as pioneers and visionaries.
Send a letter to their registered head office stating that you do not want their service from xxx date. Then cancel the payment with your bank. Job done.
Your new provider can do whatever work is needed to take the line over. Send them a copy of the letter that you send to your old provider.
A big shopping center - sounds like hell on earth! I just can't understand the obsession with shopping, once you have your clothes & stuff just leave and do something interesting.
Things are wrong if a group of people are excluded from something by others for no particular reason or a frivolous one such as: sex, religion, skin colour,... However: we are not equal in achievement, I will never be a swimming great -- the young lads at the pool power past me, but I could prob write a better C program or shell script than they could. However if they were willing to put many years work they might manage that as well.
Life is not fair, different people have different abilities & achievements. What is important is that society provides equality of opportunity; it is up to the individual to exercise that opportunity based on the time that they are willing to put in and their innate abilities.
It means that there is yet another web site that I arrive at at see an empty page or maybe a few items scattered apparently at random.
I surf with javascript switched off by default. Most sites should work without javascript, OK some fancy features might be missing but I should generally see the page. Those that do not: I might look to see what javascript to enable, but all too often they are trying to pull in javascript from 1/2 dozen sites - so I guess a couple and then give up and go elsewhere.
Javascript should be used to make a page look nicer, not to make it work at all. Insisting on javascript is like insisting on flash.
I accept that a few special pages really do need special effects that need javascript, but not many of them.
what sort of encryption(s) were the cops unable to break - assuming that they were able to tell by looking at the files; failing that what were the ones that they succeeded in breaking? That might be useful as it would guide me in choosing which algorithms to use for encrypting my stuff.
Then is occurred to me that if the cops revealed it I must assume misinformation. They surely would not make their life difficult by telling me how to defeat them -- or would they answer the question honestly ? So: I could ever trust their answer -- is there any point in even asking them the question ?
That is the whole point -- with an e-book you can sell it and still have/keep a copy to use, something that you cannot do with a paper book. This is what the publishers want to stop.
You might not want to read a novel more than once, but many books are not story books. Eg: an academic text book; a reference book - these you might read and want to keep so that you can look up points of detail later.
Having said that:: I have read 'Lord of the Rings' 3 times.
it is just a market place. ''the site operates on an honor basis.'' it expects that once you have sold your e-book that you delete it from your machines. If you do not then it is you who commits piracy. It is an issue of trust: the book publisher/author knows that it is all too easy for someone to sell a book once they have read it but still keep the copy. But just because it is easy does not mean that everyone will keep a copy. I do have to admit that many will sell and keep.
I do not know what the answer it, shutting down a market place or wrapping the book in DRM are not the answers.
The trouble is that facebook et al are subject to the patriot act - this means that all the govt of the USA needs to do is say ''give me this data'' and they have to do it. The data can be anywhere in the world, if they can access it they need to give it to the NSA/... upon demand and can be stopped from telling anyone what they have done.
This could result in these companies being put into an impossible position where they have to meet conflicting demands both of which they must absolutely obey. The only way that they will survive is to lie, either ''we do not have the data'' or ''we did not give it away''. I suspect that the NSA will, at least initially, win this and they will just lie to tell the EU regulators ''we did not give it away''.
If there were 5 video services and all had similar levels of marketshare, it wouldn't be a problem.
It is not the market share of the video service that matters, it is the visibility of the artist's works that really counts. If another service will carry the songs and that other service is indexed by google then there is little loss. OK: punters won't be able to search in the Youtube search bar, but they will soon learn to do searches in google/bing/...
If another video service cannot carry the bandwidth then maybe they ought to pay more. This is where net neutrality, peering, etc comes into play -- I have to admit that size of video service does matter as the really small guys cannot afford content delivery services... but plenty other than youtube can.
I honestly don't see how this doesn't run afoul of antitrust provisions. They're leveraging their position in the video market in order to push their streaming service and give themselves an unfair market advantage.
How come ? You can host your music/... elsewhere, somewhere where google (the search engine) will find it. So, if you don't like their terms, just move.
But be prepared to have search results for your web site pulled if Google finds out you are making money off it and not buying ads through them. Google is no longer in the search business.
Do you have any evidence of google pulling sites that do not buy ads through Google ? If Google were to do something like that its quality as a search engine would drop and people would go elsewhere - it would be search engine suicide.
... not stupid enough, Microsoft additionally wants to keep the patents secret.
There is only reason for keeping details of patents secret: you know that some of them won't stand up to open scrutiny. In other words: you do it if you are engaged in confidence trickery. So turn it into a game of bluff and wrap those who do see them up in restrictive disclosure contracts.
It would be nice to see many of these patents shown to be invalid; then those who have been screwed by this mafia like protection racket to sue and get their money back. However: I don't expect to see that happen, the system is too broken.
Slashdot Mirror
http://doctorwhomedia.co.uk/ -- however, the domain is being transferred so the content might not stay there for long. At the time of writing (23 Aug 16.45 BST) there is roughly the story above and some chats at http://doctorwhomedia.chatango.com/, and whois shows the domain still owned byJonathan Carlyle .
No real indication why it was taken down ... talking about Dr Who cannot be a problem. Was there copyrighted material hosted ?
Expect all sorts of (spurious) legal challenges from the motor industry ... they won't want their business badly dented.
As a smaller organisation a better strategy for you would be to install free s/ware on machines where it can do the job as well, eg: firefox instead of IE; thunderbird for outlook (depending on what you do for calendaring); LibreOffice instead of MS Office; ... Most (say 80%) user's requirements are simple and free stuff will work well for them. When a user's PC dies, you look to see what they are using - if it is all free s/ware you replace their box with one running a free OS; if not then you give them one running MS Windows or OS x
More to the point the web site needs to comply with disability legislation. In the UK blind/partially-sighted people must, by law, be able to use the web site. This is one of the advantages of CSS - you can keep the site clean so that it works well with a screen reader. In theory a web site (owner) can be prosecuted for disciminating against people who have sight problems, in practice this does not happen very often.
So: all the bot would need to do is to claim to be blind and so avoid the game playing CAPTCHA.
Reading TFA I suspect that the sorts of problems are:
The best way to fix Munich's problems is for others to grab the LiMux distribution and use it. This will:
* Reduce compatability problems. A tipping point will eventually be reached, look how MS IE was king and then it went to less than 80% and suddenly slid as web sites had to take web standards seriously.
* Hardware vendors will have to test against more than just MS Windows and its ecosystems
* Others will contribute software and patches, the cost to Munich will drop.
* Munich IT department will not be seen as maverick since others are also doing it. Eventually they will, hopefully, be lauded as pioneers and visionaries.
in the hope that this might provide them with yet another way of separating the public from their properties (especially money).
then what have they got to hide ?
At least: that is what we are being told. So if that is good enough for us, why is it not good enough for them ?
Not everyone has such a short attention span that they need jangley noise to keep them from moving to another web site.
Who modded this troll, it should be modded insightful? Are the NSA operatives getting in quick these days ?
Send a letter to their registered head office stating that you do not want their service from xxx date. Then cancel the payment with your bank. Job done.
Your new provider can do whatever work is needed to take the line over. Send them a copy of the letter that you send to your old provider.
A big shopping center - sounds like hell on earth! I just can't understand the obsession with shopping, once you have your clothes & stuff just leave and do something interesting.
Things are wrong if a group of people are excluded from something by others for no particular reason or a frivolous one such as: sex, religion, skin colour, ... However: we are not equal in achievement, I will never be a swimming great -- the young lads at the pool power past me, but I could prob write a better C program or shell script than they could. However if they were willing to put many years work they might manage that as well.
Life is not fair, different people have different abilities & achievements. What is important is that society provides equality of opportunity; it is up to the individual to exercise that opportunity based on the time that they are willing to put in and their innate abilities.
It means that there is yet another web site that I arrive at at see an empty page or maybe a few items scattered apparently at random. I surf with javascript switched off by default. Most sites should work without javascript, OK some fancy features might be missing but I should generally see the page. Those that do not: I might look to see what javascript to enable, but all too often they are trying to pull in javascript from 1/2 dozen sites - so I guess a couple and then give up and go elsewhere.
Javascript should be used to make a page look nicer, not to make it work at all. Insisting on javascript is like insisting on flash.
I accept that a few special pages really do need special effects that need javascript, but not many of them.
what sort of encryption(s) were the cops unable to break - assuming that they were able to tell by looking at the files; failing that what were the ones that they succeeded in breaking? That might be useful as it would guide me in choosing which algorithms to use for encrypting my stuff.
Then is occurred to me that if the cops revealed it I must assume misinformation. They surely would not make their life difficult by telling me how to defeat them -- or would they answer the question honestly ? So: I could ever trust their answer -- is there any point in even asking them the question ?
That is the whole point -- with an e-book you can sell it and still have/keep a copy to use, something that you cannot do with a paper book. This is what the publishers want to stop.
Who reads a book twice?
You might not want to read a novel more than once, but many books are not story books. Eg: an academic text book; a reference book - these you might read and want to keep so that you can look up points of detail later.
Having said that:: I have read 'Lord of the Rings' 3 times.
it is just a market place. ''the site operates on an honor basis.'' it expects that once you have sold your e-book that you delete it from your machines. If you do not then it is you who commits piracy. It is an issue of trust: the book publisher/author knows that it is all too easy for someone to sell a book once they have read it but still keep the copy. But just because it is easy does not mean that everyone will keep a copy. I do have to admit that many will sell and keep.
I do not know what the answer it, shutting down a market place or wrapping the book in DRM are not the answers.
What have the SWAT teams got to hide ?
Why was this modded down as 'troll' ? It is deliciously funny!
Mod parent up.
See: National Museum of Computing vs Bletchley Park Trust and Bletchley Park board member quits and Mexican standoff
The trouble is that facebook et al are subject to the patriot act - this means that all the govt of the USA needs to do is say ''give me this data'' and they have to do it. The data can be anywhere in the world, if they can access it they need to give it to the NSA/... upon demand and can be stopped from telling anyone what they have done.
This could result in these companies being put into an impossible position where they have to meet conflicting demands both of which they must absolutely obey. The only way that they will survive is to lie, either ''we do not have the data'' or ''we did not give it away''. I suspect that the NSA will, at least initially, win this and they will just lie to tell the EU regulators ''we did not give it away''.
If there were 5 video services and all had similar levels of marketshare, it wouldn't be a problem.
It is not the market share of the video service that matters, it is the visibility of the artist's works that really counts. If another service will carry the songs and that other service is indexed by google then there is little loss. OK: punters won't be able to search in the Youtube search bar, but they will soon learn to do searches in google/bing/...
If another video service cannot carry the bandwidth then maybe they ought to pay more. This is where net neutrality, peering, etc comes into play -- I have to admit that size of video service does matter as the really small guys cannot afford content delivery services ... but plenty other than youtube can.
I honestly don't see how this doesn't run afoul of antitrust provisions. They're leveraging their position in the video market in order to push their streaming service and give themselves an unfair market advantage.
How come ? You can host your music/... elsewhere, somewhere where google (the search engine) will find it. So, if you don't like their terms, just move.
But be prepared to have search results for your web site pulled if Google finds out you are making money off it and not buying ads through them. Google is no longer in the search business.
Do you have any evidence of google pulling sites that do not buy ads through Google ? If Google were to do something like that its quality as a search engine would drop and people would go elsewhere - it would be search engine suicide.
... not stupid enough, Microsoft additionally wants to keep the patents secret.
There is only reason for keeping details of patents secret: you know that some of them won't stand up to open scrutiny. In other words: you do it if you are engaged in confidence trickery. So turn it into a game of bluff and wrap those who do see them up in restrictive disclosure contracts.
It would be nice to see many of these patents shown to be invalid; then those who have been screwed by this mafia like protection racket to sue and get their money back. However: I don't expect to see that happen, the system is too broken.