You should have stuck with Fringe - I think it's amazing.
Sure it had a slow start, but at episode 14 it's more than firmly planted itself in my favourite shows list of all time - not least because of the emerging story arc of discovering and training psychic warriors to battle the oncoming apocalypse where two alternate reaities/dimensions meet (a more technologically advanced one and our own) and only one can survive intact.
I think the truth about the scheduling decisions is that sci-fi/fantasy has always been majorly dicked around with and shown utter disregard by TV schedulers, regardless of the station. Certainly here in the UK, Buffy, Angel, Farscape all got messed around with to a larger or smaller extent, in their time - cancelled for sport - hacked to pieces to show at inappropriate times and so on.
The UK Labour party may have backed off this appaling legislation, but they've made it more than clear from this and other legislation - explicit even - that it is their INTENTION to increase the power of the State over ordinary citizens and to conduct pervasive surveillance upon those citizens wherever and whenever thay are able to.
It is their game plan for the UK.
All the while, they hide themselves from any light that is shone on their own activities, meetings and discussions - crying 'state security' or 'commercial sensitivity' (where their corporate freinds are complicit) as they scurry back into the darkness.
These bills and laws make explicit their aims. The citizenry of the UK seems uninterested, held perhaps in the grip of a belief that the State generally means well.
Are you kidding? How your troll of a comment ever got modded 5 Insightful, I don't know.
If you don't like it, dump your OS? This is as insightful as saying if you did't like the way Bush was running the USA, move to another country.
You're right it's not an evil conspiracy. Then again, no one ever said it was, apart form your straw man.
It is not a non-issue.
When a party modifies a third party's software without permission and blocks the uninstall facility of that modification it is an abuse - of trust and ownership of the computer in question.
It's entirely unacceptable.
In the spirit of your own comment (for illustraive purposes only, mods) if you don't like what I just said, stop using slashdot and move to digg.
>If they want to use it for any purpose whatsoever, they can. You just gave them that right.
Except that for all commercial use of an image of an identifiable person or persons, you need a model release from the subject(s) contained in the image.
Good luck with Facebook getting that. Looks like the exploitiation of people's images will be limited to landscapes and kittens.
Actually, I didn't mean to make this a left-right debate.
If the Tories were in power, I'm sure they would be implementing similar things, the Labour Party is aiming at the same totalitarian power-crazed goal based on their own flavour of rationalisations. It all amounts to the same thing.
It's the human condition; it doesn't matter what they call their brand of politics. Real restraints on the powers of government are the only thing that can stop it in the mid-term; the rest is up to people doing something about what lurks in their hearts and minds.
I've made sure my mum has never used the blue-e-thing, and only uses firefox. She uses it without problem on her hotmail account.
If she ever did have a problem because microsoft wanted to mess with firefox users of hotmail, she'd just think that hotmail was broken (true of course) and if it didn't get fixed by MS, she'd eventually move email providers.
At a certain point, MS will have no choice but to respect other browsers & their users, especially those who may never have used, or never want to use IE, or lose them completely.
I'm sick of hearing that we, here in the UK, are 'marching toward' a Police State (I think we essentially have one, it's just being applied in a low-key and selective manner at the moment). May I make an appeal that we can all agree that the bunch of ex-communist sympathisers who rule the country at the moment, at least WANT a police state?
Then perhaps we can move forward instead of repeating the self-defeating 'walking toward' mantra.
Remember when the heads of movie studios were introduced to the concept of videotape rental? They were shown it operating and were 'horrified': 'What's to stop someone walking into the room where a videotape is playing, and watching it without paying?' - was the cry!
It seems funny to think they thought that, but they have always been dragged into the new technological landscape bewildered and frightened, kicking and screaming.
When Rob Grant left, it all went to hell. It was a real shame to see a show I loved, grow from very humble beginnings, develop into something delightful (despite its still significant budget restraints) and then have to watch through two agonisingly bad series of death throws.
>First outbreak of common sense by the Uk government? Pinch me!
Don't worry, our error will be corrected and normal service will resume shortly. Thank you for your patience, loyal citizen (your lack of faith has been noted). - Zanu Labour.
>Yes, and I love Vista's audio system. Wonderful implementation.
Yeah, it really rocks. That I can't load a page in Firefox without it stuttering the audio of an MP3 playing in Winamp, despite having a Quad-core, is just icing on the cake.
I'm not someone who thinks that XP is better than Vista. I quite like Vista, actually, but Vista's audio system is a fucking joke.
The US-CERT article might have linked to an old MS article that doesn't work, but the new one doesn't work either. It requires users of Vista, for instance, to use Gpedit.msc. Type it into your search bar and run it, it says.
Vista Home Premium (and less) does not contain Gpedit.msc. I mean, for f**k's sake.
Autoplay and Autorun (along with hiding file extensions by default) are reasons that Microsoft still does not take the safety of the users of its software seriously.
Maybe this crap will rid us of Auto(play/run) forever? (I can hope.)
>If like me you object to your medical records being computerised and being available to any member of the state for their fishing expeditions, your doctor will tell you to get lost.
You have not told anyone about "the UK experience of computerised medical records", you've informed them of your own (appaling) experience. Make a formal complaint about your doctor and then change him for one who will respect your right to medical confidentiality (something which electronic records rides a coach and horses through).
I simply gave my doctor a letter, informing him of my wish to opt out, and he accepted it. There's a form letter on www.nhsconfidentiality.org which I will paste here in it's entirety:
Dear Doctor,
Exercising right to opt out
As you are probably aware, the Government is intending to ask you to transfer the electronic medical records of your patients onto a national database called the "spine". They intend you to do this without first seeking the consent of your patients. It is BMA policy that patients should give their individual consent prior to their information being transferred on to the national database.
There are substantial concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of information transferred onto the national database, not least because promised software security safeguards called "sealed envelopes" will not be in place and because the patient's instructions with regard to who may access the records can be overridden. I do not believe that such a large database, with so many staff users, can be regarded as secure.
I would be grateful if you would ensure that none of my records held by you are entered onto the national system. Would you please also file or scan a copy of this letter in my records and also record my dissent by entering the "Read code" - '93C3. --- Refused consent for upload to national shared electronic record.' into my computer record. I am aware of the implications of this request and will notify you should I change my mind.
This request is itself confidential. Please do not divulge my decision, in an identifiable manner, to anyone other than to clinicians who are providing care to me and who might otherwise place information about me on the national care records service.
Further information for GPs is available online at www.TheBigOptOut.org/for_GPs
If it wasn't such a ridiculous 'conspiracy theory' you'd almost believe that the 'leaders' of these western governments were conspiring to form a mass citizen surveillance network - what with the communications meta-data, travel data, pattern-matching, ID card databases, internet firewalls and the like.
But, c'mon - it's not like we live in China, or that China is the model of society these leaders are aiming at!
>Yes there is - the caution you receive when arrested in the UK is as follows:
>"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be given in evidence."
Translation: nice right to silence you have there, hope using it doesn't get you into trouble.
Where the government intentionally enacts penalties and threats against someone exercising their right to silence, there is no right to silence.
Slashdot Mirror
You should have stuck with Fringe - I think it's amazing.
Sure it had a slow start, but at episode 14 it's more than firmly planted itself in my favourite shows list of all time - not least because of the emerging story arc of discovering and training psychic warriors to battle the oncoming apocalypse where two alternate reaities/dimensions meet (a more technologically advanced one and our own) and only one can survive intact.
I think the truth about the scheduling decisions is that sci-fi/fantasy has always been majorly dicked around with and shown utter disregard by TV schedulers, regardless of the station. Certainly here in the UK, Buffy, Angel, Farscape all got messed around with to a larger or smaller extent, in their time - cancelled for sport - hacked to pieces to show at inappropriate times and so on.
The UK Labour party may have backed off this appaling legislation, but they've made it more than clear from this and other legislation - explicit even - that it is their INTENTION to increase the power of the State over ordinary citizens and to conduct pervasive surveillance upon those citizens wherever and whenever thay are able to.
It is their game plan for the UK.
All the while, they hide themselves from any light that is shone on their own activities, meetings and discussions - crying 'state security' or 'commercial sensitivity' (where their corporate freinds are complicit) as they scurry back into the darkness.
These bills and laws make explicit their aims. The citizenry of the UK seems uninterested, held perhaps in the grip of a belief that the State generally means well.
>Unfortunately the bankruptcy officials may consider it part of the company's assets, to potentially be sold to pay off creditors.
Couldn't they just wipe the slate clean?
Are you kidding? How your troll of a comment ever got modded 5 Insightful, I don't know.
If you don't like it, dump your OS? This is as insightful as saying if you did't like the way Bush was running the USA, move to another country.
You're right it's not an evil conspiracy. Then again, no one ever said it was, apart form your straw man.
It is not a non-issue.
When a party modifies a third party's software without permission and blocks the uninstall facility of that modification it is an abuse - of trust and ownership of the computer in question.
It's entirely unacceptable.
In the spirit of your own comment (for illustraive purposes only, mods) if you don't like what I just said, stop using slashdot and move to digg.
>If they want to use it for any purpose whatsoever, they can. You just gave them that right.
Except that for all commercial use of an image of an identifiable person or persons, you need a model release from the subject(s) contained in the image.
Good luck with Facebook getting that. Looks like the exploitiation of people's images will be limited to landscapes and kittens.
Isn't this how Planet of the Apes began?
Actually, I didn't mean to make this a left-right debate.
If the Tories were in power, I'm sure they would be implementing similar things, the Labour Party is aiming at the same totalitarian power-crazed goal based on their own flavour of rationalisations. It all amounts to the same thing.
It's the human condition; it doesn't matter what they call their brand of politics. Real restraints on the powers of government are the only thing that can stop it in the mid-term; the rest is up to people doing something about what lurks in their hearts and minds.
I've made sure my mum has never used the blue-e-thing, and only uses firefox. She uses it without problem on her hotmail account.
If she ever did have a problem because microsoft wanted to mess with firefox users of hotmail, she'd just think that hotmail was broken (true of course) and if it didn't get fixed by MS, she'd eventually move email providers.
At a certain point, MS will have no choice but to respect other browsers & their users, especially those who may never have used, or never want to use IE, or lose them completely.
Just as it should be.
I'm sick of hearing that we, here in the UK, are 'marching toward' a Police State (I think we essentially have one, it's just being applied in a low-key and selective manner at the moment). May I make an appeal that we can all agree that the bunch of ex-communist sympathisers who rule the country at the moment, at least WANT a police state?
Then perhaps we can move forward instead of repeating the self-defeating 'walking toward' mantra.
Why not tag "USAonly" also, since they're only downloadable by people with a US billing address?
Then the rest of the world (the little bit that stretches beyond US borders) can skip the slashvertisement too.
Dude, Vista was the first beta.
You could almost say this is an Epic Fail.
>I think you mean English 3.0, American is English 2.0.
No ... 'American' is English Home Basic.
Remember when the heads of movie studios were introduced to the concept of videotape rental? They were shown it operating and were 'horrified':
'What's to stop someone walking into the room where a videotape is playing, and watching it without paying?' - was the cry!
It seems funny to think they thought that, but they have always been dragged into the new technological landscape bewildered and frightened, kicking and screaming.
They haven't changed.
When Rob Grant left, it all went to hell.
It was a real shame to see a show I loved, grow from very humble beginnings, develop into something delightful (despite its still significant budget restraints) and then have to watch through two agonisingly bad series of death throws.
It looks like it wasn't quite dead though.
Quick! Someone get a shovel!
>First outbreak of common sense by the Uk government? Pinch me!
Don't worry, our error will be corrected and normal service will resume shortly.
Thank you for your patience, loyal citizen (your lack of faith has been noted).
- Zanu Labour.
If that's the case, I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong, and say that Vista isn't to blame. Thanks for the info.
>Yes, and I love Vista's audio system. Wonderful implementation.
Yeah, it really rocks. That I can't load a page in Firefox without it stuttering the audio of an MP3 playing in Winamp, despite having a Quad-core, is just icing on the cake.
I'm not someone who thinks that XP is better than Vista. I quite like Vista, actually, but Vista's audio system is a fucking joke.
The US-CERT article might have linked to an old MS article that doesn't work, but the new one doesn't work either. It requires users of Vista, for instance, to use Gpedit.msc. Type it into your search bar and run it, it says.
Vista Home Premium (and less) does not contain Gpedit.msc. I mean, for f**k's sake.
Autoplay and Autorun (along with hiding file extensions by default) are reasons that Microsoft still does not take the safety of the users of its software seriously.
Maybe this crap will rid us of Auto(play/run) forever? (I can hope.)
>If like me you object to your medical records being computerised and being available to any member of the state for their fishing expeditions, your doctor will tell you to get lost.
You have not told anyone about "the UK experience of computerised medical records", you've informed them of your own (appaling) experience. Make a formal complaint about your doctor and then change him for one who will respect your right to medical confidentiality (something which electronic records rides a coach and horses through).
I simply gave my doctor a letter, informing him of my wish to opt out, and he accepted it. There's a form letter on www.nhsconfidentiality.org which I will paste here in it's entirety:
Dear Doctor,
Exercising right to opt out
As you are probably aware, the Government is intending to ask you to transfer
the electronic medical records of your patients onto a national database called
the "spine". They intend you to do this without first seeking the consent of
your patients. It is BMA policy that patients should give their individual
consent prior to their information being transferred on to the national
database.
There are substantial concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of
information transferred onto the national database, not least because promised
software security safeguards called "sealed envelopes" will not be in place
and because the patient's instructions with regard to who may access the
records can be overridden. I do not believe that such a large database, with so
many staff users, can be regarded as secure.
I would be grateful if you would ensure that none of my records held by you are
entered onto the national system. Would you please also file or scan a copy of
this letter in my records and also record my dissent by entering the "Read
code" - '93C3. --- Refused consent for upload to national shared electronic
record.' into my computer record. I am aware of the implications of this
request and will notify you should I change my mind.
This request is itself confidential. Please do not divulge my decision, in an
identifiable manner, to anyone other than to clinicians who are providing care
to me and who might otherwise place information about me on the national care
records service.
Further information for GPs is available online at www.TheBigOptOut.org/for_GPs
Yours sincerely,
>Is someone living on $500 a month "entitled" to watch television for free? If so, why?
Makes more sense than paying for it.
>Please explain why it is our job to teach users?
They don't care if their ignorance makes your job harder or more time consuming. You do.
Next?
Agreed, they're trying a new push for satellite tracking in the UK now, under the guise of speed limiting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803997.stm
If it wasn't such a ridiculous 'conspiracy theory' you'd almost believe that the 'leaders' of these western governments were conspiring to form a mass citizen surveillance network - what with the communications meta-data, travel data, pattern-matching, ID card databases, internet firewalls and the like.
But, c'mon - it's not like we live in China, or that China is the model of society these leaders are aiming at!
Is it?
>>There is also no right to remain silent either.
>Yes there is - the caution you receive when arrested in the UK is as follows:
>"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be given in evidence."
Translation: nice right to silence you have there, hope using it doesn't get you into trouble.
Where the government intentionally enacts penalties and threats against someone exercising their right to silence, there is no right to silence.
Indexing on Vista = goodthing.
winkey + first [couple of] letter[s] of anything you're looking for and .. you're there.
It's not about remembering, it's about speed.