I pay a monthly Sky subscription of ~£15/month. I just signed up to sky.com's Sky Player and supplied account info so they knew it was really me, who pays my subscription. They recognized the packages I subscribe to. I wanted to catch up with a House, MD episode. They wanted to charge me £1.50 to 'rent' it (ie. play it once in their player). I just torrented it.
As long as media corporations are so unreasonable, I reserve the right to say, fuck them. Copyright law should be reformed to allow people to pay what is reasonable, then pirate on a noncommercial basis. It's the lesser of the evils, vs. corps charging what the market will bear.
Not being from Europe, and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near future, I haven't seen this "choice screen" until I just searched for a screen shot of it
This appears to be it (or a facsimile). My question is, if it's just a remote webpage, why on earth aren't they doing the shuffling server-side? It's a very cheap operation and they're relying on client script to do it?
Why does your treasurer and campaigns officer, apparently under heavy pressure from the likes of Eric Priezkalns, feel that spending almost all of the party funds on the upcoming general election is the right way to go, given that, realistically, the PPUK will not make much of an impact in these elections? Don't you think that the better approach is a long-term one, and blowing all the money available to the party right now on the upcoming elections would be resources badly spent, when they could be better used to garner long-term widespread support/publicity, and apply long-term pressure?
I honestly wonder if anyone there actually believes that drivel. Maybe he himself manages to delude himself, but the people?
Why not?
Even in *free* countries, child indoctrination can convince the majority of the population to be religious. Imagine how much you could twist people's minds in NK.
In all seriousness, what the BBC has done here is up to their usual devious standard, IMHO. They've continuously asked for (and gotten) above-inflation licence fee increases in the last 10/15 years. They've used that huge boost of cash to put put a million and one new services, as well as paying presenters obscene amounts of money - and now that they're cutting back on half a billion's worth, they're being given credit for it. They still have way more money coming in than if they'd only been given inflation-matching licence fee increases.
Of course, we can argue that the BBC is government media just like News Corp is private media, but any discerning reader understands that bias is part of reporting intentionally or not.
Woahh, you threw a curveball in there. I'd take serious issue to that statement. It's perfectly possible for reporters to stick to the facts and not portray a story in a particular way, or from a particular viewpoint. That the BBC frequently fails to do that is a damning indictment on their ability or willingness nowadays to be truly unbiased.
In our infinite wisdom, we've decided that it helps our brand to prevent the rest of the world seeing this content, even though allowing so would mean potentially more ad views on our pages and more popularity for the show. Yay!!
Hopefully it's getting better. I bought a couple of these, 128GB model, and so far I've not been disappointed with read or write speed (in fact it's been snappier than the Seagate I had before). Granted, I'm not running a busy server. As for it not supporting TRIM, oh well, it's half-to-a-third the price of a Corsair, and WinXP which is the OS I put on one of them doesn't even support TRIM.
Slashdot Mirror
I pay a monthly Sky subscription of ~£15/month. I just signed up to sky.com's Sky Player and supplied account info so they knew it was really me, who pays my subscription. They recognized the packages I subscribe to. I wanted to catch up with a House, MD episode. They wanted to charge me £1.50 to 'rent' it (ie. play it once in their player). I just torrented it.
As long as media corporations are so unreasonable, I reserve the right to say, fuck them. Copyright law should be reformed to allow people to pay what is reasonable, then pirate on a noncommercial basis. It's the lesser of the evils, vs. corps charging what the market will bear.
Repeat after me:
'then' is not 'than'.
'then' is not 'than'.
'then' is not 'than'.
Not being from Europe, and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near future, I haven't seen this "choice screen" until I just searched for a screen shot of it
This appears to be it (or a facsimile). My question is, if it's just a remote webpage, why on earth aren't they doing the shuffling server-side? It's a very cheap operation and they're relying on client script to do it?
Why does your treasurer and campaigns officer, apparently under heavy pressure from the likes of Eric Priezkalns, feel that spending almost all of the party funds on the upcoming general election is the right way to go, given that, realistically, the PPUK will not make much of an impact in these elections? Don't you think that the better approach is a long-term one, and blowing all the money available to the party right now on the upcoming elections would be resources badly spent, when they could be better used to garner long-term widespread support/publicity, and apply long-term pressure?
I honestly wonder if anyone there actually believes that drivel. Maybe he himself manages to delude himself, but the people?
Why not?
Even in *free* countries, child indoctrination can convince the majority of the population to be religious. Imagine how much you could twist people's minds in NK.
The US has ~3 million in prison.
The population of North Korea is ~23.9 million.
Billions? He's not Bill Gates. He has a net worth of 'over $200 million'.
Also, the whole idea of it seems rather impossible.
I think everyone's missing the rather obvious answer here: butterflies.
In all seriousness, what the BBC has done here is up to their usual devious standard, IMHO. They've continuously asked for (and gotten) above-inflation licence fee increases in the last 10/15 years. They've used that huge boost of cash to put put a million and one new services, as well as paying presenters obscene amounts of money - and now that they're cutting back on half a billion's worth, they're being given credit for it. They still have way more money coming in than if they'd only been given inflation-matching licence fee increases.
Of course, we can argue that the BBC is government media just like News Corp is private media, but any discerning reader understands that bias is part of reporting intentionally or not.
Woahh, you threw a curveball in there. I'd take serious issue to that statement. It's perfectly possible for reporters to stick to the facts and not portray a story in a particular way, or from a particular viewpoint. That the BBC frequently fails to do that is a damning indictment on their ability or willingness nowadays to be truly unbiased.
Reasonably unbiased. Hahaha. It's just biased in a different direction.
For great value for money on a SSD I'd recommend the 128GB version of these babies. I have 2 and no problems so far.
But Chrome comes from Google, and releases often with an auto-updating mechanism
To be fair, Firefox comes with a very aggressive, annoying (IMHO) update mechanism built in and enabled by default.
But compare our petrol (gas) taxes to those of the US. :-)
It comes too late to save Jack Thomas (thankfully).
Do you mean Jack Thompson?
Hmm, there's a nice shuffle implementation in Java that Microsoft could use... Oh, wait...
They could, however, just copy/paste it into a C# sourcecode file and compile. ;-)
stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it
Not me, and not millions of people who want to see dramatic copyright reform.
Video not available outside the US.
In our infinite wisdom, we've decided that it helps our brand to prevent the rest of the world seeing this content, even though allowing so would mean potentially more ad views on our pages and more popularity for the show. Yay!!
And you're grammar is dodgy.
The total weight of the money that you spend on end-user storage exceeds the weight of the storage device itself.
I pay for my tech stuff online, using a debit card. What's the weight of the bits needed to carry out that transaction?
Most people don't have the money to send the lawyers back again and again...
wtf is the command line? I'm on Slashdot, so you can understand how this is new territory for me. It sounds complicated and scary.
... to a mobile device, without using Flash. Go on, try it. I'm waiting.
For this reason, my company doesn't support the iPhone.
Hopefully it's getting better. I bought a couple of these, 128GB model, and so far I've not been disappointed with read or write speed (in fact it's been snappier than the Seagate I had before). Granted, I'm not running a busy server. As for it not supporting TRIM, oh well, it's half-to-a-third the price of a Corsair, and WinXP which is the OS I put on one of them doesn't even support TRIM.
They have Mr. Gates' and Mr. Buffett's personal fortunes going into analyzing how to do the most good in the world.
And the US Military has over $500bn/year going into making the US safer (ostensibly).