Well said. I couldn't grasp that inclusion at all. "brought encryption to the masses" - not any masses I've ever seen. I work within the general technology/geek field (web dev) and even including every work-related email I've got from clients, colleagues, contractors, suppliers, peers etc, I think I can count the number of PGP signatures/keys I've encountered in my entire life on the fingers of one hand. As for the type of people more usually associated with "the masses" (computer-shy relatives, friends who did Arts degrees, etc), the count is thoroughly stuck on zero.
Note to those with fingers hovering on the downmod button: I'm not saying PGP shouldn't be widely used by "the masses", in principle I agree it'd be nice if it were; nor even that it's not fit to be used by "the masses" (too difficult or whatever). I am merely observing than in practice, in my experience it's simply not.
Yeah but "conquering the market" isn't such a sure thing when your viewers are "Easy come, easy go". I never watched much on youtube in the first place, to be honest, but now I watch even fewer, because nearly every time I try I get a "not in your country" message. Often as not, in anticipation of that message, I don't even bother following the link through to see. I guess driving away visitors like me is all part of their cunning master plan to lose less money.
We can't have positive foreign relations with Britain because the POTUS didn't give a government visitor fancy enough gifts?
Don't sweat it. The Telegraph is a paper aimed at people who love to try and pretend the UK is still the major imperial power it was in the 19th century, obviously they're going to... how do you say it... get their panties in a twist about some stupid shit like this. The Times is kind of similar but with added Murdoch evil. And the Sun is a joke of a tabloid. I don't think anybody normal looked at this "incident" and let it affect their view of the US or the POTUS.
Been on a couple of years, first and only time I even tried the radio was a couple of weeks ago. That said, I was pleasantly surprised by its selection, so I might use it more in future. (I'm in the UK so this announcement is a non-issue... although it does make me feel a bit guilty, being as I run adblock! I guess if I get in the habit of using the radio, I'll get a subscription.
People always laugh at me because they can't get on my wireless at home easily when they visit... defeats 99% of my visitor's casual attempts to log on
*shrug* My visitors always say "cool, thanks!" when they log on my wireless dead easily. But, hey, personally my visitors are my friends and if they want to check their email in my flat I'm happy to help.
What exactly is on your wireless which requires/justifies such heavy security?
The really hilarious part of that quote is that the instant anybody is quoted as using the word "hip" to describe themselves, they are, by definition, not.
I think they killed their fanbase when they continued playing music after the early 90s
Funny, I saw them this week at a 20,000 capacity venue, sold out, and that's probably one of the smallest venues on their tour. If that's a killed fanbase I wonder what a healthy fanbase looks like. And despite admittedly horrible overlimited mix, in songwriting terms the latest album is widely considered by fans and critics as being a serious return to the form of their late 80s/ early 90s work.
Still, don't let any of that get in the way of rushing to make a snide remark.
Have you used any adobe programs lately? the UI is an abomination (especially on the Mac!). Check this website number sometime. I dropped major cash for Adobe CS3 Master Suite for OS X last year. Major mistake. The UI doesn't look or feel native, is slow, full of quirks, and hard to use.
I'm lacking mod points atm so I'm going to quote this with my fancy pants +1 karma bonus, because it deserves to be seen. That website is utterly hilarious as well as totally spot on. Even if you don't care in the least about Adobe interfaces, give it a read for the comedy value alone.
I've got CS3 here (on Win), a new colleague recently started in my team and they don't sell CS3 licenses anymore so they ended up with CS4. I can't show them how to use anything based on my knowledge of CS3, because everything has been changed around for no apparent reason. I can't show them how to use stuff based on an educated guess of how Windows apps usually work, because it looks and works nothing like that. Well, in a lot of ways, they never did behave quite like native Win apps (what with the Mac heritage), but now even less so. And nowhere near native Mac either. It just looks like - bleh. Words fail me really. It's some bizarro dark grey explosion-in-a-flash-factory disaster. It's a total clusterfuck.
if it's so simple, have you ever tried to obtain a replacement copy of the software media (that is, the actual setup files) in case you lose the CD ? heck, they will charge you for a full licence again !!
This sort of thing is definitely bullshit and really winds me up. If your original payment was for the license, that should be valid forever, and if you lose the CD, you should pay (at most) for the media and postage to replace it.
But you're almost making my point for me here. That sort of thing is bullshit, so attack that directly. Say, "I am downloading this software 'illegally' because as per the company's EULA I have already paid not for my original media but for a (lifetime) license to the IP therein, yet the company is abusing the spirit of copyright by not honouring that purchase...". Don't say "Oh, I'm just sharing some software between friends, it's no different to borrowing my mate's lawnmower".
Copyright isn't going to be reformed unless the problems with it are attacked with intellectual consistency and honesty.
MP3 is lossy. What they're distributing are lossy copies of CD's, they just don't degrade any further. Most people do distrubute MP3's of CD rips, they don't distribute ISO's of their audio. Perfect lossy copies would be more accurate.
Yes, that's what I meant; I do know MP3s are lossy as compared to the CD, I was talking about lossless within the pirate distribution. i.e. If I send you my MP3, the file you end up with is lossless as compared to the MP3 I started with. And if you then send the MP3 to someone else, that's equally lossless -- and so on for infinite generations.
Which is why
I think that randomly distributing MP3s is on par with randomly distributing tape copies
Sorry, but are you dim? How on earth you managed to read my post and interpret that I'm claiming anybody who opposes DRM is a pirate, is rather beyond me. As for astroturfer, I'm even more baffled, do you even know what that means? Which product am I supposed to be puffing up with my abstract discussion of law and language?
The post was aimed at those people who do in fact pirate, who do distribute perfect lossless copies, and yet hide behind exactly the same innaccurate, disengenuous language they decry the RIAA for using. If you don't pirate, or if you do pirate but call it what it is, then the post was relating to you.
What I'm saying is that if you have a decent argument why you should be able to do that (and I by no means claim there is no such argument), you should step forward and make that argument - not fuzzy the issue by saying you only want fair use when you actually want more than that, or whatever. Or, alternatively, just admit that, yeah, you're pirating, tough shit.
Fact is, I've p2p'd more than a few MP3s myself in my time. I'm sworn off it now, but I still pass MP3s to and from my mates via sneakernet. But the point is, I'm not kidding myself by saying I "loaned" my mate the mp3, or that it's "exactly the same" as making him a C90 twenty years ago. I gave him a copy, and it was perfect, and I did so despite copyright explicitly preventing me from doing so. I broke the law, and while I may have a bunch of mitigating factors ("he liked it so much he came to see their next gig, from which they probably made more money than the MP3 sales would have generated"), I'm not confusing that with the media companies' meaningless EULA's somehow being the problem whilst I'm a saint and no shade of grey.
In short: yes, the current legal environment for digital media is insane. But I'm suggesting an internally consistent reaction to that is preferable - even if that reaction is "so fuck the law, I'll break it", that's internally consistent. If that reaction is "the law should be changed to XYZ because of ABC", better still. But "I'm only loaning somebody this tune, that's not illegal" is just a bunch of crap that makes you sound stupid and adds credence to the major media lobby, because no you're not loaning to them, and yes it is. And intellectual dishonesty of that sort is not the way the laws will ever be sanely reformed.
Right. When people transfer MP3, it's definitely like "loaning". Because when someone else gets a copy of my MP3s, I don't have it and can't listen to it for the duration they have it. And when they've finished checking it out, they delete it, naturally, since a "loan" is distinct from a "gift" in that it's temporary. Riiiight.
I'm sorry, but this is just disingenuous bullshit and really does you no favours. (You = the collective group of people trying to reform copyright.) How come every time the RIAA/MPAA/MSM/etc use the word "steal", people fall over themselves to split semantic hairs and insist that it can't be stealing because nobody is deprived of the original - and yet when it's convenient for their cause, they happily play the same linguistic tricks and talk of "loan", again implying the loaner is deprived of the original, when they're not?
Don't get me wrong - I have some issues with excessive copyright too. That whole "it's supposed to be for the encouragement of artists to create and the advancement of culture and society as a whole, not for endless profit generation for huge multinational corps trading off the past" is entirely up my street. I think life+70 is way too long. I think the DMCA and similar laws elsewhere are a bunch of crap. I hate DRM and as such have never purchased DRM'd music. So it's not like I'm trying to be an RIAA shill here.
But all that said, I find there is a frequent lack of honesty from the "copyright reformists", too. If it's not "loan", it's "share", another word that has warm and fuzzy implications and somewhat masks the reality of it. Let's be honest, when you put your MP3s on p2p it is nothing like sharing a toy with your little bro. You don't know the people leeching it, let alone like or respect them; you won't ever sit in the same room and share the experience of listening to it; above all, you aren't sacrificing any use of the MP3 yourself in order for them to have it - all of which are implied by warm and fuzzy words like "share".
Be honest. What you're actually doing is distributing a complete, perfect lossless copy, despite the fact the entire central notion of copyright is restricting who is allowed to distribute complete, perfect lossless copies.
If you honestly believe you should be allowed to do that, have the balls to stand up and actually say so and frame your argument as such. But don't come with these woolly words and metaphors of sharing (see above), home taping (not perfect copies), fair use (about excerpts, academic criticism, parody etc, none of which relate to Kazaa'ing your mp3s). It's just dishonest and undermines your entire position.
Yeah, awesome anecdote. Now go and find the overall crime rates for the uber million dollar gated communities, vs, say, a Jo'burg ghetto.
Honestly, as cute as that Franklin quote is, it's pretty risible seeing it getting trotted out to suggest there is never any possibility of gaining non-illusory security by doing anything, ever, nor would any group of people ever consider a liberty/security tradeoff worth making, whatever the group, and for any given values of security or liberty.
Yep, I'm with you. I avoided upgrading for ages because I didn't think I'd like the "AwesomeBar". Eventually I had to get a whole new PC so I got ff3. AwesomeBar is every bit as AwfulBar as I'd feared. Absolutely craptastic.
I visited whitehouse.gov when it relaunched. A few hours later, I wanted to see it again. On ff2, Typing "wh" would probably be sufficient. Here, I got all the way through "whitehou" before it even appeared in the drop down list at all. While the drop down was full of every other fucking useless page containing the word "white" which I'd ever visited.
A few days later I wanted to find a page I remembered reading, but didn't remember the URL. Figured this was finally a chance for the Awesomebar to prove it's use. Typed in a word I remembered was definitely featured heavily, it finds nothing.
It's absolutely useless both ways. If I want to autocomplete a URL, it garbages up all hope of doing so by suggesting irrelevant pages with stuff in the title. (Typing "l" used to be enough to get "last.fm/user/me" to appear - now it comes up with every empornium page I've looked at, because of "I will DL and have a look" - are you fucking kidding me?) If I want to autocomplete based on some spurious word that has nothing to do with the URL - well, it fails at that too.
And no, there is no way to turn it off - don't point me at the addon that claims to give old behaviour, it doesn't, it gives new behaviour presented in old STYLE.
And no, I'm not going to learn advanced C++, learn Mozilla's coding style, learn Mozilla's sprawling codebase, figure out how to change it back, and every few weeks when a x.x.y security point release comes out, manually merge my alterations back into Mozilla's released code and recompile.
So don't give me that "it's open source, simply change it yourself" line either - it's not simple, in fact it's not even remotely practical.
Finally, if you're thinking "what an asshat, he gets a FREE browser and just sits and bitches". Well, it's not like I'm starting some huge global campaign demonizing the Moz devs. It's just a minor rant in a deeply nested slashdot comment. Obviously in the bigger picture I remain grateful to Moz devs, and essentially STFU and try to live with it. The only point really is to agree with parent's notion that upgrading is not always without downsides.
It is disturbing that the so-called "upper house" was, until recently, a group of people who...
This is disturbing, as a point of principle.
What is arguably more disturbing is that lately, the Lords seems to have done a much better job of staying sane, "constitutional" and in tune with the populace than the Commons has. Leaving me with the impression that abolishing the philosophically undemocratic house would be more dangerous to the spirit of British democracy than having it currently is.
I totally fail to see any correlation whatsoever with abhorring a concept like a "king" and taking photos of a staged tourist attraction.
What you either hilariously miss, or risibly omit for convenience, is that the tourist attraction is the royal residence. Essentially, the site only is a tourist attraction because of the morarchist association; and whilst, subtracting that, it may still have some lesser tourist value as a grand scale piece of historical architecture, even this was only possible because of the rampant inequality of the system giving that "heriditary dictatorship" the means and power to build it.
If you can't see that claiming to "abhor" monarchy for it's inegalitarianism and then flying 3000 miles to fawn over the material and symbolic manifestation of this system and it's inequality requires a little cognitive dissonance, well...
In Modern English, one would throw in a few "faakin caarnt" as well, or risk not being understood
'Modern' blud? What you chattin bout bruv, you iz chatting bare shit, getmi! Blap blap! "faakin caarnt", wot u sum 90s Guy Ritchie manz dem or wot? in deez endz we talk like some bare Pakistani via Jamaica via SMS type shit, seen! nahmean? Not dat cockney shit bruv, innit.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes "unneccessary" rudeness and vulgarity really adds to a post.
This was one of those times.
Well said. I couldn't grasp that inclusion at all. "brought encryption to the masses" - not any masses I've ever seen. I work within the general technology/geek field (web dev) and even including every work-related email I've got from clients, colleagues, contractors, suppliers, peers etc, I think I can count the number of PGP signatures/keys I've encountered in my entire life on the fingers of one hand. As for the type of people more usually associated with "the masses" (computer-shy relatives, friends who did Arts degrees, etc), the count is thoroughly stuck on zero.
Note to those with fingers hovering on the downmod button: I'm not saying PGP shouldn't be widely used by "the masses", in principle I agree it'd be nice if it were; nor even that it's not fit to be used by "the masses" (too difficult or whatever). I am merely observing than in practice, in my experience it's simply not.
Yeah but "conquering the market" isn't such a sure thing when your viewers are "Easy come, easy go". I never watched much on youtube in the first place, to be honest, but now I watch even fewer, because nearly every time I try I get a "not in your country" message. Often as not, in anticipation of that message, I don't even bother following the link through to see. I guess driving away visitors like me is all part of their cunning master plan to lose less money.
We can't have positive foreign relations with Britain because the POTUS didn't give a government visitor fancy enough gifts?
Don't sweat it. The Telegraph is a paper aimed at people who love to try and pretend the UK is still the major imperial power it was in the 19th century, obviously they're going to... how do you say it... get their panties in a twist about some stupid shit like this. The Times is kind of similar but with added Murdoch evil. And the Sun is a joke of a tabloid. I don't think anybody normal looked at this "incident" and let it affect their view of the US or the POTUS.
Same here (well, except not iTunes).
Been on a couple of years, first and only time I even tried the radio was a couple of weeks ago. That said, I was pleasantly surprised by its selection, so I might use it more in future. (I'm in the UK so this announcement is a non-issue... although it does make me feel a bit guilty, being as I run adblock! I guess if I get in the habit of using the radio, I'll get a subscription.
Except you can't choose your song on last.fm
yes you can
People always laugh at me because they can't get on my wireless at home easily when they visit... defeats 99% of my visitor's casual attempts to log on
*shrug* My visitors always say "cool, thanks!" when they log on my wireless dead easily. But, hey, personally my visitors are my friends and if they want to check their email in my flat I'm happy to help.
What exactly is on your wireless which requires/justifies such heavy security?
The really hilarious part of that quote is that the instant anybody is quoted as using the word "hip" to describe themselves, they are, by definition, not.
Probably the best post I've seen on slashdot this year. Bravo! :D
yea thats what the US is all about. we haven't contributed any technologies to the world, agriculture, charity
Wait, are you seriously claiming the USA invented agriculture?
And not only that but getting +5 insightful for it?
You're about 9000 years out. My mind boggles.
I think they killed their fanbase when they continued playing music after the early 90s
Funny, I saw them this week at a 20,000 capacity venue, sold out, and that's probably one of the smallest venues on their tour. If that's a killed fanbase I wonder what a healthy fanbase looks like. And despite admittedly horrible overlimited mix, in songwriting terms the latest album is widely considered by fans and critics as being a serious return to the form of their late 80s/ early 90s work.
Still, don't let any of that get in the way of rushing to make a snide remark.
Have you used any adobe programs lately? the UI is an abomination (especially on the Mac!). Check this website number sometime. I dropped major cash for Adobe CS3 Master Suite for OS X last year. Major mistake. The UI doesn't look or feel native, is slow, full of quirks, and hard to use.
I'm lacking mod points atm so I'm going to quote this with my fancy pants +1 karma bonus, because it deserves to be seen. That website is utterly hilarious as well as totally spot on. Even if you don't care in the least about Adobe interfaces, give it a read for the comedy value alone.
I've got CS3 here (on Win), a new colleague recently started in my team and they don't sell CS3 licenses anymore so they ended up with CS4. I can't show them how to use anything based on my knowledge of CS3, because everything has been changed around for no apparent reason. I can't show them how to use stuff based on an educated guess of how Windows apps usually work, because it looks and works nothing like that. Well, in a lot of ways, they never did behave quite like native Win apps (what with the Mac heritage), but now even less so. And nowhere near native Mac either. It just looks like - bleh. Words fail me really. It's some bizarro dark grey explosion-in-a-flash-factory disaster. It's a total clusterfuck.
Oh for an "edit" function on slashdot.
If you don't pirate, or if you do pirate but call it what it is, then the post was not relating to you
Fixed That For Myself
if it's so simple, have you ever tried to obtain a replacement copy of the software media (that is, the actual setup files) in case you lose the CD ?
heck, they will charge you for a full licence again !!
This sort of thing is definitely bullshit and really winds me up. If your original payment was for the license, that should be valid forever, and if you lose the CD, you should pay (at most) for the media and postage to replace it.
But you're almost making my point for me here. That sort of thing is bullshit, so attack that directly. Say, "I am downloading this software 'illegally' because as per the company's EULA I have already paid not for my original media but for a (lifetime) license to the IP therein, yet the company is abusing the spirit of copyright by not honouring that purchase...". Don't say "Oh, I'm just sharing some software between friends, it's no different to borrowing my mate's lawnmower".
Copyright isn't going to be reformed unless the problems with it are attacked with intellectual consistency and honesty.
MP3 is lossy. What they're distributing are lossy copies of CD's, they just don't degrade any further. Most people do distrubute MP3's of CD rips, they don't distribute ISO's of their audio. Perfect lossy copies would be more accurate.
Yes, that's what I meant; I do know MP3s are lossy as compared to the CD, I was talking about lossless within the pirate distribution. i.e. If I send you my MP3, the file you end up with is lossless as compared to the MP3 I started with. And if you then send the MP3 to someone else, that's equally lossless -- and so on for infinite generations.
Which is why
I think that randomly distributing MP3s is on par with randomly distributing tape copies
I can't entirely agree with this, personally.
Sorry, but are you dim? How on earth you managed to read my post and interpret that I'm claiming anybody who opposes DRM is a pirate, is rather beyond me. As for astroturfer, I'm even more baffled, do you even know what that means? Which product am I supposed to be puffing up with my abstract discussion of law and language?
The post was aimed at those people who do in fact pirate, who do distribute perfect lossless copies, and yet hide behind exactly the same innaccurate, disengenuous language they decry the RIAA for using. If you don't pirate, or if you do pirate but call it what it is, then the post was relating to you.
What I'm saying is that if you have a decent argument why you should be able to do that (and I by no means claim there is no such argument), you should step forward and make that argument - not fuzzy the issue by saying you only want fair use when you actually want more than that, or whatever. Or, alternatively, just admit that, yeah, you're pirating, tough shit.
Fact is, I've p2p'd more than a few MP3s myself in my time. I'm sworn off it now, but I still pass MP3s to and from my mates via sneakernet. But the point is, I'm not kidding myself by saying I "loaned" my mate the mp3, or that it's "exactly the same" as making him a C90 twenty years ago. I gave him a copy, and it was perfect, and I did so despite copyright explicitly preventing me from doing so. I broke the law, and while I may have a bunch of mitigating factors ("he liked it so much he came to see their next gig, from which they probably made more money than the MP3 sales would have generated"), I'm not confusing that with the media companies' meaningless EULA's somehow being the problem whilst I'm a saint and no shade of grey.
In short: yes, the current legal environment for digital media is insane. But I'm suggesting an internally consistent reaction to that is preferable - even if that reaction is "so fuck the law, I'll break it", that's internally consistent. If that reaction is "the law should be changed to XYZ because of ABC", better still. But "I'm only loaning somebody this tune, that's not illegal" is just a bunch of crap that makes you sound stupid and adds credence to the major media lobby, because no you're not loaning to them, and yes it is. And intellectual dishonesty of that sort is not the way the laws will ever be sanely reformed.
Right. When people transfer MP3, it's definitely like "loaning". Because when someone else gets a copy of my MP3s, I don't have it and can't listen to it for the duration they have it. And when they've finished checking it out, they delete it, naturally, since a "loan" is distinct from a "gift" in that it's temporary. Riiiight.
I'm sorry, but this is just disingenuous bullshit and really does you no favours. (You = the collective group of people trying to reform copyright.) How come every time the RIAA/MPAA/MSM/etc use the word "steal", people fall over themselves to split semantic hairs and insist that it can't be stealing because nobody is deprived of the original - and yet when it's convenient for their cause, they happily play the same linguistic tricks and talk of "loan", again implying the loaner is deprived of the original, when they're not?
Don't get me wrong - I have some issues with excessive copyright too. That whole "it's supposed to be for the encouragement of artists to create and the advancement of culture and society as a whole, not for endless profit generation for huge multinational corps trading off the past" is entirely up my street. I think life+70 is way too long. I think the DMCA and similar laws elsewhere are a bunch of crap. I hate DRM and as such have never purchased DRM'd music. So it's not like I'm trying to be an RIAA shill here.
But all that said, I find there is a frequent lack of honesty from the "copyright reformists", too. If it's not "loan", it's "share", another word that has warm and fuzzy implications and somewhat masks the reality of it. Let's be honest, when you put your MP3s on p2p it is nothing like sharing a toy with your little bro. You don't know the people leeching it, let alone like or respect them; you won't ever sit in the same room and share the experience of listening to it; above all, you aren't sacrificing any use of the MP3 yourself in order for them to have it - all of which are implied by warm and fuzzy words like "share".
Be honest. What you're actually doing is distributing a complete, perfect lossless copy, despite the fact the entire central notion of copyright is restricting who is allowed to distribute complete, perfect lossless copies.
If you honestly believe you should be allowed to do that, have the balls to stand up and actually say so and frame your argument as such. But don't come with these woolly words and metaphors of sharing (see above), home taping (not perfect copies), fair use (about excerpts, academic criticism, parody etc, none of which relate to Kazaa'ing your mp3s). It's just dishonest and undermines your entire position.
Yeah, awesome anecdote. Now go and find the overall crime rates for the uber million dollar gated communities, vs, say, a Jo'burg ghetto.
Honestly, as cute as that Franklin quote is, it's pretty risible seeing it getting trotted out to suggest there is never any possibility of gaining non-illusory security by doing anything, ever, nor would any group of people ever consider a liberty/security tradeoff worth making, whatever the group, and for any given values of security or liberty.
Yep, I'm with you. I avoided upgrading for ages because I didn't think I'd like the "AwesomeBar". Eventually I had to get a whole new PC so I got ff3. AwesomeBar is every bit as AwfulBar as I'd feared. Absolutely craptastic.
I visited whitehouse.gov when it relaunched. A few hours later, I wanted to see it again. On ff2, Typing "wh" would probably be sufficient. Here, I got all the way through "whitehou" before it even appeared in the drop down list at all. While the drop down was full of every other fucking useless page containing the word "white" which I'd ever visited.
A few days later I wanted to find a page I remembered reading, but didn't remember the URL. Figured this was finally a chance for the Awesomebar to prove it's use. Typed in a word I remembered was definitely featured heavily, it finds nothing.
It's absolutely useless both ways. If I want to autocomplete a URL, it garbages up all hope of doing so by suggesting irrelevant pages with stuff in the title. (Typing "l" used to be enough to get "last.fm/user/me" to appear - now it comes up with every empornium page I've looked at, because of "I will DL and have a look" - are you fucking kidding me?) If I want to autocomplete based on some spurious word that has nothing to do with the URL - well, it fails at that too.
And no, there is no way to turn it off - don't point me at the addon that claims to give old behaviour, it doesn't, it gives new behaviour presented in old STYLE.
And no, I'm not going to learn advanced C++, learn Mozilla's coding style, learn Mozilla's sprawling codebase, figure out how to change it back, and every few weeks when a x.x.y security point release comes out, manually merge my alterations back into Mozilla's released code and recompile.
So don't give me that "it's open source, simply change it yourself" line either - it's not simple, in fact it's not even remotely practical.
Finally, if you're thinking "what an asshat, he gets a FREE browser and just sits and bitches". Well, it's not like I'm starting some huge global campaign demonizing the Moz devs. It's just a minor rant in a deeply nested slashdot comment. Obviously in the bigger picture I remain grateful to Moz devs, and essentially STFU and try to live with it. The only point really is to agree with parent's notion that upgrading is not always without downsides.
Extraordinary, given the pig's ear the present lot have made of it, but people still don't trust the Tories.
That, and Cameron being equal parts smug and vapid. (Well, imho at least).
It is disturbing that the so-called "upper house" was, until recently, a group of people who...
This is disturbing, as a point of principle.
What is arguably more disturbing is that lately, the Lords seems to have done a much better job of staying sane, "constitutional" and in tune with the populace than the Commons has. Leaving me with the impression that abolishing the philosophically undemocratic house would be more dangerous to the spirit of British democracy than having it currently is.
I totally fail to see any correlation whatsoever with abhorring a concept like a "king" and taking photos of a staged tourist attraction.
What you either hilariously miss, or risibly omit for convenience, is that the tourist attraction is the royal residence. Essentially, the site only is a tourist attraction because of the morarchist association; and whilst, subtracting that, it may still have some lesser tourist value as a grand scale piece of historical architecture, even this was only possible because of the rampant inequality of the system giving that "heriditary dictatorship" the means and power to build it.
If you can't see that claiming to "abhor" monarchy for it's inegalitarianism and then flying 3000 miles to fawn over the material and symbolic manifestation of this system and it's inequality requires a little cognitive dissonance, well...
sounds like a concise-ified version of this, which is about "web designers" supposedly, but I think applies to any sort of developer pretty much as well.
In Modern English, one would throw in a few "faakin caarnt" as well, or risk not being understood
'Modern' blud? What you chattin bout bruv, you iz chatting bare shit, getmi! Blap blap! "faakin caarnt", wot u sum 90s Guy Ritchie manz dem or wot? in deez endz we talk like some bare Pakistani via Jamaica via SMS type shit, seen! nahmean? Not dat cockney shit bruv, innit.
That's not actually true, it did have weasel words ("Network performance will vary by location"), the ASA still ruled against it. (Bravo imho)