Actually, there it was complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority that did the trick, not to the broadcaster (Channel 4, in the case of the poo woman).
Over the iPlayer, if it was the BBC that had argued for the current implementation plan you'd logically go to the BBC Trust - but the trouble is that the request not to tread on the commercial toes of e.g. Sky came from the BBC Trust, not the BBC itself.
It's the "Steam Car Club of Great Britain". To misquote the Bishop of Southwark, "it's what they do".
Seriously, boiler regs in the UK are very strict, even for vehicles that will get nowhere near a public road. I'm sure that the health-and -safety police will have been all over it.
Whether it's a concert hall, a back room of a pub or a muddy field, it's always better than when trapped in a circle of plastic or other device. Ted Nugent had the right idea (allegedly).
The Octavia is built on the Passat platform, not the A4. ...both wrong.
The Octavia uses the same platform as the Golf and the Audi A3 (and the TT). The Passat and Skoda Superb share a platform, and I think that they have a fair bit of commonality with the Audi A4 the A6.
You've got a cheap version of the most boring car on the road. You must have been very lucky in what you've had to drive - you've obviously never suffered the "delights" of something like an Austin Ambassador or even a Pontiac G6.
(actually why I am complaining? I actually bought one because people think they are boring - so that no-one will nick it)
The problem is that the word "unlimited" sells, because people like fixed costs.
The only option that's likely to work is for consumer rights legislation to legislate what words like "unlimited" mean. This should create a level playing field for all providers - similar EPA miles-per-gallon figures.
I used to think that Panorama != FUD, too, until yesterday.
I was so annoyed after seeing it that spent a couple of hours going through the program rebutting a large number of the points raised and pointing out the inaccuracies (in many cases not inaccuracies in the science but inaccuracies in what the Stewart report actually recommended). The result was sent via the complaints form here http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_ste p1.shtml (it's way too long and boring to add to this post too).
"Highlights" of the program include a distinct lack of actual measurements throughout - figures such as "high" were used without any context. Also the author of the ICNIRP* guidelines was introduced with the words "He's a controversial character". You couldn't make it up.
* The "international commission on non-ionizing radiation protection", whose radiation levels the Stewart report actually recommended that the UK government use (something else the programme omitted to mention).
According to Plusnet the problems were exploited before being known about publicly and the leak of email addresses is "not possible to patch". If this is true, then it's rather less of a faux pas than some of their previous problems. Having had the pleasure of dealing with Plus customer support a few times over the last few months I'd be interested to see some corroboration of what the problems actually were from elsewhere, rather than just taking their word for it, though.
The bigger question is who is else using @mail externally out there and if Plus are right, why? Have @mail said anything about the problem? I'm assuming we're talking about these people - http://atmail.com/ - but there seems to be nothing obvious on their site.
I've actually had more emails from Plusnet apologising and informing of the availability or non-availability of webmail and other services than have had spam from Plusnet (11 spam emails since last weekend). I'm feeling somewhat left out!
This assumes that whatever you use to publish to PDF doesn't export any extraneous stuff that you don't want to be in the final document. The problem is that the "level of data exported" might vary by document. For example, some people might want annotations in the PDF, some might not. If I'm working on something that's sensitive, I'll do as much work as possible externally and only paste into the final "publishing" program (whatever that is) at the last minute, and also keep in-document formatting to a minimum (do it in the template instead if possible). Because I do this, obviously I've no idea what might get exported if I didn't minimise extraneous data in the original document.
Also, it annoys me when people who really should know better say "I've converted it to a PDF document so that no-one can edit it". Sure, it's more difficult to create an ever-so-slightly different but similar looking PDF, but it's not impossible. The parent wasn't saying this, of course, but it's why the comment above seems the way to go to me.
No, just the opposite. He's perfect for true justice. Hell yes. That's twice in a month that the British judiciary have "done the right thing" at cost to their own reputation: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9e6f0dae-f4eb-11db-b748-00 0b5df10621.html (subscription article, but the free first para tells you all you need to know)
Now all that needs to happen is for the expert witnesses to actually BE experts, or at least that where there are differing expert views that they are all presented in court.
I suspect that the donated kit isn't actually going to be "latest and greatest" stuff, so having one CPU handle multiple sessions may slow things down a bit too much.
Once you've factored in the cost of your time, power consumption and (un)reliability maybe a more cost effective approach might be to consider donated kit for discrete server functions and buy one or more newer faster desktops to handle the multiple desktops? Maybe even do up the donated kit to sell on for "Internet access and email only" devices and use the cash elsewhere?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there it was complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority that did the trick, not to the broadcaster (Channel 4, in the case of the poo woman).
Over the iPlayer, if it was the BBC that had argued for the current implementation plan you'd logically go to the BBC Trust - but the trouble is that the request not to tread on the commercial toes of e.g. Sky came from the BBC Trust, not the BBC itself.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It's the "Steam Car Club of Great Britain". To misquote the Bishop of Southwark, "it's what they do".
Seriously, boiler regs in the UK are very strict, even for vehicles that will get nowhere near a public road. I'm sure that the health-and -safety police will have been all over it.
Isn't music supposed to be live?
Whether it's a concert hall, a back room of a pub or a muddy field, it's always better than when trapped in a circle of plastic or other device. Ted Nugent had the right idea (allegedly).
The original Reuters article, before it got "amended" by China Daily, is here:
? type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2007-06-21T212831Z_ 01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_India-304208-1.xml
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx
I think that you've been drinking too much vlog.
Shouldn't this be from the "how-to-get-your-press-release-printed-widely-for- no-apparent-reason" dept?
Other stories under this heading mostly include "Dixons announces that will no longer be stocked in their group stores".
How many of the people mugged for this "survey" actually thought that the herbert with the clipboard was actually going to give them a million quid?
(how on earth did they get to be posting at -1 anyway?)
w s/
There's less traffic in Digitalspy's PVR forums than there used to be, but it's still useful.
Also check links and reviews here:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/technology/dvrs/revie
and:
http://www.pvrjunction.co.uk/compare/
The Octavia uses the same platform as the Golf and the Audi A3 (and the TT). The Passat and Skoda Superb share a platform, and I think that they have a fair bit of commonality with the Audi A4 the A6. You've got a cheap version of the most boring car on the road. You must have been very lucky in what you've had to drive - you've obviously never suffered the "delights" of something like an Austin Ambassador or even a Pontiac G6.
(actually why I am complaining? I actually bought one because people think they are boring - so that no-one will nick it)
Can't we just take the "population density" argument as read every time broadband coverage comes up?
(that's if you're not trolling of course - if you are congratulations!)
The problem is that the word "unlimited" sells, because people like fixed costs.
The only option that's likely to work is for consumer rights legislation to legislate what words like "unlimited" mean. This should create a level playing field for all providers - similar EPA miles-per-gallon figures.
I've slept since then, but I seem to recall from talking to the graphics folks that the REAL reason why they had Macs was Quark DTP.
Will the remaining command line option work with a backslash instead of a slash (i.e. \OCURNregister instead of /OCURNregister)?
By the way, if you missed it, you should be able to catch it view the BBC's Panorama page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/panorama/defau
And also (via a Google Video link) for now at least from Ben Goldacre's blog:
http://www.badscience.net/
Guy Kewney there nailed it more coherently than I did in my complaint to the BBC. I guess that's why he's a journalist and I'm not.
Maybe it's time for http://www.theregister.tv/?
I used to think that Panorama != FUD, too, until yesterday.
e p1.shtml (it's way too long and boring to add to this post too).
I was so annoyed after seeing it that spent a couple of hours going through the program rebutting a large number of the points raised and pointing out the inaccuracies (in many cases not inaccuracies in the science but inaccuracies in what the Stewart report actually recommended). The result was sent via the complaints form here http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_st
"Highlights" of the program include a distinct lack of actual measurements throughout - figures such as "high" were used without any context. Also the author of the ICNIRP* guidelines was introduced with the words "He's a controversial character". You couldn't make it up.
* The "international commission on non-ionizing radiation protection", whose radiation levels the Stewart report actually recommended that the UK government use (something else the programme omitted to mention).
According to Plusnet the problems were exploited before being known about publicly and the leak of email addresses is "not possible to patch". If this is true, then it's rather less of a faux pas than some of their previous problems. Having had the pleasure of dealing with Plus customer support a few times over the last few months I'd be interested to see some corroboration of what the problems actually were from elsewhere, rather than just taking their word for it, though.
The bigger question is who is else using @mail externally out there and if Plus are right, why? Have @mail said anything about the problem? I'm assuming we're talking about these people - http://atmail.com/ - but there seems to be nothing obvious on their site.
I've actually had more emails from Plusnet apologising and informing of the availability or non-availability of webmail and other services than have had spam from Plusnet (11 spam emails since last weekend). I'm feeling somewhat left out!
This assumes that whatever you use to publish to PDF doesn't export any extraneous stuff that you don't want to be in the final document. The problem is that the "level of data exported" might vary by document. For example, some people might want annotations in the PDF, some might not. If I'm working on something that's sensitive, I'll do as much work as possible externally and only paste into the final "publishing" program (whatever that is) at the last minute, and also keep in-document formatting to a minimum (do it in the template instead if possible). Because I do this, obviously I've no idea what might get exported if I didn't minimise extraneous data in the original document.
Also, it annoys me when people who really should know better say "I've converted it to a PDF document so that no-one can edit it". Sure, it's more difficult to create an ever-so-slightly different but similar looking PDF, but it's not impossible. The parent wasn't saying this, of course, but it's why the comment above seems the way to go to me.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9e6f0dae-f4eb-11db-b748-0
(subscription article, but the free first para tells you all you need to know)
Now all that needs to happen is for the expert witnesses to actually BE experts, or at least that where there are differing expert views that they are all presented in court.
I suspect that the donated kit isn't actually going to be "latest and greatest" stuff, so having one CPU handle multiple sessions may slow things down a bit too much.
Once you've factored in the cost of your time, power consumption and (un)reliability maybe a more cost effective approach might be to consider donated kit for discrete server functions and buy one or more newer faster desktops to handle the multiple desktops? Maybe even do up the donated kit to sell on for "Internet access and email only" devices and use the cash elsewhere?
But SOAP's so last year - and CORBA's last century! What about an AJAX front end (from a mobile phone, of course) with an link to Google Maps?
t m
Also, why can't we send ballot papers to the polling stations via the Internet?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6578499.s
Because the journo concerned had some space to fill, probably?
It's an "honour system virus" - in the same way that sending a user a program that deletes all their files and telling them to run it is.
You mean that it didn't move after all?