I'm confused that a politician actual understood the issues before spouting off - isn't that illegal?

Very few sites get my real details, but he missed a few other important ones .. banks and insurance companies get correct personal details. I also find it useful to give shops and delivery companies get my address but nothing much else.

Most / all of them. A network like the GSI is intended to link and provide services to a large number of separate and autonomous organisations, not all of whom are government organisations or had plans to join the network when their own internal networks were developed. Therefore the use of RFC1918 addresses is unsuitable.

The Wikipedia article talks of the GSI and I would assume that the AC above has a connection to the GCSX. Many other such national networks for varying different uses also exist. I believe that many of them are in the 51 block.

That's on their site. The one where you download the software from. The point of his question was how to store data on your own site.

Download and install owncloud, and there's no sign of googleapis.

Gah! I didn't even notice the typo.

I think I'll take this as my cue to leave the keyboard as I clearly need more tea.

I think that the 'if they get a chance' condition was actually implying that ACTA may not get passed by the EU at all, therefore the Dutch won't get a chance to block something that isn't happening.

The server cannot 'recover' the seed from the serial number.

When you buy hardware tokens, you are supplied with a copy of the seeds, associated with the token serial numbers, to import into the server. The SecurID scheme is time based. What is recovered through supplying the serial number and two token-codes (combined with the existing knowledge of the seed) is the current state of the token's internal clock.

The serial number printed on the back of the token is NOT the seed. It is not (to the best of my knowledge and trust in RSA) related to the seed in any way other than the mapping held in the database of the server.

This story is purely sensationalist. The SecurID algorithm has been known for a long time, that token codes can be generated when the seed is somehow compromised is a non-issue. That a software token seed can be recovered given full access to the host is also obvious to anyone reasonably aware of the realities of cryptography.

He was targeting and harassing people via a telecommunications system. Part of our telecommunications laws specifically deal with that situation.

I can't see how that is anywhere near being a technicality.

Yes, my comment was a little tongue in cheek but the fact remains that it's also far from the sharpness and detail that TV salesmen are using to sell HDTV.

The point of HD is high quality, right?

So, in which fantasy land do these streamed or downloaded films match the 20-30Mb/s data rate of playing a film off Blu-Ray? Or have they managed to invent some magical new codec that's ~10x as efficient as what you find on disk without losing quality?

Enjoy downloading your high resolution but blocky and fuzzy mess. I'll stick to a high quality, sharp picture thanks.

Wrong. there is one big difference.
It['s a thing that is becoming more and more fashionable to ignore and pretend doesn't exist. It's called responsibility.

Looking after my copies of my games bought from GOG is my responsibility. I have all the tools at hand to protect against any loss of data. If one copy is lost or damaged, I have a backup copy (which I can then use to make another copy just in case I have another accident). If something happens to that data, it's my fault and my problem.

If Steam (or whatever other service) goes away or is taken away, it's someone else's fault but my problem.

The pirates will find a way around that. Either by patching out the code that continually checks for the servers or runs a dummy 'Ubisoft Server' on your local system - more likely some combination of both.

The last one was here

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/ofcom_bbc.pdf

Not too sure what is actually going on with the second round yet.

This is a second consultation because OFCOM have already told the BBC where to go over this.

This consultation is about the infrastructure of by far the biggest broadcast TV network in the UK. The BBC have a massive amount of power here should they choose to use it.

Play by the rules or have very little exposure in the UK. Simple as that.

The problem isn't that the BBC is planning to 'block open source', it is that the BBC is planning to block open access. It's a subtle but important difference.

The BBC is different from almost any other company, it is a bizarre mash-up of private and public sector and as such it's primary concern is not profit but value to British citizens.

The first question that should be asked (and the one I think OFCOM asked the first time around) is 'how does this benefit the British consumer?'. It is quite clear that the encryption does not bring any benefit over not encrypting it to the average British consumer. In fact the opposite is true as there are then artificial restrictions and limits on the equipment that people can buy.