I'd just ask him who *was* making the decisions.

As I assume it was one of the grown-ups.

Thanks but I am unclear do the apps use http or https to communicate?
Is there any way of knowing what security the apps are using to communicate with the service.
This is important to consider as I haven't seen an iPhone app have an option of securing their connection with remote services. Most people use apps for things like facebook and are entirely at the liberty of the apps' security. There is no 'use https' choice if it doesn't do so.

I so wish the BBC would use something other than Adobe Air for their iPlayer, it's horrible and doesn't get recognised by my Mobile mouse iPhone apps and the videos aren't playable in the Air Video app either. The fact that it is a big security hole (and in the UK a popular one ripe for exploit) only concerns me more.

And no, DRM protected WMV is not really a good alternative.

I had this problem yesterday after i rebuilt my PC.
I found it on Filehippo (sorry can't link from this machine) and that seems to be the place for many full installers. It actually made rebuilding much easier as I could very easily grab the most recent version of almost all the software I used.

It seems that this is most concerning for those loggining in while using public networks (such as accessing with a cafe's WiFi).

So this leads me to ask if I am safer when using the Facebook/Amazon/eBay app rather than the mobile browser. Is the security of the iPhone or android apps better than the web security for Facebook?
Or can I make my access of these sites more secure myself somehow?

Don't mention Texan courts to a Liverpool football fan right now - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9080946.stm

Even if you don't care about football, you have to recognise that trying to overturn and undermine a British High Court ruling about a case in Britain, through applying an injunction in a Texan court, is a ridiculous contempt of a foreign judiciary system.

Not the way I understand (or my organisation uses) swimlanes.

As is implied by the word swimlane, the diagram shows several horizontal 'lanes', these represent individual people or organisations. Then a flowchart is overlayed onto the swimlanes. Whenever an action is performed by a organisation, the flowchart box for that action is in their lane.
This shows for instance who is responsible for what in a process.

I believe that if, say, LOTR was to be shown as a swimlane. You could have the characters that come into contact with The Ring as lanes across the diagram. And a line moving from one lane to the next as the ring passes ownership but going from left to right as it stays in their grasp.

The diagrans in the article show, in many ways, the opposite. The lanes come together and separate over time showing who is in contact rather than who is doing what.

That's modern business, get the government to help you rather than doing the obvious thing of doing the same thing yourself.

I would imagine the figure is somewhat higher, as it won't be counting much of the corporate users (who will mainly be on Internal networks, occasionally venturing to the public network)
I guessing most private users (even average Joe) will have had/been coerced/helped/tricked into an upgrade to IE7 or higher by now (even if just because they have brought something newer).
So I'm guessing the stat isn't entirely accurate. This would also be true of the article's statistics. My opinion only of course.

I doubt it.
My large organisation (100,000+) will not use anything other than the minimum software. I imagine this is true of several similar orgs, the more locked down the software, the better, less holes and less to support (1000s of applications at the current moment) - or so the theory goes.
My employer is running IE6 and will upgrade to IE7 next year. Considering how critical the browser is to the business, they would never even think of using (and having to support) anything other than what comes out of the box, which is MS, regardless of the functionality of Firefox or anything else.

I can't say I agree with the principle but it certainly isn't in my power to influence.

I'm not at my home box at the moment, but I seem to remember that in Steam you could backup the game content for each game locally.
Although presumably that still requires the Steam activation servers.

As with many technologies in history, porn leads the way - brazzers for instance gives videos in 1080P, as well as lower quality.

And as usual, if the adult industry can do it why can't the mainstream industries?

I'd be interested to look at these boxes.
When you say "WD" are you refering to Western Digital or some other company?
I'd be grateful if you could post a link.

Did they remove the Games for Windows account bit as well?

Unlike the unfortunate GP, I did read the reviews and wanted to play the game but baulked at the fact the Rockstar social and Games for Windows was required. I was quite happy for it to be a Steam game*, just not the other stuff (RSC & GFW) I don't have or want.


* - For my part - I like Steam, yes there is DRM which I do not want but it isn't conspicuous (which is fine) and I can accept that devaluing feature because the service adds several valuable features - the ability to use different machines, no CD required, backing up of the game and the data, I can uninstall and reinstall as I wish. That's the key for me, DRM costs value to me the customer (moreso the worse the DRM gets), the companies simply need to make up that value with other features. As long as the DRM isn't apparent and compensating features have been included I will consider buying.
It got to the point that recently I was playing an older game (that just had CD check protection) and actually found that I would rather have the game on Steam because of how easy the system makes things.

RTFA or even the Summary - This story is not about the BBC but government ministries.

Still feel superior now?