I have dozens of competitors (ISPs) to choose from. Granted that there is only one 'cable' provider (Virgin media) but there are dozens of ISPs offering ADSL or VDSL (normally referred to as 'fibre broadband' even though it is delivered over copper from the street cabinet). Each ISP has their own backbone/peering arrangements and either run their own DSLAM/MSAN in the local telephone exchange or have trunk connections to their Points-of-Presence. Thus, even though the service is provided to the end-user through the 'common' copper connection (which only affects the DSL sync rate), the service parameters, routing, IP address allocation, peering etc are all controlled by the individual ISPs.
So maybe one (or more) of the other sites blocked could go back to the court which ordered the block and request that the court amends the order to require that the original site(s) be blocked without also blocking their site.
Would it not be rather ironic if Sky were to use the CloudFare CDN for some of their content, and therefore blocked themselves?
Blocking all of the sites served by a legitimate CDN is going a little far.
1. Return first the results which exactly match the search terms.
2. Do not include results where one or more of the search terms only exists in an advert on the page.
3. Re-introduce a feature which an early search engine (I think it was AltaVista) where you could specify a search term to be 'near' another.
4. (more important in languages other than English) Allow you to specify that any tense, person or case of a search term be matched (eg if searching in French, *aller would match any of 'vais', 'vas', 'va', 'allons', 'allez', 'irai', 'allâmes' etc)
5. Allow you to restrict the results to those where he search terms are actually rendered on the page when you follow the link.
It is not just the disparity in wealth. Removal of geo-blocking is also about ensuring that content is available for download/streaming/viewing throughout the EU, and not just restricted to certain countries.
While I know that it is a generalisation, but many financial institutions seem to be using these deprecated TLS/SSL options. For example not supporting any PFS ciphersuites and some even only offering RC4 even to modern browsers. This despite their claims that 'security is one of their top priorities'. Financial institutions are amongst those most in need of good data security, so why are they still using these outdated protocols?
Will this be offered as an option for Female-to-Male transsexuals? Instead of a constructing a penis, transplant a 'real' one.
The BBC story and blog states that many R5 Live Sports commentaries are 'blanked out' because it is available worldwide and the BBC do not have the world rights. As it is radio, the sound consists mainly of the commentators talking, and these are BBC commentators so in effect the BBC is saying that they do not own the copyright in the words spoken by their employees (intended for broadcast) as part of their employment. Or to put it simply, the BBC own the copyright to the commentaries made by their commentators - so they also have the right to broadcast (whether by radio or IP) wherever they choose. So this is a fatuous argument.
And also repeal the official secrets act and make public all communication between civil servants. After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Governments need to remember that they are the servants of the people not the other way round,
But there is a difference between "Not supported" and "Actively preventing it from working". If a country is 'not supported' then it should mean that you are on your own and the official support channels will not provide help if you have problems. Not that they actively block you from accessing from that country,
It's all about the cash. Different markets have different rates because they can/can't afford a single worldwide rate..
True. But that does not stop them providing the same shows/movies etc worldwide but charging the appropriate local rate for access. I wonder how much of this "pirating" is to get cheaper access to content which is available locally, and how much to get access to content which is NOT available locally and therefore can only be obtained by 'pirating'? I suspect that the latter is more common than the former.
One slight problem with that. When it has been passed to the payment processor it is too late. In many (if not all) EU countries, the law requires that the tax inclusive price is shown to the buyer when the buyer is a consumer (ie not a business to business transaction). So the appropriate VAT rate has to be known before the buyer is shown the selection of goods/services on offer.
Just because you follow something on Twitter or Facebook does not mean you agree with or support it. Surely it makes sense to also follow the enemy/opposition/competition just to get more of an insight into what they are doing. So, it would make sense for Obama and/or his staff to follow the Tea Party.
They must be small emails if someone can send them in tweet.
There have been at least 2 well publicised cases of this in the UK, but on the railway not airlines. In the first, someone had a very cheap point-to-point fare and when they got off the train one stop to early they were charged as though they had no ticket. The second involved someone with an advance (ie allocated seat, specific train etc) ticket who got a lift to the stop after the origin shown on the ticket and again they had to pay full fare for the journey actually made.