Comment: Big Blue Screen of Death (Score 0) 148
Probably.
Comment: Typical comment (Score 4, Funny) 137
That's all we need here. Gamma nazis
Comment: All time low? (Score 4, Insightful) 369
You mean lower than they were in, say, 1776?
Comment: Obiligatory Car analogy (Score 1) 789
"My used car is better than your new motorbike!"
Yes, your bike may look impressive and be good for pulling the ladies, but can it pull a caravan? No! Can you put fourteen crates of beer in the back? No!
Comment: Some reasons (Score 5, Interesting) 665
Ok... In reverse order of significance:
1. Expense (at least traditionally) of SSL Certificates. Although today that's not such a big issue, and an SSL certificate costs about the same as your domain registration. However, if you have multiple subdomains you still need a more expensive certificate.
2. Complication. It can be a highly confusing process for someone who's not an expert to do the certificate request process and the associated installation of the certificate. I know the first time I tried to do it, it went horribly wrong and I spent a day trying to sort it out.
3. Client Performance: SSL websites are slower than non-SSL websites. Not such a big deal again these days, but I remember when I had to wait it would seem forever for the images on my online banking site to load, cursing them every time for such a graphically-intensive SSL site.
4. IP addresses: This is a big one, if you host multiple websites on your server, and you only have a single IP address, you can't host more than one SSL certificate. So you need more IP addresses (which is not easy nowdays). Big deal for small company hosted websites, which are often on shared IPs.
5. Server Performance: A server that can cope with one million users per day using HTTP will not be able to cope with anywhere near that number of connections over HTTPS for obvious reasons. So you not only need a certificate, you potentially need a whole new server architecture to deal with it. Scale this up for a big business like Twitter or Facebook and you're talking implementation costs in high millions of dollars.
Comment: Re:What's after 360? (Score 4, Funny) 134
Well, seeing as it's going to be a major INCREMENT of the X-Box family, I'd suggest the name Xcrement
Comment: Lame HTML = Bogus Journal (Score 1) 103
Truism of the internet. The more crackpot your ideas are, the larger you have to set your HTML border widths on your table elements.
O2 block Google Translate from under 18s 1
Submitted
by
jolyonr
jolyonr writes "Are you one of the many people who are dismayed to see how easy it is for teenagers and children to get access to online translation services?
Well, fear not, because UK mobile internet operator O2 have now stepped in and made sure that Google Translate can no longer be accessed by anyone under 18.
"The site you tried to visit is restricted to over 18s", claims the statement when you visit the site.
To remove the block, you need them to charge £1 to your credit card. They offer £2.50 in mobile credit in return, but what about those who are under 18 and actually need something translated?
Almost certainly O2 are blocking this because their systems are not clever enough to block porn sites that are fed through Google Translate. But then what next? Blocking Google search because of the Cached pages?"
Well, fear not, because UK mobile internet operator O2 have now stepped in and made sure that Google Translate can no longer be accessed by anyone under 18.
"The site you tried to visit is restricted to over 18s", claims the statement when you visit the site.
To remove the block, you need them to charge £1 to your credit card. They offer £2.50 in mobile credit in return, but what about those who are under 18 and actually need something translated?
Almost certainly O2 are blocking this because their systems are not clever enough to block porn sites that are fed through Google Translate. But then what next? Blocking Google search because of the Cached pages?"
Comment: Re:Acceptance (Score 5, Funny) 202
Who can accept an award on behalf of the Internet?
Al Gore, of course!
Comment: Re:SATA early adoptors (Score 1) 212
or ST-506 interface drives if you are just about to tell me that MFM is an encoding method rather than an interface. But they were called that back then. I remember!