Interesting Stuff 2009-05-19
:
Jake [Archibald]'s second comment made me aware what happened. Instead of seeking the error in my own setup I immediately thought the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ messed up (this is the typical developer bit I was talking about). The solution to the problem was easy to remember once I was aware of it.
(.)
***
based around Seetha Kumar's recent blog about behavioral ad targeting, as does . on the PC Pro piece include this one from hiccup:
...there is absolutely no reason for the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ to get involved in what is ostensibly a commercial battle between competing technologies.
***
Now, I'm quite a proud internet user. I like to think I know what I'm doing. But, that considered, I have no shame in admitting I have no idea what this means: .
***
h2g2, which celebrated its 10th birthday recently, is having a redesign. Read about and discuss the changes here.
***
It's the obsession even video gamers are almost ashamed to admit: game soundtracks are generally rather wonderful (. I hope). :
For that weekend ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Radio 1 and Xtra1, which I'm sure the UK readers of the site know, will be playing gaming music on the radio, presenting reviews and featuring gaming leaderboards between Radio 1's superstar DJs.
There is much speculation on that post as to the best game theme ever. . We're hoping to get some more info about this very soon.
***
The "feedback" topic on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ 6 Music boards has had to be suspended, provoking reaction from and .
***
³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Click's video of remote trojan horse hacking of computers
Dave Lee is co-editor, ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Internet Blog, Future Media and Technology.
Comment number 1.
At 19th May 2009, J D wrote:Re Your comment here by a poster who was obviously in the minority!
This has nothing at all to do with competing technologies as the poster would have people believe, it is about Profiling of Personal & Private data by a "Third Party" WITHOUT the permission of the Website & or the Web User in question!
This is TOTALLY unacceptable on a communications channel (unicast) which is inherently designed for TWO way communications without interference from "third parties"!
_____________
..there is absolutely no reason for the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ to get involved in what is ostensibly a commercial battle between competing technologies.
____________
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th May 2009, Sir John Luke wrote:As per DPIShredder - why have you chosen to quote a comment which is clearly in the minority on that and other blogs? Allowing Phorm to profile UK users of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s sites is clearly unacceptable. Allowing them to profile non-UK users is against the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s interests as it is potentially reducing revenue from your own Audience Research profiling (although currently the only non-UK users likely to be affected are those from Korea Telecom).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 6th Sep 2009, vince34 wrote:Mr. Chris was gentleman and prudent enough admit he was wrong. It takes a lot of courage and ego-humbling to do that. I myself encounters lots of pop-up error messages such as the one encountered by Chris, which sometimes annoys me to a high degree. However, I just close the pop-up window and move on to what I was doing. Most of the times, they just go out never to pop up back again. Vince at | blog
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 6th Sep 2009, HD wrote:Is the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s stance on Phorm that because bbc.co.uk doesn't carry advertising that it doesn't need to block Phorm/make a public statement against Phorm, but that because ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ worldwide does use advertising, that it may need to?
Shouldn't bbc.co.uk also block Phorm/make a public statement against them because, even though the bbc.co.uk sites don't advertise, isn't/can't the communications between the web users and the bbc.co.uk sites still be intercepted (using deep packet inspection techniques, at the ISP side, possibly illegally, and which has caused the European Commission to start proceedings against the UK because of such action), and can't this interception of communications between web users and the bbc.co.uk sites (as well as bbc worldwide sites) still be used to generate targeted adverts on other sites (replacing other people's paid-for advertising with Phorm's own advertisements)?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 10th Oct 2009, bluemilan wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 11th Nov 2009, Rocko22 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 6th Jan 2010, cancan wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 7th Jan 2010, JohnLur wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 15th Jan 2010, JohnLur wrote:Shouldn't bbc.co.uk also block Phorm/make a public statement against them because, even though the bbc.co.uk sites don't advertise, isn't/can't the communications between the web users and the bbc.co.uk sites still be intercepted (using deep packet inspection techniques, at the ISP side, possibly illegally, and which has caused the European Commission to start proceedings against the UK because of such action), and can't this interception of communications between web users and the bbc.co.uk sites (as well as bbc worldwide sites) still be used to generate targeted adverts on other sites (replacing other people's paid-for advertising with Phorm's own advertisements).
Regard,
John,
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 15th Jan 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:JohnLur - you may be interested in this blog post (and comments) from May of last year.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 15th Jan 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ censorship wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 15th Jan 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ censorship wrote:Clues are in short supply today it would seem....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 5th Feb 2010, Mary Gutierez wrote:through per DPIShredder - why credit you chosen to instance a comment which is clearly rule the inexperience on that and offbeat blogs? Allowing Phorm to structure UK users of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s sites is distinctly unacceptable. Allowing them to
non-UK users is castigate the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s interests since sensible is potentially reducing yield from your concede conference inquire into profiling (although currently the only non-UK users near to be assumed are those from Korea Telecom).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)