<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Unite - welcome to the 21st century virtual interweb</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/28/unite-welcome-to-the-21st-century-virtual-interweb/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/28/unite-welcome-to-the-21st-century-virtual-interweb/</link>
	<description>wake up and smell the copy</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: handolio</title>
		<link>http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/28/unite-welcome-to-the-21st-century-virtual-interweb/#comment-223</link>
		<dc:creator>handolio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/28/unite-welcome-to-the-21st-century-virtual-interweb/#comment-223</guid>
		<description>Dear God, it's The Times again. A couple of recent stories have made me realise how far it's fallen off the internet:

"The union is effectively hijacking searches for M&#038;S on Google" - in much the same way as Churchill are currently hijacking &lt;a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&#038;q=car+insurance&#038;meta=" rel="nofollow"&gt;searches for car insurance&lt;/a&gt; or the WWF is &lt;a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&#038;q=greenpeace&#038;meta=" rel="nofollow"&gt;waging cyber war on Greenpeace&lt;/a&gt;, I suppose.

It's loose, web 0.5 reporting, and they need to get their head out of their arse if they want to stand a chance of catching the Telegraph or Guardian.

And another thing. If a journalist ever feels compelled to take the phrase 'cyber war' for a day out from the banned words list, the least they can do is apply it to a denial of service attack, or use it for something else that actually constitutes subterfuge or skulduggery before they get shot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear God, it&#8217;s The Times again. A couple of recent stories have made me realise how far it&#8217;s fallen off the internet:</p>
<p>&#8220;The union is effectively hijacking searches for M&#038;S on Google&#8221; - in much the same way as Churchill are currently hijacking <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&#038;q=car+insurance&#038;meta=" rel="nofollow">searches for car insurance</a> or the WWF is <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&#038;q=greenpeace&#038;meta=" rel="nofollow">waging cyber war on Greenpeace</a>, I suppose.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s loose, web 0.5 reporting, and they need to get their head out of their arse if they want to stand a chance of catching the Telegraph or Guardian.</p>
<p>And another thing. If a journalist ever feels compelled to take the phrase &#8216;cyber war&#8217; for a day out from the banned words list, the least they can do is apply it to a denial of service attack, or use it for something else that actually constitutes subterfuge or skulduggery before they get shot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
