936 posts • joined 23 Oct 2007
Re: John Smith IQ of 0.19 Mattie explains his PoV.
... fail to realise a network engineer (or hacker) can sniff (it's a technical term, it actually means copy off the bits from the data stream for analysis, not the actual physical action of sniffing that your lack of education would lead you to,believe it to be - wouldn't want you to be any more confused than you already are)
Sorry, but that made me chuckle.....
Of course, the rest of the argument is bollocks as having the ability to do something doesn't mean it's OK to actually do it, for any reason. Whilst packet capturing can be useful for diagnostics, that utility doesn't mean it's OK to sit and take captures from a core router just to see what nude selfies happen to fly by. It's possible, but also not OK to set up a port mirror, and run captures on the offchance they might capture an email that would prove your spouse was cheating.
Presumably it's OK for me to assault anyone who comes to my front-door because they might be thinking about robbing the house?
does the service provider (and any advertising bodies they pass your history to)
I suspect both bodies would argue that that happens with your consent (though some would disagree).
What customer wants to see only some games or sports during the year when they used to be able to watch it all. You now need to subscribe to at least 2, possibly 3 different providers to watch it all.
Sounds similar to the moan some of us were having when the paid networks started outbidding the BBC/ITV/C4 for sports (Cricket comes to mind).
Call me bitter if you want, but frankly Sky deserve a kicking for that one and I'm glad to see it happen - though I agree it's pretty poor for the consumer.
>If the youth had used his big chopper to spy on his cheating boyfriend in Nancy, then maybe it would be funny and clever.
>I have (had) the wonderful acquaintance with a friend of the family who when I pointed out that he was
> a down and out racist idiot (among his many other sterling qualities) rebutted with (after the shock of
> someone pointing this out to him) that I was being politically correct.
The fact that it's sometimes correct, doesn't render it impossible to be too politically correct.
Yes, we should be mindful of others, and shouldn't spread hate, but no one has a right not to be offended. Certainly no one has a right not to be offended on behalf of someone else.
As long as there's a distinction between an off-the-cuff remark and actually buying into real discrimination, there's no real harm - assuming we're not making those jokes to people who don't understand the distinction (yes, that was a 'think of the children').
I occasionally get called cripple, hop-along and various other things. It's all meant in good humour and it doesn't cause me any offence, other people it might. Frankly I'd rather have a rapport with someone than have them too busy worrying about saying the wrong thing.
Re: The other issue
IIRC CCTV is one of the exceptions to that right. Unless something has changed, you have no right to request access to the video that includes you.
The justification was a combination of two things, as I recall. One being the difficulty in locating the video, but the real killer was that the video would likely contain others and their 'personally identifiable information' (i.e. their image) would be being leaked to you.
Re: Serious question: why buy a new router?
> Would it do any good to be able to define alternate DNS servers; doesn't BT route all DNS requests to their own Mumsnet approved servers anyway?
You might be running your own DNS server on the LAN, no reason it couldn't use a VPN tunnel to go out and grab it's DNS from elsewhere (exactly what I do).
If the Content Filters are enabled, then you get a lovely blue screen whenever you try and access any page - if you're using Off-Network (i.e. non BT) DNS servers (see this screenshot. Though in true BT style even that's only half implemented - if you use TCP instead of UDP for your DNS queries it all gets through fine (or did when I was testing).
If the filters are 'Deleted' - i.e. NOT just Off - then they don't tinker with your DNS (as far as I can tell) though I trust BT about as far as I can throw them, so I've tunnelled mine anyway.
Re: Serious question: why buy a new router?
Ok so your parents aren't likely to need to do this, but you did ask what it was missing
- Static routes (useful if you're running a VPN server)
- Custom DNS address via DHCP (as mentioned above)
It's also a bit stingy, in that it has NTP but won't seem to share the love with the LAN.
It lacks Wake on Lan and various other (small but useful) bits. For quite a while (couldn't tell you if it's been fixed without checking).
Yes, QoS could be handy too.
Are these features worth an extra £100? Probably not, though as they're all quite small and the HH has an 'Advanced' section, you could also ask whether they could just have included them instead.
I agree on putting down extra cash though, so mines becom(ing) nothing more than an Internet Gateway, with a Pi taking over most of its duties.
The biggest issue I found with the HH though was that the Wifi was useless. At semi-regular intervals it just seemed to decide to discard all packets until you re-associated (tested on multiple devices). BTs response was that it must be something in my house causing interference, though strangely enough the AP on the Pi hasn't been exhibiting the same behaviour.
When mine turned on, I had to select a level from 'light, medium, strict' and then wait two hours to use the 'Off' option (can't make changes until it's updated itself). I then had to click 'Delete filter' to stop receiving a blue page tell me I was using an off-network DNS server.
So, unless I missed something (and I looked pretty closely), 100% of BT subscribers will activate the filter. What probably won't get reported is the percentage who then hit OFF as soon as they get a chance
So yeah, I had to opt in to opt out of opting in.
I also don't entirely trust BT not to fuck something up at somepoint, so most of my traffic (including DNS) is now routed over OpenVPN to a VPS that I wasn't making full use of before.
Re: Rats in a sack
Censoring everybody in case a few small-minded twats might pretend to be offended is an act of gormlessness on a colossal scale.
I'm offended by that, where's my 'Dear Mr MP' template........
The internet does not need any censorship.
I'm starting to think it needs some, we could do with some real world censorship/enforcement as well. Though the 'offensive' acts I'm thinking of are pretending the views of a tiny 'moral' minority are supported by the majority.
ISP level filtering should be an optional add on - as in Opt-In. Should also be a paid add-on so that the rest of us don't have to foot the bill. Not a big one for 'the market will decide', but if there're really that many people wanting it then the offerings would increase/improve.
If in fact nobody really wants it, the offerings will disappear through not being cost effective, at which point that minority will make a fuss, and we'll end up back in the current mess....... bollocks. Gave that less thought than an MP gives to the workings of the www.
Re: Heart Internet
That one surprised me too, but then I did kind of think - who in their right mind wouldn't change the root pass as soon as they have access to the box anyway?
Still going by the looks of things
I don't remember it being free?
IIRC correctly it was 60p a call (just before the breakout of the 118's).
Now, most seem to be in the region of 60p a call + 60p a minute. So yeah, IMHO the consumer has definitely lost out.
Re: I'm amazed people use premium rate numbers
They don't always make it clear that you're still paying £1.50 upwards a minute in the call after they connect you. An absolutely disgusting tactic.
There used to be (still is?) a service called Scoot, aimed primarily at mobiles (back in the good old days of 192). I remember using them to get the number of a motorcycle spares shop, and being asked if I wanted to be connected "at just 1p a second".
My first thought was 'awesome, calls are 2p a minute normally', until a second or two after saying yes, my brain re-parsed the sentence to identify that it was 60p a minute. Quickly hung up and dialled the number myself.
Struck me at the time that whilst they were being honest about their pricing, it was a bit of a shady tactic to quote the charge price in seconds just to make it sound a lot lower than it was.
Re: It's a question of trust -- @ DrXym
I would guess that most stopped reading at
The Pirate Bay is a web site which thinks nothing of facilitating the download of illegal content
To be fair to TPB, how many 'upstanding' advertisers are likely to want to be associated? The ads you see may well be there because they are the only ones willing to advertise there (incidentally, for some real treats, route your connection through Germany!).
I agree about the protocol/source being reviewed, but for slightly different reasons. If you're releasing a new protocol, I don't care whether you're TPB, Apple or Sir Tim Berners-Lee, it should be open so everyone can implement it.
Re: Two factor authentication
Whilst that's true, hardly an excuse for not using existing mechanisms is it?
Re: Try to set a strong password on outlook.com...
Surely that should be
... characters like an hyphen (-).
Yeah, sorry, felt like being an arse.
Why deny it to people who do need it?
Quite right, but why force it on everyone when a few need it?
Not had the 'choice' screen come up yet. But when it does it'll be going off.
I've got a toddler, and the only time he gets on the net is when he's sat on my lap (or hits an ad in Angry birds). Filtering/censorship is a parental role, so when the time comes I'll set up my own filters rather than expecting the Government to force it on everyone, and certainly well before I ever expect the Telco's to implement filters that get it almost right.
I can see why some people might find this kind of filtering helpful, but it should have been an opt-in choice rather than a 'lets turn it on for all' choice.
We're all going to pay for a filter that most of us don't want. As connection speeds increase, the capabilities of the nannynet system are going to need to improve as well to handle increased traffic. That either means our bills go up, or we get sold lower speeds (so pay more for less). The system could have been just as well implemented as a £5 a month add-on for those who want/need it.
> FACEBOOK TO BLAST YOU WITH AUTOPLAY VIDEO ADVERTS
The tone of the title strikes me as a bit rich considering readers have been subjected to the Dynamics advert
Just saying, is all
Re: Microsoft Dynamics advert
to excessively large ads to ones that seem to slow PCs down to a crawl.
Yep, a little while back I was forced into a choice between
- block all ads on El Reg
- Stop visiting El Reg
There was no inbetween, without ads blocked the site was unusable. Hardly likely to be good for advertising revenue that.
Re: Microsoft Dynamics advert
Then you could have a nice page that says, this ad was provided by such-and-such a network, and we're sorry they've buggered up our site. Thanks for reporting it, we're just despatching the advertising complaints team with the baseball bats with nails in now...
And to raise extra funds
... Send your £10 donation for the right to join the advertising complaints team on this outing
Re: Microsoft Dynamics advert
I've made a conscious decision not to allow ABP to do it's stuff on El Reg, it's a decision I'll soon be reconsidering if the Dynamics ad doesn't disappear soon.
Wasn't that long ago that I unblocked ads on El Reg, having blocked them as a result of a Dell ad slowing my system to a crawl. If I have to block them again, they're going to stay that way.
Fittingly enough, the ad in question is squatting at the top of the page as I type.
Yup, given you need to get the user to install something first, almost seems easier to create a 'game' that asks for every permission possible and just grabs as much as possible remotely, that way you don't need to go through the hassle of physical access (though you lose some of the benefits).
In all fairness to AC
x + Java = security nightmare
Where x could be Linux, Windows, Mac, a Jam sandwich.
If Java is involved, you can expect a security nightmare.
Not that I condone trolling of course, especially when the poster doesn't have the balls to at least post under their own name
Re: Stop wasting the Police & your ISP's time
2) People can choose to send email to any postbox they so desire. You, as the server admin, can choose to reject any emails that you choose. Again, not malicious, not DDoS, not 'hack attempts' - this is just simply the consequence of running a publicly advertised service.
Assume you missed the reference to backscatter then?
The original mail isn't being sent to Dom@example.com, it's being sent as though it were _FROM_ Dom@example.com. Receiving MTA is bouncing it, and it's coming back to his server (the mailserver for example.com).
Not DDoS or a hack attempt, but I can't think of a non malicious reason (assuming you consider spam malicious) to forge your email address...
Re: Am I better off not hiding
They'll know (or be capable of noticing), but aren't likely to care.
The question is, why spend out money on that when you can just as easily set up Tor yourself? That's all it's using.
Bear in mind the latency that Tor tends to introduce too
[B]y the end of 2014 all existing customers will have been presented with an unavoidable choice
So inavoidable that I bet most of those here won't even see it. Everything else BT try to make 'inavoidable' seems to be done with DNS hackery. Means I'll likely never be given the choice to take option 3
Re: It's only irresponsible if we remove any tariffs....we should put MORE in place.
Based on your comment you're a USain. How do you think the US did so well in the early days? You jumped across the ocean and announced that only copyright issued in the US was valid. There was plenty of gamesman ship then too.
Not that any of it's right, just a bit rich for a nation to complain about another doing exactly what it did, and in some cases continues to do ( use of the name scotch or champagne comes to mind).
Re: Off the top of my head.
It'd also be something of a pain for anyone who needed to receive data from you and others. Storing a (relatively) small key isn't too big an issue, storing half a fecking library because everyone you know uses a different book is a bit of a hassle.
Feels like an appropriate thread to mention double ROT13......
Re: Welcome to a world created by....
Totally agree with you though, parental responsibility these days seems to be "get others to take responsibility, and if something happens to my kids, it's THEIR fault!".
The problem is, this reinforces that too.
I've already had this conversation with wifey, and when we get asked the question the filters will be off. Littlun will grow up with the filters I put in place, filtering content that I feel is inappropriate. Alongside those filters will be the most important thing - discussions and parenting. Quite frankly, if he reaches the point that he's technically apt enough to get around my defences then he'll have earnt all the
wonders smut that awaits.
I'm treating it as a learning experience for him. Will be heavy on the logging, but the filters will start off easy and get harder and harder (*snigger*). Teenagers are always going to want to get at this stuff, so might as well take advantage (whilst teaching him not to) and make sure he learns a few things along the way.
As for going to a mate's to see it, didn't we all?
Re: The only way to beat them
is not to buy their stuff. Don't buy...
DVDs until they are in the remainder bin
The problem with doing those two is that the bastards just then use it as an excuse to try and push this kind of shit through - oh our profits are down, evil pirates everywhere....
Even if people weren't buying because all their content was shit (getting that way), they seem to have established that lower profits must only happen as a result of copyright infringement.
It's a catch-22 really, don't buy and they'll try this stuff, do buy and you're lining their pockets (and they'll still try this stuff).
Somehow I think it's almost more productive to try and devise a way to stop the planet for long enough for me to hop off....
Re: Hang on a gosh darned minute...
Yeah, to be honest my first thought on reading the story was
"Well I'm not going to donate cash, but I'm open to donating some time/code"
Suspect there might be more than a few people that feel that way too
Re: Personally ...
It doesn't surprise me at all that you can't see it. That requires imagination and creativity, neither of which you demonstrate in your posts.
Imagination and creativity? Looking at the moon again quickly, I'd say it's more likely you'd need a tendency to hallucinate....
Re: Personally ...
Not just me then... been staring at the photo wondering what other people see. Might actually need someone to draw on the picture to show me where the features are supposed to be!
Just how the theft was perpetrated is not known, which is worrying inasmuch as bitcoin is supposed to be ever-so-secure.
And likely is, unless you happen to leave your wallet lying around where others can find it.........
> Correct me if I'm wrong but if I offer to pay for my purchases and they refuse to accept it (for whatever reason) I may leave with the items in my bag and it's their responsibility to send me an invoice.
The shop has the right to refuse to serve anyone, for any reason, they don't even have to tell you the reason (and if they do, they might open themselves up to charges of discrimination).
Tangent: Actually, it's all a little bit weird. You'll often hear people say "Well the shelf says it's £x.xx so you have to sell it at that price". In reality, from a legal sense, the price on the shelf is considered an offer to negotiate. Most shops will just adjust the price if the shelf is showing lower (because deliberately mislabelling would upset Trading Standards) but they don't actually have to.
The point is, you offering to pay for something isn't enough. The retailer has to be willing to enter into the contract to (that, after all is what a sale is - exchange of a consideration for goods/services). If they're not willing, then you walking out without paying is theft.
You'd hope most retailers would take the sensible line and apologise and/or invoice, but you're really opening yourself up if you do this too regularly, they could equally well decide that they can't be arsed with invoicing and report you for shoplifting instead.
IANAL, but did study law a little while back
More fun, however, would be for everyone to upload a torrent link to legitimate downloads - say, Linux distro of your choice - to each of these sites, then all club together to raise the funds to sue the idiot who granted this order for blocking access to legitimate content.
The argument they use is that the sites contain more infringing content than they do legitimate downloads. So what needs to happen is the uploading of loads of stuff, and then an attempt to get the order overturned.
Certainly not something risking a final trip to the US for! Which remains a very real scenario for anyone with the ability to read and comprehend what's actually written on various legal documents published by US authorities.
When he eventually comes out (realistically, he's got to) and is taken into custody, do you know the very worst thing the US could do now? Absolutely nothing.
I'm not saying they can't do anything, I'm saying the smart move would be to not make any requests for him, and let the case in Sweden go ahead (and the UK Bail jumping one). In that one (non) move, they'd let Assange rip his own credibility to shreds and he'd look like nothing more than a wild conspiracy nut.
It's got to the point that Assange has talked about this 'risk' so much, that he actually needs it to be true. When you're squatting in an embassy to avoid being nabbed by the US, it's a bit egg-on-face if they then show absolutely no interest in you once you've been taken into custody.
Re: Good advice except that it's impossible — Not Quote Impossible
The real problem is when you entrust your passwords to others who can’t or won’t look after them properly.
The worst thing is there's no way to know upfront whether they will (or are capable of).
How many sites do you register a nice strong password for only to find it instantly compromised because they've included it in the signup email? Let alone those stupid enough to still be storing plaintext.
Re: Good advice except that it's impossible
OK, you put them in a password manager program. How do you secure that?
Set a random 20 char password, buy yourself a Yubikey and configure that to send the password for you, assuming you're not using a service that works with the OTP functionality. Works on any machine as it's basically a USB keyboard as far as the OS knows.
It's still not ideal, but it beats whining about how hard it is to maintain security on the accounts that you should want to protect.
<quote>At least they didn't offer him the waterboarding option; with Easyet, you never know.</quote>
It's Easyjet, they'd have charged him extra.....
Re: You Sure?
In fact, you may be right;
Where the registered mark has a significant reputation, infringement may also arise from the use of the same or a similar mark which, although not causing confusion, damages or takes unfair advantage of the reputation of the registered mark. This can occasionally arise from the use of the same or similar mark for goods or services which are dissimilar to those covered by the registration of the registered mark.
Courtesy of the UK IPO
The first part I was correct on though (comparisons don't really come into what I was getting at, as that's not likely to cause confusion either). My slightly tired mind is a little curious about how you could misuse " or takes unfair advantage of the reputation of the registered mark" though - if I was selling cars and ran an advert with "At least it's not a Skoda" would taking advantage of the negative reputation (OK, showing my age, they're better now) constitute infringement ;)
profiting from the use of an unlicensed trademark is infringement
Only if the companies (i.e. the 'offender' and the trademark holder) operate in the same business area. As one offers hosting and the other leaks classified material, it'd be a pretty hard fight to prove trademark infringement, especially given that Banhoff weren't trading as Wikileaks, simply stating the (presumably) true fact that the server had once hosted Wikileaks.
If we can figure out why Szechuan pepper produces the same response from our nerves as mechanical vibration, we may get a step or two closer to figuring out what makes us hurt
Presumably that'd be accidentally picking up the pepper instead of a vibrator?
Re: You should only apologize for behaviour you can control
The one I always find odd is when there's been an application of glitter - you know, a naturally eye-catching substance - and then there's upset because the glitter caught your eye.
I'm all for people being treated with respect (male or female) but if you do something that's naturally eye-catching, then you can't complain when people's eyes wander.
Though there is a big difference between your eyes wandering and gawping (with optional dribble). The latter is generally less acceptable
Re: You should only apologize for behaviour you can control
You might like to think about the fact that it's not just men objectifying women, it happens the other way around too (diet coke adverts anyone?).
The sex drive is a base instinct, there's not really much anyone can do to stop the thoughts that arise, what we can control is some of the actions. Not all are voluntary though, and a gaze slipping down the body is probably one of those (sometimes).
If I wear tight trousers, there's a good chance it's going to attract attention, if that bothers me then I should wear looser trousers. Those areas of our bodies attract attention, it's not about whether we should have to do it - an adult would/should recognise that their attire might attract attention, if they're not comfortable with that then a change of attire is needed.
It's a completely different story when some idiot tries to cross the line into taking some sort of unwanted action though (whether verbal or physical).
Re: Brought an Anonymous VPN for £25 per year.........
You do realise, It'd not be particularly hard to block a VPN running on port 443. Just because you can't see what's being sent, doesn't mean you can't use what you do know to identify the connections you want to block.
For a start, just how much data do you think gets pumped over the average HTTPS connection, and how much do you think gets pumped over a VPN connection? How long do you think the average HTTPS connection is established for, and how long is a VPN connection established for.
There's nothing on the books that would let them block it (well, assuming they don't decide you pose a threat) but don't go assuming that it's impossible to work out whether a connection to port 443 is a VPN or a standard HTTPS connection, because it isn't.
Re: Wait, hear that?
Theyre not seeding vulns, they're patching them. The problem is they wont be creating patches for XP so any vuln that is common to XP and 7 (or 8) will, effectively, lead to them disclosing the details of the vuln despite XP remaining vulnerable.
Did you just read the headline? Its not a particularly complex concept....
I've come to the conclusion that many feminists appear to misunderstand what equality actually means. I wrote about it (at some length) when the lose the lads mags stuff hit the news.
I'm sure most are reasonably well intentioned, but theres little point fighting for something if your tactics undermine it.
It does seem to have led to more irrelevance, yes. Especially if you happen to be looking for something completely outside of your usual interests. I want things that are relevant to the phrase I've put in the box, not things that might be relevant because someone I follow on Google+ posted about them.
I'm still mourning the loss of the AND (+) operator in search though, I just can't seem to narrow the results down nearly as quickly since they got rid of that (it's been a while now too).
I dunno, I found this quite amusing
Apple's proposed punishment goes far beyond that of the publishers, who had begun to meet to discuss Amazon's dominance months before Apple made contact with them.
Not a single mention of the fact that it might just be because the publishers had the good sense to settle, whilst Apple, in it's arrogance, decided it could win.
In which case why would the DfT want to allow something which they view as potentially leading to more deaths?