3025 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
Wrong, I get it. I just don't see why *my* social network should be the business of some company.
I think it's you who does not get the point. The "share with your buddies" is just a ruse to get more information on you to sell for advertising. That's it.
Also, because of my views, if my G+ account got connected to my meat-self I could well be fired. So the social network now becomes a forum for employers to impose a certain world-view on their employees.
So again, my real name? Never.
No feckin' way, tossers. I am not directly linking my cyber-self to my meat-self.
If G+ enforce this, then I won't be using G+, just like I don't use FB.
Anonymity and privacy are precious, I won't be giving mine away if I can possibly avoid it.
Not even close.
If you are going to be a grammar Nazi, it is helpful to at least be correct. The contraction of "because" sounds exactly like "cause" ("be-caws" and "caws"; your accent may vary).
Quite why you feel the need to attack someone for a simple typographical error beats me. None of us are perfect and fingers slip on the keys. Also, did you consider that the OP may have dyslexia and such an error may be a result of that condition? I guess you didn't.
Or has someone made you The Last True Guardian of English and not let the rest of us know?
One final point, do keep your xenophobia to yourself.
Bloody obvious (from keystrokes to mouse events; it's all been done before), and IIRC the old Palm could do that too.
How hard can it be to do little more that replay an IR signal?
Heck, my old PalmPilot could record IR signals and play them back. Great for annoying people. :-)
...an opportunity. The "iChute" case. A bit bulky, but if the phone detect free-fall it deploys the chute and comes down safely, also sending SMS updates to a designated phone of its current position.
As has been reported on the Beeb etc, she cannot not give evidence to MPs as that may prejudice an active police investigation.
...now the Brooks has been arrested, she can't give evidence to MPs. Are the two connected?
...I've asked this before, but is this a story about China or the USA? Y'know, shutting down sites (even foreign ones) on a whim and without legal recourse?
It must be China! They're not demanding the extradition of foreign nationals for running a web site.
And that is something else to be concerned about. It may not be long before physical geography is irrelevant and it's the chain of ownership that determines governance.
...you'd need an education system that works. Unfortunately we are now ramping up to exclude people on cost grounds and allow private companies to provide education. For all the ills of the previous system, at least the main focus was in getting the little buggers to learn and not profits.
Those companies will be "tax efficient" so not only will be be churning out sub-par graduates, but we'll be losing tax revenue to boot.
PS I wish my data were a stollen, I could keep it safely secure in my belly and a data-dump would take on a whole new meaning. :)
Government IT functions? Are they nuckin' futs? At best this will be profits for cronies, done on PFI (thus more expensive, but off-book and a future cost).
We'll see headlines like "We saved £40 million in off-shoring this-and-that!" Which, of course, is total bullshit when one considers the actual total cost.
but we have form for this, we outsourced our Customs buildings to a company that runs from a tax haven. Only in Britain. MPs here are more concerned about their next expenses claim or corporate event than they are about doing their job.
I agree. Most of the problems are caused by the restricted/tainted supply.
The drugs should just be graded on risk/cost and if found to be lower then or equal to booze/baccy, legalised. Some forms should, however, still remain illegal/controlled. Just like when one needs some meths, one can't just pop into the local corner shop and buy it.
Hell, if the Afghanis could sell their opium openly, they might be able to yank themselves out of the state they are in.
And that's what needs changed. Legalising it means legalising the supply chain as well. You won't get rid of every single problem (heck, we still have child-labour sweatshops) but I put it to you that the situation will be "less bad".
It's not as if prohibition is working, is it?
Give it up
Legalise it, grade/certify it, tax it.
Base any restrictions/advice on medical evidence (e.g. booze, baccy) and not on reactionary propaganda.
Benefits? Vast amounts of tax revenue, reductions in crime, reductions in police workload, reductions medical admissions due to tainted drugs etc.
Will the number of users go up? Almost certainly.
Will the price go down? Almost certainly.
Will problems go up? Maybe, but still won't be as bad as alcohol IMHO.
Legalise everything? Don't be daft. Cannabis I don't see any issue with (I can't smoke, so this isn't a personal desire) but something like crack is just too damaging to ever be legal I think.
I am sure it's not pleasant at all...
...but I am equally sure that being cyber-stalked does not compare to being raped or caught in a war zone. As I have not been in any of the three situations, however, I guess I am not qualified to comment.
A bit like these researchers probably.
I think you'll find that the upgrade costs £20, the full version costs circa £800 (comes with a free computer tho').
...the phone/tablet need the juice? That would kill the battery. Have a grunt GPU set-up do the rendering and an efficient way to squirt the rendered images down (plus responses up). A bit like modern networks FPS games, but with a server doing the rendering too.
Otherwise you'll need a forklift to follow you around to hold the batteries!
In all honesty...
...I take the pragmatic view. F/OSS scratches that itch? Use it. Proprietary is the answer? Use it.
Just one caveat; you will interoperate and you will not block/change your APIs to ensure lock-in. Data will be stored/moved in a format that is fully and publicly documented and can be implemented without worrying about patents or license fees.
So in 15 years time when I need open an old file, even if the code does not exist I can yank the spec and pay someone to build me a module to read it; that's why.
Summary: F/OSS code? As needed. Open Standards? Without question.
And Test Man...so you are in charge of the NHS then and know for a fact that MS is better? Wow.
As good as LibreOffice is (I use it an like it) the front-end is just the beginning. All the macros, plugins, full text indexers and whatever else will need updated to cope with the new software/formats. That cost will far outweigh any savings on the license fees. MS could just drop their license fee to zero too and load-up on the services. As that's probably a different budget (and a rolling future cost) this would still allow the government to crow about how much they are saving when, in fact, there is no overall change.
Aslo, MS -deals can probably get done on a PFI so are off-book anyway. I wish it were otherwise.
...so much for using more Open Source to reduce costs. As MS does not support standards*, it will be impossible (or very expensive) to get other systems to integrate that are not from MS (or from MS gold-partners).
This is a real shame as there was some interesting grassroots FOSS stuff going on in the NHS (e.g. OpenMolar).
Your tax being spunked on over-priced, sub-par shit. Sounds like a typical government spend to me. Still, so long as a few MPs and civil servants get invited to nice dinners it's all OK.
*Do NOT start me on the who docx/ISO BS.
I have regularly found acceptable flights for far cheaper than the corporate services can, not allowed to book them as it is against policy. Idiots.
You'll find the Linux kernel in many, many OSs. Certainly way more than Darwin or NT.
What was your point?
He'll get a few years...
...and released early. Then probably re-appear in a new role after a short time.
Assuming a case can even be built (I don't mean legally, I mean politically). We have a very poor record of pursuing the well-connected.
...that hacking and other tactics* were par for the course on Fleet Street. The NotW was just unlucky to be caught.
*Which include tax evasion.
BUt you ISP does not one this
Most live in fear of being a dumb-pipe, they need to up-sell the add-on services as that is where the margins are. If you have a decent line (e.g. 20mb+) then you have no need of TV or phone subscriptions - do it all over IP.
And that is exactly what the gutter ISPs fear.
So five years ago. Just finish the Linux client, kthxgby!
Aye, the V+ drives me nuts at times as well. Why it won't play nice on my network (i.e. stream content I have shared out) is a mystery. Shame it can't be hacked (unlike my xBox which is simply awesome with XBMC).
It will run on a TiVo?
Does that mean it's subscriber only, or are they actually going to finish the Linux version?
(For those that don't know, TiVo runs on a Linux OS.)
...MythTV could already do this? Or does it only work in the USA?
Must say that ads are one reason that I rearely watch live TV any more. Record and then 32x FF when the dross shows up.
All channels do this
Whether it's because the tone of the ads is different or something, but they always sound louder.
"...let her go now, she has passed on to the other side. Her spirit shall drift in eternal bliss with the cosmos. She is finally at peace.
MOVIES BROUGHT TO YOU BY WONDER BANG! WONDER BANG! FOR ALL YOUR NEEDS! BUY WONDER BANG! NOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
If you pre-record and only watch time-shifted you can simply skip the ads. Or use something like MythTV.
In that case I recommend you change your parameters.
And therein lies the problem...
...the stats are not public. And where they are public (bloody hard to find) they are not often comparable.
I like the measure "per billion passenger kilometres" for events like this, but we don't pay by distance, we pay by time. Men drive more, so may still pose a higher risk (even if the X per billion passenger km is lower). Dunno, the stats are not public (well, they're bloody hard to find if they are).
We could get into a discussion over what constitutes "safer" and to whom (occupants, other road users or society).
One thing I will guarantee you though, the ins.cos have not been charging women less out of the goodness of their hearts!
But put the "base" insurance onto fuel, not road fund. Drive more? Drive faster? Pay more. Let your own actions determine your own premium (if you follow me).
Want more than just third-party/liability? Go buy a top-up from someone.
No uninsured drivers (how we deal with drivers who fuelled abroad is a good question).
And this is why...
...we have no claims discounts and discounts extra security, extra training (e.g. RoSPA) etc.
I think (I may be wrong) that the stats say women have more accidents, but men have BIG ones; so end up costing more.
Either way, if the impartial facts show women are less risk, then I see no problem with them paying less (I am male, BTW). I pay less than a 21 year old as the stats say I am safer/more experienced. I don't see why gender is any different.
Stop giving the good deals only to new customers and we'll stop leaving.
I can see it now
Chav 1: That Chav 2 is a pure minger
Chav 2: Yeah, mingin'
[And over on Facebook profiles]
*Auto* Chav 1 unfriends Chav 3
*Auto* Chav 2 unfriends Chav 3
Thank you for using Facebook voice recognition! (On be default)
...educating Czechs in securing their WiFi?
Google do deserve slapped for that one. How much to they pay their lawyers and that can't get a simple thing like registering as a Data Controller right? Sheesh.
How do these hacks work?
Surely after n-failed logins, the account gets locked and needs re-activating? (where n < 5)
...is this story about the USA or China? It's hard to tell sometimes.
I didn't bring them up, the OP introduced MS.
And I will repeat once again, in the futile hope that you finally get it: the information was blasted into the air. These folks may as well have gone into the street and yelled their orders to Amazon at the top of their voices.
Do I trust Google? No.
Do I think Google is a pure as the driven snow? No. I think they way they caved into China was repugnant.
Will I let MS off the hook for their past misdeeds? No.
And will you stop with the straw men? I have never said I liked (or even adored) Google. In fact I have repeatedly stated that I do not trust them. Stop reading what you think my opinion is and start reading what it actually is.
There was no theft - you CANNOT steal what is FREELY GIVEN AWAY.
"And you think that hashes of hardware strings are more "personal" than emails, passwords, and whatever communications and data packets Google intercepts?"
Where did I ever say that? Where? Kindly keep your straw men to yourself.
" "That's theft. However a stranger walking through said door is would hardly a surprise would it?"
An irrelevant point."
Nup, that's exactly the point - as far as you analogy goes anyway.
" "The stranger having to kick the door down is a different matter."
Another irrelevancy. You are on a hot streak!"
It is also relevant. Theft is theft, we can agree on that I hope. Kicking down the door is akin hacking the WiFi crypto. Walking through the open door is simply listening to what gets blasted into the air. No more. Although I repeat, IRL analogies rarely work.
"there are judges in various jurisdiction and government and law enforcement officials in various countries who think that Google's data theft *is* a serious matter."
I never said it wasn't, but I don't think it's theft and I would not class it as intercept because*the data was not encrypted and was sent into a public space*. I said below that does raise very interesting issues that society and the law need to address.
The whole *POINT* I was trying to make was that MS are using this as an excuse for a PR stunt to try and paint themselves in glory "we place a priority on privacy". But they have a past history of invading privacy and cannot be trusted. And to make the point clear, one cannot trust Google either!
Oh know! Car analogy! But yes I agree, that is theft. What would not be a crime would be someone opening the door, having a wee seat, and then leaving the car unharmed. Heck, they could even rummage through your glove box. As I said to Turtle, IRL example rarely translate.
No data was taken, that's where it IRL analogies break down. The "in the clear" transmission was merely listened to. I, to this day, do not conduct certain transaction via web/email because of that exact risk. I do them IRL to ensure security.
And I'll reiterate in case people think I'm some fanboi, I wouldn't trust Google to boil an egg!
From around 2006 it was a daily spurt of data back to Redmond on a per-boot/daily basis (later changed to bi-weekly). What data was sent? IP address, machine manufacturer, locale etc. Enought to be uniquely identifiable. The WGA was sometimes installed without consent, could download extra software and morph its own behaviour; this led many to label WGA as "spyware at the time.
"It is no different from saying that anyone who fails to lock their door is giving permission to any passer-by to come in and remove all their possessions.."
That's theft. However a stranger walking through said door is would hardly a surprise would it? And depending on where you live it wouldn't even constitute trespass. The stranger having to kick the door down is a different matter. IRL analogies rarely work, but congrats for not picking a car analogy!
Reid Kuhn's (any relation to Bradley?) is interesting, but that does not stop it being a PR stunt, not does it exonerate MS from past or future actions and people should not trust them. Nor Google, nor...
Nope, just showing up their PR stunt for what it is. MS, Google, Facebook ect are not advocates for consumer privacy, no matter what the PR wonks may claim. Their business model (wholly or partially) depends on "invading your privacy" and targeting you.
And how can Google "steal" what people are giving away for free?
...and wasn't there some hoo-hah a few years ago about "phone home" features in Windows? A spy-on-your desk is a lot worse than a time-limited data slurp IMHO.
BT we providing a service to their customers, so there was an actual relationship there. BT deserve a serious kicking for Phorm.
If Google had been providing such a service (or mined this data and linked it back to a users GMail/search account) *then* they'd deserve a similar kicking.
Of course, if Google have done that; kick away!
A do I
But only because MS don't have my data (or very little of it).
Google have slighty more (e.g. some emails) but not much.
Motto of the Internet is: Trust no one.
I get it
Google captured the network data. No question.
Google /could/ mine, index and cross-reference that data.
Google /could/ release that data and someone else /could/ do the mining etc.
This all /could/ lead to a massive loss of privacy.
I get that, I really do. And it raises many questions about how society and the law deal with such things.
Is it really (really, really) a criminal offence to do little more than record what people are publicly blasting into the air? If I record on a dictaphone what someone in a public place is shouting, have I now broken some law? If someone put personal information on a billboard, are you guilty of a crime just for looking? These people are *giving* their information away.
Is Google the whipping-boy? I'm not so sure. Is it a PR disaster? Oh my yes. Should they have done it? I don't think so. Was it malicious or with bad intent? Probably not - I'm going with cock-up.
If YOU d not secure YOUR data on YOUR network, don't be too surprised when it goes AWOL.
- Boffins attempt to prove the UNIVERSE IS JUST A HOLOGRAM
- Review Raspberry Pi B+: PHWOAR, get a load of those pins
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder