Re: interesting enough story but....
Did you check the category it was under?
Even though your eyes are open, you may often fail to see.
3055 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
Did you check the category it was under?
Even though your eyes are open, you may often fail to see.
Any device which I did not install, I do not have the ability to fully configure and for which I do not have access to the source; will find itself off on a DMZ and behind a very strict firewall (if it is even permitted to connect).
I cite LG as one reason why.
When the system if fully under my control - OK, I might find that advantageous. When it is under the control of a third party - screw that.
...these ransomeware dealers have more honour than the likes of British Gas and the other utility companies.
Indeed. I'd like to delete Facebook and related crap to get some space back. But as it is "baked in" for whatever reason, I am stuck with garbage I don't want.
Shame Cyanogenmod doesn't run on my phone.
Not camo paint, ut this stuff: http://cvdazzle.com/
Will Cyanogenmod run on the Hudl? If so, for £60 it could be worth a punt.
> Windows RT is already ahead of Android in terms of performance and efficiency.
Citation required, preferably not MS funded and thus can be considered independent. I'm genuinely interested.
"I don't think the readership of the The Register is the target audience for these devices"
Speak for yourself. I have been looking for a netbook for ages and these fit the bill (they should take a full GNU/Linux install, assuming no lock-down).
Yeah, because 98% of the population doesn't use their computer for Social Media and watching cat videos.....wait a minute!
Well technically they didn't actually deny boarding this time either.
I am sure a law boffin would agree.
"The Internet is a multi-purpose network and so better analogies would be with the postal service or courier firms."
Depends how you view it. You view the electrical network as "single purpose" as is "move the elcetrons back-and-forth". So is the Internet. Move the packets around. One purpose.
You claim the Internet is multi-purpose. Well I can claim the electrical network is multiple purpose. It powers TV, microwaves, MRI scanners and even time-stamps telephone calls. Now, do you want to be charged a different electrical rate depending on the device?
"I think Verizon's argument is that they should be free to offer premium services on top of standard."
What you think and what is in actuality are not the same. The argument is to permit Verizon of retard data from other sources and thus push their own. If Verizon want to provide a premium service, there is nothing stopping them going out and building that network. But they want to use the Internet (built by others) and then degrade that to gouge their customers.
Fuck that shit.
Electricity. All power goes into the same lines.
Gas. All gas goes into the same pipes.
Even telecoms. Many companies share the same links.
Net neutrality defines the Internet and the free movement of information. If Verizon win, I hope their customers drop them like the steaming turd they will have shown themselves to be.
They won't be satisfied until the "Inter" in "Internet" no longer has any meaning.
An insane, genius, lunatic, 100% nutbar and magnificent legend at that.
My experience is that they are slower than a person. I'm almost 2m tall - takes the machine an age to work out where my face is. But I am using a biometric passport, surely my height is in there? Surely the machine could say "Oh, I'll start at 1.9m rather than 2mm off the floor".
USA security checks are a joke. Try getting out of N.Ireland when the IRA was active, now there was security. Polite security. Efficient security. But security with big guns nevertheless.
Not these jumped up TSA dimwits.
Peer pressure, mob rule, groupthink, circlejerk; yes, these are all a thing.
Does social media add to this or, by making it easier to access other opinions, detract from it? With all the walled gardens and filter-bubbles in effect, I am siding with "add to".
Has, what might be an interesting study, been over simplified for cheap and sensationalist journalism?
Exactly. A "false positive" (you'll get "false negatives" too). And this is the kind of censorship that they wish to impose on the nation.
The great-unthinking who can't work out how to install a net-nanny will assume this to be a magic solution and not take the time to educate or talk to their kids.
It's not a magic solution, it's pandering to the knuckle-dragging Sun/Mail reader and trying to score brownie points all "for the children".
They want to protect the children? Advise parents to get a clue before letting their kids play on-line.
"Every power-crazed dictatorship has done as much as possible to remove parents from bringing up children, and substituted the state."
The Tories are Newer-New-Labour. Who knew?
I'll agree with her 100%. And that is why we have these things called parents who have, by and large, done a fairly decent job of bringing the kids up thusfar.
How do I know this?
Well, you're reading my drivel aren't you?
Westminster can't even install the most basic-of-basic web filters, and yet Cameron wants to censor the entire nation?
edit 1: my mistake - I missed a couple of pertinent words in my first read. The requests were blocked. Good.
So now that Cameron knows local blocks work, why not just let folks filter their own connection as they see fit? Just like people censor their movies by (intake of breath) not watching things they don't like.
edit 2: Nice of them to mention that false positives are a problem. Do they understand that they wish to impose that problem country wide? I don't think they do. Idiots.
"Scots council cops £100K fine for spaffing vulnerable kids' data ONLINE"
"Scots council tax payers cop £100K fine for spaffing vulnerable kids' data ONLINE"
Were the managers who had failed to put the policies in place (or block home-working) fired?
So nothing will change.
Non-users too. All it would take is one of my Farcebook using friends to tag me a pow; there goes my privacy.
Give them your number.
0871 FUK U ZUK
(0871 385 8 985)
Civil servants are immune to any censure. But "lessons will be learned" and "core competencies will be reinforced". Then a few consultants brought in at extortionate expense to rubber stamp everything and nothing will actually change.
But our MPs' friends will be much richer, so that's all right then.
It worked in the UK.
Surely "fraud" would be a better word.
Strong is the troll with this one. But powerful he is not.
Defeat him easily we shall.
"provides access to SweetLabs' own app store"
It's cute 'n all the way Windows and Windows partners are trying desperately to copy the GNU/Linux package management system; if hilarious the way they are turning it into a total clusterfuck.
"Hey kids, Win8 sucks as. Here's a fix and a store you never wanted."
Have bullion? Here's two top tips to prevent pain like this:
1) Inform your insurer and make sure it's covered; or
2) Use a feckin' bank vault! (Recommended)
"A thief (or a so-called locksmith in much of Europe) does not piss around picking a lock when it can be drilled"
This is noisy, it attracts attention (especially if the barrel is hardened against drilling). As for snapping, an anti-snap lock will leave the thief holding a useless shard of metal with the lock still firmly in the door. Bumping? Well helloooooo anti-bump locks. Yes, if you buy a £10 piece of crap then your points hold. If, however, you throw some actual wedge at an actual lock you improve your chances. And one good lock at that, not six shitty ones weakening the door and frame
When we moved house we changed the locks after a few lock-picking classes. Eye-opener. Bumping is a piece of piss on a cheap lock. If you are reading this, own property and you haven't been to lock-picking classes, go.
The goal is not to be impenetrable - the goal is to be too much bother so bastards move on.
> And yet camouflage is still used even on armoured vehicles.
Nice try, and I did chuckle.
"Security by obscurity" is more like painting your armoured vehicle luminescent yellow and then getting all upset when people can see it. And, if you were the MPAA/RIAA/BPI demanding a law be passed to make it illegal for people to look at your luminescent yellow armoured vehicle rather than fix the actual issue.
"Not really. You can easily make a "bump" key for an ordinary lock. This will enable anybody to open the lock in seconds"
Only if you buy cheap-ass, shitty locks (usually only rated for internal use). And if you have those on your front door - kiss any insurance cover goodbye.
Because it is also filtered. The filtering happens at the network level.
We must protect the children from culture!
Paedos only rape 0.0001% of children, so that's OK too?
Terrorists only kill 0.001% of people, so is that OK?
Muggers only blight the lives of 0.01% of people, that must be fine.
Seriously NSA, you are meant to be smart. An immoral act is an immoral act, regardless of the number of people it affects.
Here's a new paradigm - not making piles of cash and simply do their fucking job.
(Sorry for sweary, but I feel it is warranted)
ICANN needs to get a grip. .org, .net. com etc...these are all cool. They make (some) sense.
.co.uk, .co.us etc...also good. One is a UK company, the other a USA one. They make sense.
Of course borders change, companies move (probably to avoid tax) so locking yourself into geographic domain might be a bit short-sighted. Back to the TLDs.
.bank? Yeah, that makes good sense. Especially if they have strict rules on security, who can join etc. I am sure you can think of more.
.coke? No. .cola? No. .buttplug? Ah...no; no thanks.
The increasing number of TLDs will make it harder on users as well. Should they go to creditcard.com? creditcard.co.au? credit.card? Or my.creditcard? "creditcard" will also have to register everything to prevent domain squatters and abuse. A nice money spinner for ICANN.
ICANN - defenders of ICANN's wallet!
Also, if DMC can object to DMI wanting .delmonte; can I object to a company using my family surname as a TLD? Heck, there's a money spinner right there. Register surnames and then sell off big.yin etc. ICANN won't complain too much, more money for them!
So if you are being trolled - don't go there. That simple.
If you are seeing porn - OMG! BAN THE INTERNETS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Rather than, y'know, block it yourself or simply don't look at it.
Does this po-faced monkey-boy understand WTF he is talking about?
It's already happened in the states IIRC. Girlfriend/Boyfriend swapped selfies (16-ish I think from memory) and BAM, all hell lets loose.
...arrest 55% of young Brits as being traffickers in Child Porn. Isn't that what Cameron wants?
Or will he legislate that phones should recognise naughty bits and refuse to take the photo? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
...it's certainly a better role model than the usual crap flavours Barbie comes in.
My connection has been going wonky too, but as I have a new router and have been having the power trip; I didn't put it down to VM
Reading that, and the various bit about perjury, there appears to be know real penalty for issuing requests excessively.
Are there any for a false DMCA request? e.g. fine or jail?
If not, there bloody well should be. Bot or not, a false request should result in the requester facing censure.
The point of the RasPi is for kids to learn on and it has to be cheap enough so that if it gets broken, no big deal. Any competitor has to be as cheap (or cheaper).
Ergo, this is no competitor. This is yet another small(ish) form-factor bandwagon hopper.