30 posts • joined Tuesday 1st April 2008 12:07 GMT
Not so. If you're on the ISS and push something earthwards, it'll be in almost exactly the same orbit as the ISS.
After 1/2 an orbit, the velocity of the downward shove will be carrying the object slightly away from the earth.
My old Casio VL-Tone wasn't.
Long sentence incoming....
Perhaps the reason so many Android users are on an older version is because it works and does exactly what people want without needing to throw the whole thing away each year when the next release comes out with a pointless feature which doesn't work properly outside the US and which renders the older hardware obsolete requiring the whole piece of kit to be replaced?
"We want to be the most open and transparent government in the world. Already, we've published a huge amount of new information about the inner workings of government, and there's a lot more still to come" - David Cameron.
Publishing the NHS risk register would be a good start, wouldn't it Dave?
A quality piece of research....
Someone must have told her to Google the word 'Poopsock'
Re: The earth doesn't look very round in that picture
Because half of it is in shade.
This version is the best
So in your crazy world of logic, it's okay to send a 13 year old girl death threats because she released a song?
You're certainly right about crazies....
So let me just get this straight...
From reading the comments here, can I surmise that the speed of light is only constant "in a vacuum?"
I'd have thought it would get trapped in all the fluff and spinning brushes.
What are you on about?
This isn't about your dealings with various charities or the intelligence quotient of their workers, tin-foil hat 'smear campaigns' funded by the US government or whatever. The story is about people in Afghanistan being put at serious risk of death because they were informants.
You know, some people in this country say we need to get out of Afghanistan and let them deal with it themselves. The people that were acting as informers were probably trying to help make their country better and taking some responsibility and doing just that.
Then some tosser comes along and publishes their details on the web for all to see without realising the consequences. Including the very people most likely to hunt them down and execute them.
I'm with AI on this one, he's a complete twat and publishing that type of information was a massive screwup, should never have happened and hopefully won't again.
How many social networks?
So, not being content with owning one social network called Orkut, they've gone and bought something or other called Slide which does what Orkut does in that it provides a social network where you can become friends to people you've never heard of?
I'd rather build myself a time fountain, looks much more impressive and a winner with the ladies.
Well, maybe not the last bit
@theregister RT #twitter
I was just going to say, would anyone actually miss Twitter (apart from Stephen Fry) if it were to be unavailable for an extended period of time.
But then I remembered that it played an important role in last years recent Iranian protests and may do again another time, so while it may be 99.9% pure #crap and repeated spam - it does have an occasional good use.
Less than 1 second ago via the web.
A bit shocking really...
That a Government is actually doing something which is actually popular with a lot of people - scrapping the ID cards and promising a repeal act to get rid of a few of Labour's crazy/intrusive/expensive/hairbrained laws and schemes - I begrudgingly give them a thumbs up...!
Although I can't help but think they're just softening us up, ready for dropping a massive bombshell on us.
An 'error' my arse.
So, Sergey - you accidentally equipped a fleet of cars with hardware to capture wifi packets and by error you accidentally sent out this fleet of cars and by some failure they drove around the streets and due to a miscommunication they were turned on while driving around and due to a simple mistake they captured anything they could.
Occam's razor alternative:
You sent out a fleet of cars to deliberately capture data. What else did you think they would collect, butterflies?
Do no evil? sod off.
Hardcore facial what?
I was going to say how I'd rather go out not looking like a complete tit than and be recognised.
Then I realised I already do look like on so haven't got anything to lose.
Re: Control the Internet?
"A bit like all the yuppies in the early 80s who bought all those fugly Saab 99/900s, and once everyone who wanted one bought one, they never sold another."
So, erm, a bit every product ever sold by anyone, anywhere. Supply and demand and all that?
If you've nothing to hide, you've got...
The vast majority of people have curtains or blinds at their windows they pull at night so they can't be spied on.
The vast majority of these people have nothing to hide nor fear. They just expect some privacy.
Same principle Eric, now go fuck yourself.
Cloud this, cloud that
WTF is it with relabeling things that have existed in various forms for years with the word 'cloud' in it?
So it's a chip. With some processors on it.
I'm going to wrap some Cat5 around a jam-jar and call it a cloud compatible wired networking device. Should be a able to sell it to a few gullible managers!
I bought this product mainly for th...
Bugger I'm on the wrong site.
Ding Dong - Message for Martin Sutherland
Dear Mr Sutherland
Take your intrusive pieces of kit along with the IMP/MTI probes and shove them where the sun doesn't bloody well shine.
MP's angry at losing their own data shocker!
I saw Margaret Beckett on question time the other night saying how shocked and angry herself and fellow MP's were that this information had personal details of staff in and that it could now be in the hands of anyone. (Anyone obviously being the Daily Telegraph!)
Well, Beckett, Smith, Brown & Co. perhaps you'll stop losing OUR bloody personal details now, all 37 miilion pieces of it in 2008. And perhaps you'll give a bit of consideration to the amount of data you're wanting to store on us all for your "prevention of terrorism" reasons too.
A bit different when the (jack)boot is on the other foot isn't it?!?
Just a thought
According to the technical analysis of Phorm at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404-phorm.pdf (point 15+16) At some point in the redirection process, a request will get redirected to webwise.net which sits inside the ISP's network.
webwise.net is the bit that checks to see if you've got a cookie or not, if not it issues a UID then does a 307 redirect to point you to the real page.
What would happen if someone in the trial resolved webwise.net to a local address and started issuing their own cookies in the Phorm format and doing their own 307 redirects? Would it be possible to generate random UID's every time or completely bypass their redirection system?
Or would their system get stuck in a loop referring you between the ISP's webwise.net and your own local webwise.net?
Are they taking the piss?
'..BT chief press officer Adam Liversage confirmed that opted-out traffic will pass through the system during the trial, but said it "will not be mirrored or profiled"...'
May I refer BT, Phorm (and also the ICO as they seem to have forgotten this, useless fuckers) to the Data Protection Act 1998. Specfically:
11. (1) An individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing for the purposes of direct marketing personal data in respect of which he is the data subject.
Note the use of this part 'cease, or not to begin, PROCESSING'
The Data Protection Act 1998 defines 'Processing' to be:
'“processing”, in relation to information or data, means obtaining, recording or holding the information or data or carrying out any operation or set of operations on the information or data'
Bearing in mind unencrypted http traffic can and often contains a person's name, address and telephone number, which also by definition is 'identifying personal information' if someone wants to opt out of Phorm/Webwise then it seems pretty clear that they're breaking the law if it still passes through their system but they promise not to peek at it.
Note to BT & Phorm in moron speak as you don't seem to understand. Just because you're not 'doing' anything with the data that passes through your system (so you say) the mere fact that it passes through and might contain identifying information means you have to adhere to the DPA and customers wishes.
A really simple way of detecting Phorm infected clients from the server?
According to Richard Clayton's analysis of the Phorm kit, when Phorm intercepts the cookie coming from the server it'll tamper with it and insert it's own webwise string containing your webwise UID. (Points 20 - 22)
All you should have to do, is set your own webwise value within your cookie - if phorm have replaced it with their own & then stripped it out, your webwise value won't be there and you can be pretty sure you've got a phorm infected client browsing your site. (Point 25)
So they sought legal advice?
Whose advice did they seek and when?
The trials that have been admitted to so far were in 2006 and 2007.
The advice from Simon Watkins in the home office was dated January 2008, and says that it would only be legal if both parties consented to having their communications intercepted.
The 80/20 Thinking interim privacy impact report is dated 10 Feb 2008.
FAO: Phorm Team
Phorm team, can you please answer the following questions which I've asked of you a few times.
If you don't store any browsing histories, how come the OIX website says:
"...For example, Travel advertisers will be able to target messages to anyone seeing the keywords "Paris holiday" either as a search or inside the text of any page with timing of three times in an hour..
...Advertisers create customised channels using behavioural keywords - keywords derived from searches, URLs, and contextual analysis of pages visited, with recency and frequency"
In order to know the frequency someone visits a page you are going to have to record the URL's visited against their profile complete with a list of times they visited it too, so you can tell if they visited it in the three hour example mentioned above.
So how does your system know what time a page is visited and the amount of times a page is visited by someone if it doesn't actually store the URL of the page?
Many sites have Terms & Conditions which explicitly deny data mining, extraction etc. of their content. Many of these sites are also copyrighted.
Bearing in mind that some ISP's are in talks to crackdown on copyright theft (Virgin & the BPI) and it seems to be another big thing at the moment, could yourselves or the ISP's installing your system be held accountable for copyright theft? It could be argued that you are profiting by mining this copyrighted data which doesn't belong to you or the person viewing the page to build your profiles.
If I was to own or have a website then I certainly wouldn't give you permission to mine my content so you can profit from it.
Finally, can you guarantee that the data your systems hold or process will NEVER be able to identify a living person by any means whatsover?
If so, how?
Thanks Phorm - Phanks!
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- Special Report How Britain could have invented the iPhone: And how the Quangocracy cocked it up
- Massive! Yahoo! Mail! outage! going! on! FOURTH! straight! day!