62 posts • joined 19 Apr 2007
Is this the same RIM...
...who are apparently about to hand over information about their UK customers to the police?
That's a critical success! Printer corrects grammatical errors, +2 to ink cartridge levels. Double ones, on the other hand, results in a printer on fire error.
Not so easy
Grab (almost said "Google" there) the Google Alarm addon for Firefox and see how easy it really is to avoid Google. You don't have to use their services, but as long as everyone else does you're not going to slip below their radar without entirely blocking their IP addresses.
I speculate! I speculate!
I reckon the reason it's still offline is that PSN was so poorly designed form the start they can't figure out a way of closing the gaping security holes without borking every PS3 out there.
Hail to the King, baby!
It wasn't about AI's posing as people, it was about a small number of "reputation managers" posing as a virtual crowd, and astroturfing opposing voices into submission. I'd expect more paranoia from the Reg. The thought of some marketroid in an office somewhere single-handedly taking over entire discussions to distract from their employers' dodgy actions is something the Reg should be all over.
Nice to find someone else who doesn't think the sun shines out of Baron Cohen's arse.
I couldn't help myself
A friend: "He should have changed his name by deed poll"
Me: "Poor choice of words there. Deid poles and Nazis... you know..."
"maybe it's because we're so committed to our users"
Or maybe it's because we're control freaks.
Three point stance!?
I hope by that you mean two feet and one hand. The mind boggles.
He should at least have got his coat.
And in other news...
...man bites dog.
It's not even particularly random
Good analysis here: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/02/microsoft-random-browser-ballot.html
I am the Eschaton. I am not your Google.
I am descended from your servers, and exist in your internets.
Thou shalt not violate NDAs within my gigantic data centres. Or else.
"...share a G-spot..."
How would that work then? Does it affect both twins simultaneously, or do they have to pass it back and forth on some kind of rota?
"We like the Chinese people. We like our Chinese employees. We like..."
Agree with Caspah Scottorn, lglethal and Adam Salisbury - if the UK space industry is doing so well on it's own why, in the name of the wee man, should the Government - especially /this/ government - be allowed to get it's mitts on it? They just want to be associated with something which actually works.
And the ones who aren't incompetent
are devious, duplicitous and down-right dishonest.
To quote Pterry
As I'm prone to do depressingly regularly these days, 'the axiom "Honest men have nothing to fear from the police" is currently under review by the Axioms Appeal Board'
@MS Linux? Why not?
Do the words "embrace extend extinguish" mean anything to you?
Better Privacy (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623) lets you get rid of them.
$199? They saw you coming, pal.
Didn't Ben Goldacre do something similar a while back? I think it only cost him about $60 to get his cat a diploma. His cat was dead, though - maybe he got a discount.
Ooh, ooh, yes please miss, me too!
BIKKIES! BIKKIES! BIKKIES!!!
Re Sarah B
To trollbait. You seem to be a past master. Sorry, mistress.
2phemism (n): a bollockstastic word invented for use on or by teh intarwebs which pwns a pre-existing word or phrase in the vernacular of the blognoscenti to the extent that it replaces a perfectly cromulent existing word.
Ye elder gods...
That's it, I'm switching to lojban. English id clearly doomed.
2 per cent?
So the economy's knackered because - at least in part - banks were unable to cover their outstanding debts from cash reserves, and they're going to give tech companies carte blanche to do exactly that? Does anyone else see the problem there?
Why would I WANT to store my health records online, securely or not? Paper files, in mine or my doctors' custody, with a power of attorney being devolved by law onto my next of kin or legal representative (the latter, given proper proof, being prefered) should - and have been for years - be sufficient.
They're talking out their @r$e
"As with all digital records systems, complete removal would require the hardware holding records to be completely sanitised. This is a process that destroys all data held, for example on a server or hard drive, and not just a particular record."? You what? So I need to format my hard drive to delete an email? I had no idea...
We have no titles. In fact, we don't need titles.
Been using FileHippo's Update Checker for a while now and that seems to work pretty well in keeping me up to date. It certainly spotted more out-dated software than Secunia PSI just did, and doesn't want an email address - which always reassures me, for some reason. Having said that, there's still no beating a regular perusal of your installed apps and services to see what needs pruning. But persuading my non-geeks of that is nigh impossible, so I'll just have to keep doing it for them...
Since when did Googling someone constitute a background check? What other services will the oompa-loompas be providing? Can we expect short, orange trench-coat-and-fedora'd PIs? Surrealist corporate espionage?
Shoot the messenger
Who's serving up these ads? Line them up and shoot them. Or fine them or something, whatever's easier.
I may disagree with what you photograph...
...but I will defend to the death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire
"Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." Oscar Wilde on Uncyclopedia
Broken by design
It would be hard to sit down and come up with a more insecure and pointless system than 3DSecure. It's what happens when the marketroids get involved in technical stuff.
@ Daniel Haynes - the best lost-password policy I can think of is the tried-and-tested email to a pre-registered address. Simple to implement, simple to understand.
"tons of cash developing a space pen, but forgot about a little something called a pencil"
I'm saying that the fact that someone says "I'm with Anonymous" should probably be given the same kind of credence as someone saying that they're one of the Defenders of the Martian Crown. And that while the numpties who do claim membership probably do post on 4chan, they're representative of Anonymous posters consisting of themselves and anyone else who thinks that DDoS attacks and cracking minimally secured email accounts will do anything other than alienate the Fox News-watching public from the more morally responsible Anony-tards.
No icon because I'm getting kind of bored with the whole Paris thing, to be honest.
...that the use of "Anonymous", like that of "terrorism", "Al-Quaeda" and any number of other words which are or have been loaded with similar emotional baggage are in the same vein as me attaching to this post a:
--- * spook file * ---------------------------
Prime Minister President bomb nuclear (nukular) WMD NBC osama obama fofama your mama dalai lama China Afghanistan Iraq Iran tin can my man (und so weiter.)
--- * end spook file * ---------------------------
i.e. it's suppose to grab our attention and ensure that, through constant exposure, we end up ignoring the content thereby letting Them slip anything They want past us in plain sight.
I'm not anonymous, but I know a man who is
Anonymous is being built up as some kind of home-grown cyberterror collective. No-one "belongs to" Anonymous, they don't have membership cards or secret handshakes. They don't have goals. They don't even exist in the way that the media and law-enforcement types suggest. They're a loose aggregation of broadly-like-minded individuals some of whom have the serious, even laudable, aim of curtailing the abuses of Scientology. Others, like Guzner and Kernell, do misguidedly stupid and illegal things - perhaps for the best of reasons - and when they say the word "Anonymous" the fear-o-tron spins up and we're expected to believe that there is this huge, shadowy, nefarious network of highly organised uber-hackers instead of a bunch of geeks in their one-room apartments doin' it for the lulz.
My point, you ask? As ever, our attention is being sapped by the usual media 3 card trick. Don't look at the man behind the curtain! Pay no attention to the miscarriages of justice! Look out for the scary man in the cape!
The truth is...
God, in his incarnation as the Most Holy Jobs, may be killing kittens, but we all know why He does it... And there's your Paris angle, too.
I thought the tradition in these cases
was to nail your complaint to a handy church door. Then there was something about... eating worms?.. I wasn't really paying attention...
Sign the petition...
...and guarantee you'll be red-flagged for life when the database goes live.
Even the bloggers have spotted it...
If a bloke in Tucson, Arizona has noticed, surely - SURELY - we can just torpedo it now and forget the whole thing?
re "no plans my a** "
Or, more likely, no plans which have been written down or officially discussed. Unofficially and off the record, it's only a matter of time.
Less slippery slope than perilous precipice
"Nor are we going to give local authorities the power to trawl through such a database in the interest of investigating lower level criminality under the spurious cover of counter terrorist legislation." But the local authorities will do exactly that, as we've seen several times already with other supposedly counter-terror legislation.
The difference is that your pee isn't being sampled and stored every time you flush.
The top 31 richest individuals (that Forbes are allowed to tell us about [cos I know the tinfoil-hatters were thinking it]) in the world between them have >$700 billion. Just saying...
That is obscene
That is all
From my admittedly pefunctory reading of the details available at www.monticellofiber.com, the government has indeed set up a telco - of sorts.But being majority owned by the people who will be benefiting from its product, rather than money-oriented shareholders, likely means it'll be a far more pleasant experience dealing with it than any other telco you could name.
It'll still have to jump through the same regulatory hoops as it's privately owned partner: in fact, chances are it'll be far more stringently audited cos you'd better believe that the "competition" will be keeping a damn close eye on them for any infractions.
Revenue bonds are "...a special type of municipal bond distinguished by its guarantee of repayment solely from revenues generated by a specified revenue-generating entity associated with the purpose of the bonds." (Wikipedia) The people who voted no, or didn't buy bonds, can still pay to use the resulting fibre, but naturally they won't receive a dividend. They won't, however, be losing out. And to say that anyone voting against something is being "stolen from" when it is implemented is disingenuous.
And the telco is building a network. The court case is a transparent attempt to delay the municipal scheme so the telcos fibre will be in place first - because in America, first you get the lawyers, then you get the power, then you get the commercial advantage and step on peoples faces. Or something.
There are some problems with your comment: * A title is required.
If it could activate my webcam without the little green LED beside the lens coming on I'd be worried.
- Does Apple's iOS 7 make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Hands on Satisfy my scroll: El Reg gets claws on Windows 8.1 spring update
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA