Or salivating at the profits to be had from marketing "protection" to those who feel vulnerable. The whole thing smells of a protection racket in the making.
1123 posts • joined 13 Dec 2008
Or salivating at the profits to be had from marketing "protection" to those who feel vulnerable. The whole thing smells of a protection racket in the making.
Did the stupid idiots who got in the way pay for the car in any way? Of course not! Those who can't pay shouldn't expect to be protected by what they haven't paid for. Why would they think they were safe even on the pavement (sidewalk)? Obviously someone driving a Mercedes is much more important than some peon walking around. Besides, Mercedes wouldn't sell nearly as many cars if they admitted that "by the way, sometimes we're not going to prioritize your safety". Remember people, PROFIT is the only means of determining what is correct.
Got rid of AdBlock within days that I heard they were going from an ad blocker to a protection racket.
However, let's restate: the issue is not advertising. It's privacy. Want to show ads on your site, go for it. Most ad blockers won't touch them. What they'll touch is the privacy busting ad-mongers.
It's really sad that they had to sue rather than Seagate admitting they fucked up and doing the right thing, which is completely protecting and compensating their own employees for the inevitable deluge of identity theft, scams, and other frauds perpetrated using this leaked data.
It's time the directors of these corporations saw the corporate protection veil lifted and started getting close and personal attention for the incompetence they bring to data protection in their domains. Only when people are held personally accountable will anything improve. Any "corporate" level enforcement is useless, failure just becomes part of the cost of doing business. Because it's ALWAYS failure, since actually stopping this invariably costs more than hiring a few lawyers or bribing a minister or six to fast-talk their way out of any meaningful penalties.
<blink>kill the heretic</blink>
Lovely article about names:
Which is why I'm strongly in favour of any programmer being required to study cultures other than their own, amongst other "non-computing" topics. Too many programmers know too little about the world they are supposed to be programming things to interact with. Too many people making too many false assumptions and screwing everyone else for years on end. Microsoft being one of the biggest perpetrators of the "we know nothing and care less about other cultures", especially in their earlier years.
Imagine the fucking retard who came up with the "minimum of 3 letters" for a "last name" field. Or a maximum length. Imagine the anger they've generated for people with the surname Ng, or even 'O'. Or the folks with names like "Farquarson-Featherstonehaugh" Yet as recently as last year I STILL found places where surname length limitations are still in place. Hell, it's even still considered normal for surname fields to have a minimum length of "1", and fuck the mononymous folks out there.
That's the kind of bloody minded incompetence that the computing world has nourished and allowed to remain. That's the kind of complete idiocy that we STILL see in systems today.
Why would anyone be surprised that Microsoft is still doing stupid things? It's been their way for over 30 years. Sadly, they have lots of company.
This isn't about the adverts. It's about privacy. This is about having sold off the advert placement to ad-mongers who then attempt to destroy any shred of privacy a person might have left, all in the name of selling them shit.
Ad blockers don't, for the most part, block local images. Be silly for them to do so. So local websites are perfectly free to put LOCAL adverts on their sites if they wish. What ad blockers stop are the privacy destroying (possibly even illegally so in many jurisdictions) ad-mongers who aren't just selling adverts, they're selling tracking of individuals.
Want to make money from adverts? Then do so. Just adverts. None of the privacy mangling bullshit that surrounds the adverts pushed by the ad-mongers.
Actually I mainly credit NoScript. Which is why I refuse to use a browser that doesn't have similar functionality. Not the broken version that Chrome perpetrates, for instance. Understandably, seeing as it's created by one of the worst advertising/tracking monsters out there, so why would they make it easier to block their profitable privacy destroying tools?
But the others have their uses, as I've found.
Here's a hint to the sites that depend on ad revenue. You want people to see ads on your website? Stop using the fucking ad-mongers as your providers. Stop using ad services whose SOLE goal is to track people across multiple sites, and invade people's privacy just to sell them shit.
Just post your ads locally. Manage your own ads. Most ad blockers won't block local images or ads. They mostly only block the centrally managed, downright unethical ad tracking agencies that so many of you seem to be keen to use. Know what? I have nothing against tasteful ads. But the instant you gave up control over what ads show on your sites, and allowed tracking, privacy invading asshats to display any kind of garbage, then you lost any claim to calling us "freeloaders".
You want me to see your ads? Then make sure they're YOUR ads. Not inappropriate garbage created by 3rd parties that have nothing to do with your site, or your audience.
As for Facebook, I haven't seen an ad on their platform so long as I use my blocking quartet of uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Ghostery, and NoScript.
Or, of course, FUBAR...
That also falls apart when "not working" is something most of their clients recognize and are intimately familiar with.
The only question I've got is why they still have clients? Are people that lazy and/or desperate that 123 is their only option?
Is there a tea bush growing within 3,000 miles of Yorkshire?
Why would there need to be? Although they claim it was introduced in 1886, wasn't "Yorkshire Tea"'s current blend actually created during the rationing years by sweeping up crud and bagging it? Certainly tastes like it every time I've been forced to ingest some. Politeness can be challenging.
It seems that "Yorkshire Tea" (and several other British "blends") is to tea what tofurkey is to roasted fowl.
The temperature of the water depends on the type of tea being brewed. All tea is not brewed the same way. A very basic introduction can be found here: http://www.teavivre.com/info/three-brewing-keys-water-temperature/
You're quite correct about having to scrape even more crud out of the pot though. I'll bet that work is probably not being done by the person adding the milk in the first place.
However, I'm pretty sure that what many British call "tea" doesn't care much about the water temperature, since it's not really what anyone else would call "tea" in the first place.
Seems to me that many British love what they call "tea". Unfortunately, it bears little to no relation to what anyone else would call "tea". The "tea" they drink must have been developed during the rationing, and seems to consist of some sort of waste swept up from the streets then bagged. This fact is probably the reason so many prefer to hide the horrible taste of their bagged waste with sugar and milk.
Real, good quality tea does not require milk or sugar. However, as elReg is probably a fairly typical British office, they'll be using the cheapest available bag of sweepings. In which case yes, it's proper to put the milk and even the sugar in the pot, since it's not really tea in the first place, and something needs to be done to hide the awful taste.
Anyone who enjoys real tea should probably just bring their own.
The terms "technologically illiterate", "UAE", and "guilty until proven guilty" sounds exactly like the UAE I worked in all those years ago. I see they haven't changed much. I see I'll still never be going back. Nothing is worth that kind of bullshit.
Companies that lie and cheat like this should really be fined at least 150% (preferably much more) of the profit from that entire product line. Instead, they get what aren't even slaps on the wrist, and don't even have to admit they're scumbags.
Shooting (not necessarily lethally, just very painfully) every senior exec of every such company is really the only solution at this point. Oh, and their boards of directors. And their majority shareholders. You know, the ones who keep electing boards that select senior execs that keep ripping people off.
Local employer of "enterprise" class only hires Microsoft "knowledgeable" people who can answer questions such as "what is the delay of a certain command when issued, in microseconds". And other such memorization exercises.
Oddly, this "employer" has seen not just hours but DAYS of downtime in a mission critical (health) environment, regularly has people on site who don't have a clue what they're trying to fix, resulting in even more local downtime, and is pushing a computer based health records system that is quite literally killing people as it changes prescriptions because they don't match what's in their database. It's generally considered to be the most incompetent I.T. group in the region. Which is unfortunate since they run the hospital I.T. systems. Oh, but they're ALL "MCSE", so that's OK.
Possibly because you haven't been paying attention to the other stuff being installed for you? That or you have Enterprise or Education versions and a lot of money to spend?
Still waiting to hear from the Microsoft apologists out there. The ones who think Microsoft is wonderful because they're popular, and are popular because they're wonderful. The ones who insist that anything Microsoft does is obviously wonderful for everyone, because otherwise why would they do it?
Waiting for your defence of this latest shitty idea.
Buy Microsoft, get fucked over. That's been their unofficial motto for 30 years, but they've just made it completely official.
I'll stay with Win 7 for my games, thanks. I've pretty much managed to move almost everything else to Linux and/or BSD.
Quite familiar with the arnaqueurs de Paris, thanks. Especially the little shit in the 15eme with the phone store, whose only goal is to rip people off using sleight-of-hand "fixes" where he then returns the broken item to you. But that's Paris for you, the anus of France.
However, there are rules involved, and if you take the time to find the right bureaucrat who can apply those rules, you too can have the satisfaction of watching the little extortionate shits get taken down. It'll take time, it'll mean dealing with the bureaucracy, but here's a hint: the ONLY way to navigate the French bureaucracy is to treat it like a feudal state, and the bureaucrats are the new nobility.
Don't try to do things yourself, they don't deal with peasants, meaning anyone who isn't a bureaucrat or rich enough to buy one. Find your local "knight" or "baron" who is willing to take the case on your behalf. Elected official, don't bother. Their professional bureaucratic assistant, definitely. THEY will be able to deal with the bureaucracy. Admittedly finding that knight can be a challenge, and convincing them that you have worthwhile cause can be difficult, but it can be done.
France, one of the VERY few countries where "consumer protection" has any meaning whatsoever. The only country to ever force a company to refund an unused, unwanted, bundled copy of "Microsoft", for instance.
French bureaucracy might be a deserved subject of many jokes, but one cannot fault their continued attempts to force corporations to pay attention to the concept of "don't screw the consumer".
Not if you're fishing for clues.
MotionCompensation writes "What's next? Wipe Windows 7 machines?"
They don't need any such fucking stupid ideas from you, sunshine. I'm quite sure they have entire departments coming up with the things for themselves.
I had enough trouble getting some older software to work on Windows 7. They'll have to pry this version of their operating system out of me with their cold, dead, decaying hands. Unless I find alternatives that run on non-Microsoft, non-Apple products, in which case I'll be gone faster than you can say "Brexit".
Dear A.C. and the downvoters (there's a band name in there...): Before you suggest that repeated errors aren't criminal, I suggest that some day you make "mistakes" reporting your taxes. For 15 years. Then see how law enforcement deals with you.
I'm starting to wonder if this really was the "mistake" they claim it was.
They got away with the crime for 15 years, probably made many millions out of it, and now only have to pay a piddling fine that amounts to only a few hours of income, with no other negative repercussions.
Could someone explain to me again why the people who run corporations would voluntarily follow laws that reduce profit if this is the only kind of "punishment" they're likely to get? Or am I right in claiming that the laws of this planet are only applicable to those who don't have the money to buy those who make them?
The one thing missing from the "electronic voting is better" camp is to analyse what they mean by "better". It will always be easier to cheat with an electronic system. Or rather, cheat in such a way that the cheating can't be detected. That, I believe, is one of the reasons that many parties would prefer to have electronic voting be more available.
I'm a technophile, but sometimes low-tech is more honest. If not "better".
"FBI won't jail future US president ..."
Shirley, you must mean "candidate for future US president"?
As for the rest, did anyone expect anything different? Powerful people get away with murder in the US, an email server is peanuts.
To the folks who voted down (both of you) Sadly, folks without some level of more advanced technical skills CANNOT "just say NO". That's the main problem here.
Could you perhaps expand on why you thought the post was shit? I'm curious as to what might pass for logic in such a decision.
Sadly, folks without some level of more advanced technical skills CANNOT "just say NO". That's the main problem here.
No, 'X' means "fucking cancel it". It does not mean "postpone", it does not mean "nag me again".
What they need is a "fuck off and die" button. Not that they'll ever provide the obvious. Their "anything goes" attitude to forcing people to "upgrade" to Windows 10 has gone from silly, to stupid, to annoying, to downright evil.
One problem with your post - the video is most certainly available in Canada. Even the article you point to says that Google admitted to making a mistake.
Not that it detracts from the fact that here in Canada, cable companies really have WAY too much power, and too little product.
So while Matt Bryant seems to be somewhat correct and the ruling does seem to be a little more restricted than the click-bait headline El Reg foisted on us, I have to wonder if all it takes is for the FBI to say "hey, it might be child porn" for them to get a free pass on surveillance.
The actual bits of the ruling that I found relevant where:
(pg 52) "FBI agents who exploit a vulnerability in an online network do not violate the Fourth Amendment".
(pg 54) "while the Court FINDS that the Government did not need a warrant before deploying NIT, the Court recognizes the need to balance an individual's privacy in any case involving electronic surveillance with the Government's duty of protecting its citizens. Here, the balance weighs heavily in favor of surveillance."
So there is lip service paid to privacy, and the "here" seems to refer to "this case". Mind you, precedent being what it is, it probably opens up a very large hole in the whole "privacy rights" thing.
ps: US Fourth Amendment, for those of us who don't know: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,". I don't know why it wasn't included in the original.
A: the actual quote is: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
B: the CONTEXT is important, because it's about a tax dispute, and the term "purchase" in there is key. "Essential Liberty" means the ability of a government to tax within its jurisdiction. "purchase a little temporary safety" was about the Penn family, absentee owners of the Pennsylvania colony, instructing their governor to veto any ability for the local government to tax their property to pay for military spending.
So it's a letter by a government legislator to the governor appointed by a bunch of absentee landlords who keep trying to escape paying taxes, telling them that if they don't want to be taxed to pay for war meant to protect their security, that they shouldn't expect to be defended by that government. Oh, and that they can't just purchase their way out with their offered single lump sum payment, which is what they'd offered.
As noted by Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor of Lawfare:
"It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means."
A more extensive, in-depth analysis can be found here:
Might be an idea to see who used it first to mean the almost opposite of what it was meant to be, use them as the "new" author? You know, the one who took a quote at of context and turned it into another famous quote that meant the opposite of what it was originally meant to do by the original author?
Except the aren't "illegal immigrants". They're "refugees" (technically: asylum seekers). They therefore fall under the United Nations 1951 Convention & 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, where refoulement is specifically forbidden. Admittedly you wouldn't be the first to ignore that clause, but just thought I should point out that your attitude is contrary to the very laws you claim to be using to support your xenophobia.
Meanwhile, the overriding issue seems to be a growing sense of xenophobia, ignorance, and fear in the UK which has been used by certain self-serving politicians to drive this particular issue. Good luck with that.
P.S. - Anyone chosen a name yet? "England and Wales" isn't very imaginative.
I don't know, "EW" has a certain ring to it.
I have no idea if your statement is true or not, but why would it be a surprise if it was?
There was a warning prior to Brexit that the Calais border agreement would be jeopardized should the UK vote to leave. The arrangement, where the French allow British police to operate on French soil, is based on the UK being part of the EU. Since the UK will be leaving, it makes sense that all those refugee claimants be moved to the UK side. Not France's problem any more, why would they let a quitter operate on their territory?
Unless there are treaties in place, countries are generally not responsible for people leaving their country, only for controlling who gets in. Let the UK deal with its own refugee claimants on its own soil, since that seems to have been one of the reasons they voted to leave the EU in the first place.
That would be "scone" which rhymes with "gone"
Gone, because while you were whingeing I ate them all.
To me it's an amazing achievement of education over rationality. Far as I'm concerned, if "James" doesn't at LEAST get awarded a Masters (even honorary) over this, I'll be annoyed with the universities. Not sure if it's worthy of a doctorate, although perhaps he deserves one in education. That said, many people have received doctorates for a lot less. Even in computer science.
Assuming the poor fucker doesn't already have one, which is why he's doing this in the first place.
Greece was the result of a right wing government being induced by Goldman Sachs to hide billions in debt using means that would be fraudulent if anyone else had used them. Without the scam created by Goldman Sachs, Greece would never have met the fiscal conditions set for joining the EU without cheating by that government and Goldman Sachs.
It had nothing to do with EU fiscal policy, and everything to do with yet another multinational being too big to shoot and bury.
Personally, I have no idea if the UK would be better of "in" or "out" of the EU. Based on info I've got right now I could argue both sides. Poorly, perhaps, but I could argue both sides. UK in has serious drawbacks and many benefits. UK out has many problems but also many benefits. I could probably argue them at the same time. Hey, loony is as loony does.
However, to me one thing is clear. If the UK votes to leave, they should leave COMPLETELY. No keeping the profitable bits and ditching the bits where you have to pay the piper. No keeping the bits and pieces that make life easier, but refusing to accept the bits that make life less easy. "Out" should mean just that, OUT. All the way out. Completely out. All previous treaties revoked. Want to go your own way, fucking do so. Stop whinging about it, just get out. That's really the only way to break a relationship - cleanly. Finally. Completely.
Probably never happen that way though. The politicians and oligarchs are going to want to keep all the bits where the UK benefits while getting rid of any responsibilities that aren't profitable.
Oh, and the UK is having trouble now not because of the EU, but because it's had crap government for a while that has cut back on everything that's necessary for a civil and comfortable society while keeping all the bits that are profitable for the oligarchs but hell on earth for anyone else. IMHO. HAND.
For those who believe in a sky fairy, my only guess is that a voice was heard booming across the planet:
DAMNIT! SORRY GAIA, I MISSED! I'm off to Andromeda for a few galactic cycles, you're on your own.
sociopaths will just do it, and think everyone else is a fool for not.
Yeah, we often call those people "CEO", sometimes even "Prime Minister", often just "rich". Our society is designed to reward people like this. I wonder if this is an evolution thing, or if we're just on a one-way trip to oblivion.
The USA is not the world, and the world is not the USA. So get your head out of your ignorant arse. As for the rest of your argument, it's as ignorant as your initial diatribe about "Constitutionally-guaranteed right" in a British publication about a British company providing services in a Britain.
Now fuck off. Regards, a raving angry loony, who seems to be more sane than you'll ever hope to be.
"The Government's job"?? Oh please, the government won't touch the wealthier corporations, even in the most egregious cases. The politicians who run the government are too afraid to not get those nice, fat donations to their coffers.
Google, Twitter, and Facebook (amongst others) *claim* that they actively and religiously weed out accounts owned by those with terrorist leanings. As they are censors, they can therefore be held responsible for what they've missed or left behind, since they aren't "common carriers" that don't censor the information being transmitted. In fact, looking at, analysing, and profiting from the data being transmitted is their whole business model.
They also profit from the viewing of posts and videos by these groups, amongst others. And they share those profits with the groups in question, at least until they censor them. Even when called on it, they resist removing certain things because hey, they're profitable. i.e. the YouTube video of the girl being raped, which they actively resisted removing for a while.
These are corporations that also help various dictatorships with their censorship, all because it's profitable for them to do so. Companies that actively profit from videos by terrorists and others.
They aren't common carriers, they aren't protected organizations, and they'll do anything at all for profit. Why shouldn't they face the consequences of their actions in facilitating what these various violent organizations are doing? Or at least be forced to explain themselves in court.
As for censorship - all those who claim "censorship" please raise your hands. All those who cheered when Gawker was bankrupted please sit down. All those sitting with your hands raised - you're hypocrites, slap yourselves.
If the one and only way to control your expensive piece of trash REQUIRES Flash...
... it's time to take that expensive piece of track and wrap it around the head of the head the company making it. And perhaps the person who approved its purchase. With mechanical assistance of a crowbar and fireaxe, if necessary. There's exactly no excuse of any kind for requiring the use of Flash to administer expensive kit.
Killed it months ago. Haven't any problems except on two sites. One of those is the BBC. Wankers.
I liked his work. R.I.P.
Yes, if you get the penalty clause, someone has definitely lost.
But it shouldn't be the one depending on the service. It should be one providing the service. They are, after all, supposedly the experts, which is why they got hired. If you lose a business because the data was lost (and yes, this does happen. All too often), the penalty should include the full cost of rebuilding that business. If a company isn't willing to agree to such penalty clauses, perhaps it's because they know they're fuckups in the making, aren't confident of their services, and thus shouldn't get the contract in the first place.
Yet we never see such penalty clauses, and we keep seeing large corporations and governments get fucked over again and again while the execs and their companies doing the deed never get penalized in a meaningful way.