Re: First time ever? I think not.
You forgot to point out that "out in the depths of the cosmos" is not an accurate description of an object that is well within our solar system.
6077 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
If I remember correctly, YouTube asks you to sign-in if you're about to see a video clip that is intended for a 'mature' audience. They can determine this by the clip being reported and then moderated by them, or by the author of the clip doing a self-classification. So surely it was up to Universal Pictures to correctly classify their advert?
1) "... banks concerns over privacy ..."
2) "... a beachhead for an invasion of the banking industry ..."
Point 1 is not the customer's privacy that the banks are concerned with. It's the details of the ways in which customers tend to interact with the banks. The banks regard this as their private information. It's point 2 that the banks are worried about.
Isn't this similar to the way in which Google automatically scans your Google Mail messages and shows you adverts (if you don't have AdBlock) triggered by keywords in your email? Their argument was that it is all done by computer and no record is kept that associates your email account with the keywords, which sounds reasonable if it's really true (and not 'corporately true').
As the 'local expert', once you've touched a computer, you are then responsible for all its actions or lack of actions from that point on.
Good advice from an ex-neighbour of mine: Never let anyone on the local Neighbourhood Watch or Church Committee, etc. know that you have a computer and a colour laser printer.
I think they do that to enable checks on discrimination to be carried out, by themselves and other organisations. I thought that a similar thing was done for ethniciity so that checks could be run to ensure that the tenants represented a realistic mix of the local population, with no discrimination against particular groups of people.
Having said that, how do they know that the tenants answered the sexuality question truthfully?
Edit: Perhaps they could test them ..........
The use of 'refute' to _apparently_ mean 'deny' is (it seems to me) a recent change in language that has been popularised by politicians, who have been loudly 'refuting' accusations for many years. They do this so that if the accusations are proved to be true then they can always say, truthfully, that they never denied it. People have been too lazy to look the word up to establish its meaning and so this incorrect use propogates. Politicians may not be smart, but they're smarter than the average person and they're full of feral cunning.
(A similar thing happened with the word 'obviate', where people said things like, " this new gadget obviates the need to .....". If you know what the word 'obviate' means, then you'll realise what is wrong with that.)
"... a legislative guarantee that this data will not be sold on to third parties ... "
The entire point was to make the data available to third parties, at a price. Drug companies and insurance companies were salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on the data. After that, it would have passed on to suppliers of incontinence pads, etc.
Right now, I have 35 processes running on my laptop (or so mate-system-monitor tells me). They all have a particular memory size and have other named characteristics. Could this list be regarded as 'normal' (assuming it is normal and my laptop is not infected in any way) and then any future changes be flagged as "alert - strange new process"?
I realise that as a home user I'm likely to install all sorts of stuff to try it out but for a stable commercial or industrial system then the 'normal' process profile should be stable and their characteristics known.
That's what I use on my old router, but I realise that many people wouldn't have a clue where to start. I also realise that a serious and well equiped hacker would be able to sniff my WiFi devices MAC addresses; but there are further layers of protection as well as a 'strong' password.
When I came back to England from Tunis airport, after a package holiday in Tunisia, back in 2000, lots of people were just standing around looking at noticeboards and waiting for flights. A security man was wondering around carrying what could best be described as a cross between a wand and a mace, about a foot long with a bulbous translucent plastic head. Every now and then he'd wave it around someone and every now and then it would flash coloured lights in the head and make a noise best described as 'beeeee-weeeeee-oooooo-beep'. Then he'd move on, apparently doing nothing about the lights and the sound.
He approached me and I decided the best course of action would be to ignore him. He waved the 'wand' over me as he passed me to my right, then the wand made it's noise. I made no reaction and he moved on. I can only assume that it was some kind of psychological test whereby a person who was feeling guilty about carrying a bomb or drugs would jump out of their skin and make a run for it - or so their security theory would go. The entire thing was surreal and very silly. Has anybody else encountered this type of thing anywhere?
If I am sent data in error and that data is encrypted, how can I see it if I don't have decryption processes and the decryption key? That would be the point of encrypting data for security in the event of sending it to the wrong person outside an organisation.
Within an organisation, there would be less risk in case of accidental sending to the wrong person, but you could compartmentalise by division/department etc. as far as was thought to be needed.