Re: @AC 1336h GMT - It's all good @ andreas
2546 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
You talk about insane when defending the country that has significant numbers of people that believe that the Earth is 6000 years old (or whatever), and that an old bearded guy in a bath-towel created it?
You might want to work on that argument.
In an educated country, the "LOL" shouldn't be needed - no-one would even think to take it seriously.
You can draw your own conclusions what I'm suggesting about you, AC.
Is it ironic comment by the script-writers that has Sheldon Cooper as being from Texas??
("Big Bang Theory" reference, for those who don't know)
Lest those in the UK feel smug, remember that two ten-year-olds were tried as adults in the British courts (Robert Thompson and Jon Venables). Our Texan cousins aren't even close to that - frankly appalling - decision.
Good riddance. Could you work on leaving the planet, too? You wouldn't be missed.
No, the British Nationalist Party (BNP) are a far-right organisation. Far-left is associated with communism, which the BNP most definitely don't support.
You sound like one of those elfin safety idiots that want to make life difficult just to gain a minor gain in safety. Mobile phones are supposed to be ... well, mobile. By the time all those "improvements" you mention were incorporated, we'd be back to the brick-phones of the early 1990s.
I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic, but I downvoted you just in case you *are* a genuine safety elf, because if human history had been plagued with safety elves, we wouldn't have had fire or the wheel ...
My first thoughts as well - is it the original battery, and, if not, is it a genuine Samsung replacement?, followed by does she use the original charging mechanism, and has she "personalised" the case? These are relevant and important questions, even though any tech has a finite failure rate, and a completely genuine, properly cared-for battery has a chance of catastrophic failure.
For these purposes, EU and EEA are interchangeable. No need to be picky.
It is terrifying that the economy is in the hands of such panicky, unrealistic, people as analysts and investors.
No, hamster isn't right, either - have you ever been bitten by a hamster? They hurt and draw blood very effectively. I'm not sure what member of the animal kingdom would be a suitable descriptor for the ICO - watch-earthworm? Watch-woodlouse? Maybe we have to go to other branches of evolution. Watch-fungus, maybe?
I have never understood why "loyalty" is such a dirty word to big companies (unless they are talking about loyalty given to them). Loyalty is one of those things that tends to magnify effort, but it seems to be something that, as soon as idiot bean-counters reach a certain critical mass, goes straight out of the window.
Thanks, dogged, for the reply. It is interesting to follow the comments about Win8. I have no personal axe to grind (or hammer to ... whatever one does with hammers): Win8 won't be going on any machine of mine in the near (or far) future - I think it is a step in the wrong direction to make a "one size fits all" OS that needs fiddling (even if it is one extra click, which really it isn't) to make it work in the way I want. The default should be old>new, not the other way around.
Clearly, there are a lot of people that don't think this is trivial, though.
It's true - learning depends as much* on failure as it does on success. The importance is how one deals with failure, and the bunch of risk-averse shitwits that form the major investors in big companies always want to denigrate failure. I doubt that I would like Sinofsky, but I did appreciate the fact he was attempting something different that might have worked (especially if he had listened to some reasonable criticism).
* If not more
I can see that you have strong feelings about this, but why? Your ire is somewhat out of proportion to the perceived advantages of the new interface(s). Why the one-man crusade for something that you perceive as marginally better?
Seriously, there are many tools that are chosen on aesthetics - have you never chosen a car because some functional part of it looks better in some way (nicer dashboard or better seat covering - the job still done the same, but looks or feels better) for the same price? If you claim not, then you probably aren't being truthful with yourself or us.
Doesn't the effectiveness of this require the (extremely odd, in my opinion) addition of the sender's address on the envelope, as in many mainland-European countries? It isn't common in the UK to do it, and so the information to be gleaned is limited.
Having a shed doesn't mean actually having an actual construction down the garden/allotment. As long as a man has a room he can call his own, it is an honorary shed. Not as good as a real one, but it allays suspicion sufficiently.
No - make the companies angry, and they will go after the source for you - much more effectively.
It is interesting to watch these things. There are so many corporations that seem to be wings of the US security agencies that a whole new view of things is opening up.
Snowden tells about snooping > more people think about secure comms > credit card agencies make it difficult to use them. Coincidence? Probably not.
Given your usual comments on hackers, i.e. all scum, should be found and imprisoned etc, you seem to be dangerously close to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy!
To what does your comment refer? It sound interesting.
jacasta: five posts at the time of writing, account started on 16th June. When was Eadon nuked by the mods?
I'm sorry, Anomalous - I don't believe your story ...
... there are no *Old* Apple employees.
Because the President doesn't have the power people think he does. The power lies three steps back and two across, almost invisible. These people don't want real democracy, they are (perhaps understandably) afraid of what will be done with it (let's face it, democracy in the Middle East hasn't made things much better for many people). The whole ruling class are afraid for their lives and livelihoods, and cannot see that relaxing the amount of oppression now will settle things down. Unfortunately, countries like the UK and USA are on the brink of serious, sustained civil disobedience, and no-one is sufficiently versed in the art of giving something to avoid the worst, which is how the UK* has managed to avoid real revolution** since the time of the Roundheads.
* OK, the UK wasn't created yet, but you get my point.
** I'm not counting the "Glorious Revolution" because it was effectively twelve men and a dog.
"When your children are being murdered in the street ..." And so we see that the terrorists have won. Fear of the incredibly unlikely guides your thinking. Do you also live underground in case you are hit by a meteor?
That was an article almost entirely lacking in information. I now know what "BIM" stands for, and someone in the government likes the idea. However, what it does, and how - not a clue.
Oh, the huge-manatee ...!
Do *you* spy on your friends? I doubt it, so why let countries off the hook?
They are, and I'm waiting for the brave Eurospook to stand up and be counted. I'm not holding my breath, though ...
@AC - I think you mean *both* of them (i.e. Snowden, the man with his head on the block, and your putative "Deep Throat" operative). Snowden did the hard work here - why do you want to throw him to the lions? Equally, even if "Deep Throat" does exist (something I'm not willing to stipulate at this point, because it sounds a bit fantastic), he doesn't need asylum because he hasn't been caught.
You need a bit of practice at logical thinking.
"Even though almost all of us have guns, we usually don't shoot each other with them. When we do our aim is usually poor and the target usually survives."
So why have them?
"While liberals hate guns, the liberals they elect hire armed security for protection. So the liberal leaders feel the right to protect themselves ..."
I'm trying to work out what your point is here. There is a small, but not to be ignored, number of people who think that "liberal"* stance on things means that they need to be shot. Pro-choice, anti-give-anyone-a-gun campaigners have been shot, along with anyone who was stood near them (see Gabrielle Giffords, and look up the less well-reported (at least internationally) shootings and bombings of abortion clinics and supporters). There are some people that *need* to have protection.** Hell, even in the UK, politicians tend to have security, especially at cabinet level, and there aren't that many guns, and most of them are out of the hands of crazies.
* "Liberal" in the American sense, which has a somewhat different meaning than in countries a bit less right-leaning.
** I'm still grappling with the concept that there is no way that the USA will ever be able to get rid of all those guns in private hands, and so there may be some truth that there are a lot more people that might need to protect themselves. Thus, a a vicious (literally and figuratively) circle is created.
What do you mean by "all this"?
Don't forget power supplies. No money to increase spare capacity which is going to be down to 2% in the next two years (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23081695), but they need to protect us form getting uppity when the power cuts start ...
George Osborne JATT*
*Just Another Tory Tosser
And your point is ...? Prior to that, I'd use a dictionary or encyclopaedia (if one was handy), or maybe ask someone, or just not bother with it. Now I'm more likely to get the information by typing it into the appropriate search box, becoming more educated in the process.
Advanced learning has nothing to do with remembering lots of things: it has everything to do with knowing where to find what you want to know, how to verify it, and how to use it.
The Elvington NIMBYs are typical "I moved to the area knowing about the airfield, and now I want it closed! wankers. The (common) law needs changing so that a person moving to a known source of potential nuisance (and due diligence would be expected) cannot successfully bring an action to get that source closed down, or otherwise interfere with its operation. Any action could only be successfully brought if there were plans to change the operation such that the nuisance might get significantly worse, or crate a new risk, in which case only the proposed operations would be under scrutiny, not the old ones.
Upvote for saying what I was going to say. This is designed for proper motorsport use, not namby-pamby super-drag racing.*
*Drag racing is only any good for the sound of top-fuellers making my organs resonate. Electric drag racing will have all the excitement of watching paint dry.
Thank you for that example of how a good teacher can make complex ideas understandable.
<--- Have a drink - you deserve it!
My mum's iPad was doing some very strange things (redirecting away from certain websites, refusing to update various things, chewing bandwidth etc). Eventually, I took her to the local Apple store where the assistant had a play with it for a while, and said "Well, I don't know what's wrong with it. Some programs seem to be corrupted, and others have had settings changed. I don't know what to do other than a factory reset." I pointed out that, if we were talking about Android or Windows, he'd be describing the likely results of a malware infection of some type, and (tongue strictly in cheek), wasn't there something like an antivirus or AdAware for Apple. I was rewarded with a look similar to what I would have received if I'd suggested that his father has carnal relations with camels whilst wearing unstylish clothes bearing the logo "I love Ballmer". "iOS does not have malware of any type!", he snapped, then proceeded to do a factory reset without asking whether there was anything that mum wanted to backup, losing quite a lot of photos she had saved, the spiteful twat.
TL:DR: I'm far from convinced by this notion that there isn't something that infects at least some of Apple's machinery, but no-one wants to admit it.
You mean Ian Brady, the man who has shown just how petty and spiteful the English justice system can be? If he asks to die, he is forced to live: he he wanted to live, people would want the death sentence like they did for Myra Hindley.
I actually feel sorry for Ian Brady - always have done.
You really are a shining example of humanity, aren't you? Your clear and insightful comment has made me realise that the battle to have a global minimum level of human rights is mistaken, and that there are classes of things that look like human beings, but aren't, and so can be treated inhumanly. Thank you for wiping the scales from my eyes!
<end of sarcasm>
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. At the moment, my financial transactions require numbers that I don't give out to many people (card numbers, bank account details). How is turning my mobile phone number, which many, many people have, in any way more secure (or secure at all). This seems to remove significant amounts of depth from the security in favour of traders making more money from my transactions. The number of tight businesses that charge more for card transactions is annoying already (and they only get my business a maximum of once, depending on what is being sold), and more will start to do it if this becomes available. However, the difference is I'll probably pay for the extra security offered by the card payments.
Your point may be true, but your childish tone and use of "Scam$ung" completely undermine it. The effectiveness of a message is *what* and *how* the thing is said (and sometimes who said it).
Have a downvote for frothing unnecessarily.
With a complicit government, willing to turn a blind eye to certain "irregularities" in documentation, Mr Snowden, ex-employee of Booz Allen, could now be Mr Bond of Universal Exports (or any other name you care to apply). He may not even be travelling by air - an unwarranted assumption if ever there was one.
The US administration is rapidly finding out how little pull it has with the other big players at the moment - Russia don't care, and China has the whip-hand in terms of damage that can be done to the US economy. There will be a lot of people with dangerously high blood-pressure as a result of realising how impotent they are - and I am enjoying the schadenfreude! The US* is realising that it has no moral high-ground from which to preach any more (everything has been done that it criticised Russia and China for doing), and now it has no bargaining chips. It is just another bully in the playground.
*and other countries, but this is about the USA
I think the proposal as it stands is a way to encourage data-storers to embrace encryption, but it is insufficient, and conflates (at least) two very different problems: loss of data and ability to read it. Both need reporting, as they refer to two aspects of a company's security that customers need to be aware of - I'm unlikely to go with a company that is losing data (even if encrypted) on a regular basis.
In addition, as others have said, there needs to be a minimum level of encryption specified, and yet we know that the minimum will become the standard. This means the black-hats will have incentive to break it within a very short time - and I'm not sanguine that they won't. Combined with unreported data-breaches (so I don't know to change passwords (or data-storer), this is not good for me as the consumer.
The idea is well-meant, I think, but it fails to address the issues properly.
Look up "actus reus" and "mens rea" - you might be surprised about what you think you know.* I believe the concepts apply in Sweden as well.
*The latest Sexual Offences Act in the UK is a pile of aggressive feminist-driven shit that overturns years of sensible deliberation in order to put men in the wrong. It is totally unbalanced and fails to recognise the practicalities of life in favour of "sex as a contractual relationship".
" Fortunately they are unlikely to be anything more than statistical outliers in the Gaussian distributions of political thought, paradoxically afforded the comfort of a stable society in which terrorism is largely speaking handled with care and adroitness, punctuated by mistakes following which bits of human flesh are left hanging from lamp posts, other street fixtures, from passing vehicles and splattered onto innocent passers by, to say nothing of the innocent victims themselves."
Terrorism is so rare that it doesn't figure in my consideration, to be honest. The deaths of a handful of people only trouble me these days because I know that some name-making twat is going to use it as the justification for impeding my liberties even more. Law-making for tiny, tiny minorities (people killed/injured by terrorists, children abused or killed) is the bane of modern life. By all means put in measures, but don't start treating everyone as a potential risk. The world doesn't work like that. I personally do not give a toss about dead or injured people who I do not know, and I will never wail "Why wasn't there a law to stop X?" if someone I know dies or is seriously injured as a result of a minor variation of blind chance (or if I am seriously injured in the same way). A missing child in Devon is not national news - a missing child in the next town isn't even headline news. Bombs on the underground/outside a Mosque are news only for the fact that people need to change their travel plans. Bombs in US cities are barely news at all, and yet we were all treated to fear-inducing coverage of highly dangerous pressure-cooker bombs that hardly did any damage at all. It is time to move away from the politics of fear.
There are limits on what a reasonable society should accept, and what a reasonable government should try to get away with. The line has been crossed, and it is time that the reasonable ones amongst us stand up and tell the "pragmatists" like you that enough is enough, and we want change. That means having a real national *defence* strategy that doesn't include marching into other people's countries. It means not spying randomly on everyone in a given population. It means being generally honest about the larger part of governmental activity. It means government not treating the people as a threat to its existence, and knowing when to change to avoid a threat to its existence, or reap the rewards of failing to listen.
Wow - that didn't start out as a manifesto, honestly!
Unless his losses would put him in the position that reduces his annual income to the same as being unemployed in the USA, he isn't gambling anything. Hell, if he said that he'd only take the amount of the average earner in the USA I'd be impressed (and even then, with savings etc. he still wouldn't hurt).
Until these fucknozzles are likely to have the same downside to their actions that a worker that stands to be made redundant as a result of those actions, then this is just posturing.