Relying on tutorials on the web is dangerous, as these often go out of date very quickly and often don't state the software version they refer to.
I'd wager paid for courses have just as much trouble keeping up to date.
2399 posts • joined 11 Jun 2009
Relying on tutorials on the web is dangerous, as these often go out of date very quickly and often don't state the software version they refer to.
I'd wager paid for courses have just as much trouble keeping up to date.
Maybe they only record an hour of footage because they:
1. Got sold a model that records in 4K
2. Got sold a model that has storage nearer 4K(B)
I get between 25-30 miles from the car on a full charge. All my short journeys are leccy only.
I last time I put unleaded in the tank was almost a month ago.
I own a large 4WD, mainly for the 7 seats but it also goes off-road where a normal car couldn't. It gets used 7 days a week. The last time I filled the tank was a month ago, what's your point?
Next to Hockey, Homer Simpson is a God damn genius.
What happened to the dolphin after it was captured?
Yes, but I'd wager that quite a lot of the men withholding legally mandated financial support are "thick fuckers" unlikely to be able to perform the alleged admin level entry into the site. In general, though not in all cases, if you have a judgement of some kind it's normally because you are owed something.
Nope, I'd be looking more towards the "just above script-kiddy" section of the hacking fraternity that may be pissed off by some mumsnet campaign or statement related to taking away their toys or restricting access to something or other. You know the sort of thing - net censorship, filters etc. That stuff tends to piss off people that just might have the skill-set. It doesn't even need to be anyone from the opposite sex if it were censorship related.
It's a splinter movement. Cue the "Are you the Judean people's front?"
Facebook is to user privacy what Adobe Flash is to secure computing. I'm glad I personally have and use neither.
My opinion of gun control in the US is that they've never gotten away from the image of the gun toting cowboy a la John Wayne or The Man With No Name. What sensible reason is there for an ordinary member of the public to open carry save to effectively implicitly threaten everyone around them? The loons photographed walking around supermarkets with side-arms being a case in point. Nutters.
Most likely the attitude of your IT staff.
@Ragarath: Dude, you sound like one of the "no" do-nothing brigade where I work. You are the problem personified. The sooner IT departments learn that their role is not to control the business but to enable it the better.
I'm surprised they didn't respond with "well then you'll have to immediately stop using our products if the fees are not paid". They seem like the sort to do so.
Mary Ann Muppet really should know better given that she's been dabbling in security biz at Oracle for 22+ years.
Yes, but is she a security person or just some admin mouthpiece that was put into a role nobody wanted to do a long time ago and has been promoted for her rampant sycophancy ever since? Every company has one.
And that choice may well suit you. However, some of those others may have made that decision because they need to use a certain software package that only runs on Windows - I've heard there's a few.
I don't know, the cynic in me says that list of remote execution bugs sounds like a carefully crafted set of NSA bugs inserted by someone on the inside. However, the realist in me says "shit coding".
The problem is also that there are plenty of educational sites for kids that are paid and mandated by the education system that use flash. You know, the ones where they are set tasks as homework that require completion. I wish they didn't use the shit but it means I have to have at least one machine with flash on it and, no, it's not a VM as the kids don't get to use the main computer.
"Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr"
Is it just me or does that name sound like it belongs to a criminal?
The only business case I can think of for this sort of thing is for really small businesses where there is neither the will nor the ability to perform the function in-house. For such small scale players the alternative to google mail (business mail) or 365 is to have your own hosting service provision whereby you face the same possibility of downtime but without any frills on the service - think standard web hosting with email etc. An in-house email server without a guaranteed internet link is also a waste of time for these people.
For these small players such services are likely the best option. For larger, especially medium sized companies, I think you should have grown up and be able to manage your own IT real estate.
But let's just look at that for a minute:
But no Office 365? No Google Apps? No DropBox? No AWS for a cheap server for a pilot project?
Office 365: locked in, financially trousers down ad-infinitum, no control over data security or location, no control over downtime recovery (you're likely too small to matter). Palm off and live with the consequences.
Google Apps: See above.
Dropbox: How open and unsecure would you like your data sir? Ok for personal stuff if you're aware of what you're getting but every place I've recently worked has it blocked for good reason. If your corporate data is unimportant enough to be placed on Dropbox (security, regulations etc) then I'd argue it just isn't important enough to bother putting there anyhow.
AWS for a pilot project: Hmmm. I'm guessing if you're one of the "no" brigade then you aren't in a surgey retail sector - think stores that use AWS for the Christmas shopping ramp up. You could use it for marketing but then there's likely a company that would do that for you - a specialist in running such things. That leaves true in-house development projects as the likely target. I'd question any business that performs such tasks themselves and that doesn't have any spare capacity - sounds badly run to me.
I'd go further and say that if you don't want the responsibility then you're fired - you can't just get paid to sit on your arse and oversee the vendors, we can get a furbee to do that.
The big boys are only promoting the cloud to secure the revenue stream. They don't want you hanging about 3 versions back on the OS or the Office productivity suite. They want subscription apps - pay per month forever. Yes you get the "latest and greatest" but you likely lose control over when upgrades and updates occur, and hence system stability, and you also lose pricing power as you can hardly just tell them to fuck off when they jack the prices. "We're moving to Linux/whatever" isn't much of a threat when you just stuck all your data in their hands.
MS is one example, Adobe is another. They're doing it for their benefit, not yours.
Personally I do not see any reason why ownership of a trademark per se should entitle you to every domain with permutations of that trademark unless the current owner is passing themselves off as the trademark holder. That, to me, is what should enact a forced handover.
If someone is an avid fan of author X with a particular fondness for book Y such that they decide to setup a fan-site based upon name Y, and in no way tries to pretend there is anything official about it, then I do not see why said person should have to forfeit that domain should Y be made into a blockbuster with the trademark owned by bigcorp Z. Yet this is what such judgements would promote. Why should someone be punished for being first to market or, in this case, owning some domains you forfeited?
Here's an idea: if you're bigcorp Z and obtain trademark for Y then best you sort out domains upfront rather than try to strong-arm them later you cheap lazy bastards. To me that is part of your due diligence. Anything you allow to lapse is then fair game.
You're probably next on the list.
Test Stelios' resolve by setting up easymilf.co.uk
It would be quite interesting to see the precise structuring of the company. I'd imagine that previously they could dip into the overseas post-"tax" funds of Google to fund different projects. If Google is now owned by Alphabet, like some of these other cash drains/projects, how does alphabet get money to invest? It'd be easy to say "from the multi-billionaires" but typically such people like to accumulate rather than risk extracted income/wealth and how liquid is their wealth vs how much is effectively sat in a tax haven?
Be interesting to see what speed gets achieved over a Telstra connection to Netflix both with and without a VPN connection to PIA etc. Is it just a shit network or are there active shenanigans? I know for me using a VPN speeds up my mobile speeds on Telstra so who knows what crap they're trying to pull there.
Or just read anything accepted by the bulk of scientists and experts who study climate.
At one time the bulk of scientists and, for that matter, the World's population actually believed the Earth to be flat. So what?
The reason I am sceptical is because we are told it is all mankind's fault and yet nuclear power is not embraced but instead utterly pointless needs-to-be-backed-by-gas-turbine windmills are touted and get just as large a state subsidy. Ugly bastard things that, shock horror, don't live up to expectations in generating power. Solar is also a joke for most of the planet where power is needed.
Sustainable is not covering the planet in windmills. It is also not trying to force people back into the stone age by penalising the poor with your shitty green energy subsidies. Cheap energy is the prime source of growth, without it your economy is fucked.
If you want to get most people on board I'm afraid you are going to have to come up with some concrete proposals that don't fuck the poor, the economy, and the environment instead of all the subsidy grabbing "thou shalt not" evangelical bullshit.
You claim he capitulated multiple times. Have you ever considered that, as principal opponent for the PM-ship, perhaps, just perhaps, Tony Abbott doesn't give a flying fuck what Malcolm thinks or wants? It's a captain's call after all.
It may continue to happen.
It does not have to happen.
Experience shows mass surveillance results in a poor signal to noise ratio and the real targets, even if identified, are soon forgotten in the chase for more information.
Yes, but show me the leader and party with so few skeletons in the closet that they are prepared to meet GCHQ and/or the police head on and shut this all down.
Whatever was or wasn't going on around Westminster and very senior Westminster people, the 'Intelligence' services were fully aware of it, as also in due course were the Parliamentary Whips.
Errrr, yep. It's called blackmail. If you work in the senior ranks of the police or the intelligence services then you always want to have some dry powder for the case when parliament is thinking of enacting something against your interests or wishes. At such point it may be intimated that you know things. Politics is a very dirty business indeed and I have no doubt that some absolutely disgraceful things have happened and been covered up, whether that be kiddy fiddling by grubby politicians, victims being ignored or silenced by the police or silent dirt-banking by the intelligence services. The good news is the internet. The internet sets all information free - it's why they're doing their level best to neuter it with various "because terrorists" laws.
If minimum wage was set at a proper level then those who work wouldn't be dependent on state handouts and those who didn't would have a good incentive to seek out work.
If you are, as I suspect, implying that the minimum wage should be higher then I thoroughly disagree. Higher minimum wage levels are a massive discouragement to employment and financial activity. Take the example of Australia as a case in point. The minimum wage is currently a minimum of (I think) $17.50 per hour. A teenager waiting tables on a Sunday can quite easily earn the same hourly rate as a qualified tradesman when penalty rates are taken into account. How do you think that works out for the industry as a whole? Higher prices are required in general to cover these higher wages. These higher prices then discourage more casual dining out activity. In so many places these days you see entire levels of staffing by effectively children. I've seen places where everyone from the table staff to the chef were minimum wagers because the cost of those wages is so high. This just results in poor outcomes for both employees (older more experienced staff are not employed) and customers (quality is absent). Before you state the obvious "you have a choice, go elsewhere" I am telling you this is absolutely endemic in the industry. Retailers and hospitality are both staffed by kids. The minimum wage is not helping people at the bottom as it is displacing the older workers and increasing it is just inflating the cost of all basic goods and services. It is a cancer in its current form and level.
NB The younger you are the lower the minimum is, hence the issues.
The UK's transport and taxation system is bass-ackwards in a huge number of ways and working tax credits are one of the more stupid examples - it's far more efficient to let people keep more of the money they earn than to make them pay tax, handle it internally and then pay it back out again.
The purpose of that particular system is to facilitate the "ticket clip". In order to perform it the money must flow through the system "creating employment" and feeding Government suppliers.
@DaveDaveDave: Dude, keep taking the tablets. Nutter.
Absolutely agree. I read this
Or I could be suggesting that everyone should get to enjoy that higher value from that same cost to the employer of being able to decide exactly how to allocate that total income.
and the first thing I thought is that there's fuck all chance of any employee enjoying the higher value. The employer will simply reap the benefits of any mandated provision's removal. The balance of power does not lay with the employee which is why unions exist and why we have mandated entitlements - because the market simply cannot be trusted to provide them. It seems Tim is living in some sort of utopia whereby employees with rights reduced to that of someone in a Dickensian workhouse would be paid far more to compensate. Utter bollocks.
Now, there is certainly an argument to be made that Governments can often overstep the mark with the levels of entitlement mandated in crass vote-buying exercises whereby they lose sight of the aim of the mandate and the cost to society and the employers as a whole. That I will wholeheartedly agree with. There is always a sweet spot between legally mandated entitlements and the level of subsequent employment. It is much like minimum wage which I abhor simply because it doesn't create much benefit when the subsequent job losses are taken into account - it simply gets set too high. I believe the money would be better spent on free health and education so that people have little excuse for not bettering themselves. You should get higher pay for being of more use (in theory) not because someone said you must.
But if you're correct and online ads put off more people than they encourage to buy a product, they will eventually stop.
Couple of points:
1. There will always be people that cannot fathom AdBlock et al and will thus be forced to view ads. Most advertisers will work on the basis that a percentage of viewers will follow ads. Trouble is there is a lot of subterfuge going on with the online ads market - ads that inflate to cover your phone screen as you were about to follow a link thus generating a false statistic.
2. Google has a nice little trick whereby, when searching, a shitload of paid results come up first in the list. If the company or service you were after appears in that section then why scroll down to the real results for the link? Google would proclaim the advertising worked whereas I would state that in the absence of the paid results I'd still have gone with the same provider as they were high in the actual search results. With their tailored search results nearly every time I search these days (unless anonymising) the service/store I'm after is in both the paid and the real results. Google is just there to optimise the payoff from search and advertising however this can be achieved. PHBs will always play ball for fear of missing out.
Personally I don't care about typical page-filler ads as I block them all.
Why do businesses spend money on advertising? It's not because they like to reduce their profits by throwing money away, it's because advertising, like it or not, has been demonstrated to increase sales volumes and hence revenues.
In the online world, not so much. Most adverts irritate the shit out of the end user. That's not conducive to business activity.
With http all over the site save for only the sending of username and password not the actual receiving of the form etc I doubt they'd need to ask for anything. It would seem about as open as could possibly be.
The convenience is the much lower price. When local is still 20+% dearer after GST added there's still a whole load more convenience headroom in that purchase. Books alone are normally double the price here compared to Book Depository. 10% on an $11 book vs $27 locally as one recent example.
Someone in AusPost would likely create a facility where you could pay the GST online with a couple of % ticket-clip. No queueing. Money still saved.
The writing is on the wall for local retailers.
Now restating the value might, but without reasonable evidence the ATO might decide that you paid Australian RRP.
Can't see that one standing up in court. "Your honour, the defendant bought item X from overseas at the full Australian RRP and paid for international delivery". WTF?
Also don't forget the ATO can access your credit card and paypal transactions.
Dude, seriously? Just about everywhere has prepaid credit cards these days. I just love all the bullshit trotted out about "department X can access all your transactions/records on Y etc". It's all horseshit. They can do that sort of thing for targetted individuals for major crimes - think "organised" - but they have neither the equipment nor the manpower to piss around finding online purchases on credit cards that were to an overseas company (hint: I've had Australian based companies charge via an overseas entity as I had to unlock my CC to make payment) that may or may not even have come into the country (overseas relatives?). Please stop believing the bullshit you've been spoonfed.
Considering that GST (and other applicable charges) are levied on goods that travellers bring in from overseas I would doubt that the ATO woudl agree.
But there's a point - it'd be interesting if you get a $900 allowance at customs but a $0 allowance via online purchasing. They'd have to then drop the customs allowance to $0. The whole system then disappears up its own arse as it becomes totally unworkable.
Last figures I saw stated that it would cost 5 times as much to administer as it would raise. There must really be hope beyond reality that their will be a commensurate pick up from local retailers to break even. Admittedly that was for an "at the border" administered scheme - i.e. the only one that would work. Asking Amazon et al to collect your taxes is pie in the sky. They have zero incentive and Hockey has zero ability to pressure them. They know that if they did then everyone just moves on to the next retailer that doesn't.
2 year sentence to think of a better workflow seems a fair enough punishment. As pointed out, 12-15 is longer than for rape or murder - are you f*cking nuts?
There's several problems with the dark web and the dealing of dodgey merchandise:
1. Physical delivery leaves traces all over the place.
2. BitCoin can be reasonably anonymous but your customers aren't necessarily the brightest people out there.
3. The numb-nut customer caught out with one parcel is the weak link for a dealer who has made 444 transactions.
4. and more besides
As an example for (1) - inadvertent police discovery of a parcel or a client with a delivery will likely yield a postmark. For sparsely populated areas of the country this can likely be narrowed down quite quickly to a post office. Given a username and a sales platform - the collared client will be singing for their freedom - it most likely didn't take long to narrow down a search area and patterns of behaviour (POs used on certain days/times of day etc).
Dealing on the dark web for goods that don't require physical delivery such as CC numbers I would guess is a lot harder to nail down.
@patrick_bateman: You sir are an arseclown. If all of those contractors know less than you, are completely inattentive to their work and yet earn more than you then you must be a complete simpleton for not joining them. According to you, you have the skills, work ethic, and would like to be on their pay.
In short, quit fucking whining and do something about it.
However, why should sole contractors be able to undercut us because - whether or not they account/budget/provide for all those other things - ALSO get the ability to pay less tax?
Today's one man show is tomorrow's small company is later's medium company etc etc. Everyone has to start somewhere and thus it would be quite difficult to arbitrarily single out a ltd company because it has only one full-time employee. Although a sizable chunk will always be one man shows not all will. Why should they get punished just to appease you?
Large companies get to avoid all sorts so the burden has to fall somewhere. Sadly politicians seem to feel small and medium businesses fit the bill.
My problem is with the statement that...
This does also mean that one can make a transfer into an alt-coin exchange within the country. That can then, in turn, be moved to another alt-coin exchange anywhere in the world: a pretty handy way of getting your money out of Greece.
So, you want to move your money from your bank account to that of an alt-coin exchange in the country (as only intra-country transfers are still permitted) in order to purchase digi coins and move the money overseas. This is because, presumably, you don't want to be the one without a chair when the music stops.
However, does the exchange not also have the same issue? They now have an account full of immovable currency in place of bitcoins. Sure, they may have seriously haircut you on the purchase but then they now have a much bigger issue when the music stops. Currency controls affect everyone so how are they magically mitigating this? Buying gold, diamonds?
I think the word "wanker" would better apply to someone who was so self-centric that they believe that something they don't have a need for must be for wankers.
Nah, they're definitely for wankers.
Yep, I'd expect it to be locked down, segregated, running signed code only etc but alas not everyone sees it that way, going for simplicity above all else.
Why bother collecting an email address? Just use a temporary one. Every single online transaction I make uses a temporary email address for that particular vendor and none whatsoever are linked to my normal email account. What's the point anyhow, is somebody out there going to be using a email@example.com address?
I cannot say whether it will improve your Netflix but I can tell you my mobile browsing/streaming/download speeds rocket when I use a VPN to avoid carrier interference. There was a recent story highlighting how Optus and Telstra perform packet injection on mobile traffic so that makes sense. Wouldn't surprise me if they were performing similar scams on wired traffic - they inject packets carrying your personal details to "select partner sites". Search for "http header enrichment" if you're interested.