Re: Going to ignore this until it has a catchy name.
People paid attention to POODLE, and they are the prissiest of all dogs.
492 posts • joined 12 Jun 2009
People paid attention to POODLE, and they are the prissiest of all dogs.
As you know, the greens don't run Brighton. That's what 'no overall control' means.
To which the reply is: that half-arsed phone operator / jobsworth / survey taker / personal bugbear you had to deal with last week - how much would it be worth to you to never have to deal with them again?
Sometimes putting someone in a job makes it worse for everyone - them, who don't want the job, the employer, who has to deal with the awful employee, and the customers, whose lives are impacted by the awful/incompetent/obstructive behaviour.
Sometimes its cheaper to pay comeone not to work than to deal with the consequences of their employment.
Is this conversation *definitely* in the right order?
"We don't hear people using 'a sequential' when they mean 'a sequence'"
You do in Bristol. They speak funny there.
If youto build trust in your information-sharing system, trying not to sound like a fucking supervillian when you are trying to persuade people to use it.
"But the Tory peer then went on to expose himself"
That's par for the course.
"I remember there was a study a few years ago where they planted false memories in children. "
I think this would be the study by Loftus, Braun, and Ellis where they convinced people they had met Bugs Bunny and Ariel at Disneyland when they were children.
They didn't have access controls on any of the images, and just relied on the URLs being, I'll use the word 'obscure'.
That seems like a pretty basic security error. Someone should coin a saying about it.
~North Korea hacked Sony
-Based on your past record, and lack of support for this weird claim, I do not believe you
~There is an evil cake
-I am now utterly convinced
"Must try harder, further away from where they can do any harm"
I use my tablet as a device to quickly google things. Mainly what has gone wrong with my PC.
I think I expected more when I bought it.
A senior security official said: “Snowden has been very damaging to our work. We have specific evidence of where key targets have changed their communication behaviour as a direct result of what they have read.”
Something tells me that there will never be any evidence presented that shows this to be true
As I understand it the problem with the original POODLE is that the SSL 3.0 specification was broken - so if you are using SSL3 you are vulnerable.
With POODLE against TLS the problem is that some companies'(*) _implementations_ of TLS were vulnerable. So, if you are using TLS it depends on who wrote the implementation whether or not you are vulnerable.
(*)e.g. A10 and F5, both of whom released fixes very soon after - if your bank is using either company they should have applied the patches by now
"I didn't know ABP did this"
Assuming you use ABP, this reflects well on whatever vetting rules it uses to only allow non-annoying ads through.
So take a company who tells you they are making no profit in this country, ask them how much profit they are making in this country, and take a quarter of that amount in tax.
I see a flaw.
He did say that it was possible that different races may have developed different intellects - maybe this true, and is a point that could be made with no racist intent - maybe it's ok that race X in underrepresented in job A, but a scandal that race Y is so underrepresented in job B.
Had he not followed up with "people who have to deal with black employees find [races being equal] not true" he probably wouldn't have had to sell his nobel.
I (coincidentally(*)) listened to 2 podcasts about this at the same time, one was about 2 years older, and outlined the possibilites of fecal transpants, one was up to date and said that, if a fecal transplant was made from a skinny twin to a fat twin the fat twin would lose weight.
So 2 years is how long science takes to get from "early implementation" to "psychotic pranksterism"
(*) I don't have a google alert for "pooh transference"
"the practice is ancient" has mixed results - the precursors to aspirin have been used since Hippocrates' time, but so were treatments based on the 4 humours.
Of course, if something seems to work it's good to know that it actually does work, and why (like discovering it isn't the surgery that fixes stomach ulcers, but the antibiotics given afterwards)
"The police say they've given copies of the leaked information back to Vodafone."
This doesn't seem like a terribly useful thing to do
"These broke down into 18 separate submissions of junk data in a web form tantamount to 'cyber stalking"
I don't think the register is at fault here, but there is no way that sentence makes sense in context.
is the most effective terrorist recruitment slogan ever.
Oh, they said it was about terrorists, it must be for our own good then.
(I hope the sarcasm shines through)
"Based on your recent activity, we think you would be interested hearing about divorce lawyers, and non-paisley pajamas"
You are right to be suspicious of the figures the police release, given that the police can manipulate them, have incentive to do so and, based on recent headlines, do.
However crime rates are falling according to british crime survey stats, which are less easily manipulated. The figures come from surveying members of the population, and so can't be altered by no criming an offence.
Crime falling in the UK shouldn't really come as a surpise - it is the worldwide trend.
Three strikes gets more people killed - if someone has been jailed twice burglary, and are offending again when the owner comes home they have 2 choices - give up and get jailed for life for burglary, or kill the owner and maybe get away with it.
I also think any system that can send someone to jail for life for failing to pay their TV license is intrinsically wrong.
(You seem to mean a total life sentence - the rest of you life behind bars, rather than a minimum term and life on license)
The prupose of a justice system is to reduce crime - if someone robbed me I'd want them punished, but I would much rather they didn't rob me in the first place.
"The new welcome stress on changes to the law to tackle cyber bullies comes from my amendment to the criminal justice bill re malicious comms"
She should send whichever relative she pays to write her tweets on a writing course
The "similar staff" you mention are NHSCIC, which was given a facelift but largely left unchanged when it became HSCIC
As for there never being a perceived problem search The Register's for "careless data-sharing plans" or "Triple-headed NHS privacy scare" to read about them selling, inappropriately sharing and failing to protect data.
So I guess now the publicity campaign to tell everyone how awful this is has to start up again. Will this lead to another 6 month delay and half-arsed window dressing?
Fortunately I am with a surgery that makes is fairly easy to opt out.
And now they are saying "as I have done nothing wrong, I have nothing to fear (we do appear to have done something wrong)"
No, a model release would make a difference in a copyright case, but not any of the crimes covered in the new guidelines.
I'm not sure how effective mutually assured destruction would be. The people who post revenge porn will often be so angry, or such bellends, that they won't be thinking of potential consequences to themselves.
Because 4chan consists of thousands of anonymous accounts and so can't be said to be taking a collective stand on a particular action just because one person posted something to the board.
If Dave Fictionalman posts to 4chan that he's going to streak at the Brit Awards, then Dave Fictionalman did it, 4chan didn't, and if he goes for a pasty later there should be headlines saying "Greggs threaten Brit Awards with streaking"
The emmayouarenext site redirects to a site calling for 4chan to be shut down, i.e. censored.
I'll admit it is a pretty bizarre reality, but it's the reality we live in.
So there was never any evidence the site was set up in response to Emma watson's speech, and it turns out the site wasn't set up by the 4chan "community", but was part of a bizarre pro-censorship pseudo-feminist(*) campaign by Rantic. But The Register happily repeated their guff anyway.
May I suggest hiring some less credulous writers?
(*) If your feminist campaign's means are to lead people to believe that the result of giving a pro-feminist speech is a nude photo backlash then you aren't very good at promoting feminism.
If your feminist campaign's means lead Emma Watson to believe that nude photos of her will be released as part of an agnry internet campaign of harassment then you don't seem to be particularly keen on treating women well.
No, the standard of proof, and degree of misconduct, is much higher for the CPS.
A court/tribunal would back you if, on balance of probabilities, you were justified in dismissing someone (i.e. if there is at least a 50% chance they committed gross misconduct, or other fireable offence)
The CPS shouldn't take action unless there is a 50% chance they can convince a jury beyound reasonable doubt that a crime was committed (i.e. if there's a 50% chance you can conince a jury there is a 98%(*) chance they committed a crime)
"We will switch your account within the next 28 days, but please bear in mind that, in the meantime, you won't be legally considered to be a person."
I'd rather my identity not be determined by a company that claims that verified by visa enhances my security.
But it isn't an offence - they are unable to give any single offence that viewing the video would constitute. So they are lying about what the law is. It would be better if they refrained from doing so.
The copyright for the film belongs to the company that owns the film.
The copyright won't be transfered to the dog because:-
It's a dog, and dogs can't copyright things
Copyright doesn't transfer to you when you make a copy of a work.
Except the decision doesn't relate in any way to pictures taken by movement detection.
It's perfectly reasonable to say that setting up a camera to fire on movement detection (or even setting a timer) constitutes "taking the photo". The Copyright Office hasn't said anything that would disagree with this.
'This doesn't put Slater's image "in the public domain" at all.'
No, but it does seem to put the monkey's image in the public domain.
So the boss of the company that has a co-branding deal with Yahoo isn't very keen on Google? How strange.
I was talking to someone about how it was entirely possibly for a payday loans company to be run ethically, and in a way that benefits society as a whole (e.g. in the broken down car example). He pointed out I had just described a credit union.
Netmarketshare's graph is far more colourblindness friendly than StatCounter's
"Playground humour is both childish and annoying"
So's your face!
...because they don't want anyone to think about Operation Ore, where they arrested hundreds of people, most of whose only 'crime' was to have their credit cards nicked.
If they actually *have* arrested the right people this time then congratulations, but based on past form I suspect they ahve arrested more passers-by that paedos
Surely it depends on the reason for non-collection - if you just don't bother to collect then, yes, people you later fine are more likely to not bother paying. But it's different if there are concrete reasons, such as, say, early payment reductions, appeals and impairments.
So the share price reflects whether investors think other investors think the torrent will affect the films' sucess.
Assuming the investors are all holywood insiders, does this study give us an insight that the film industry doesn't really believe that torrents affect their revenue? Or am I stretching too far?
"So the implication is that studios should be paying the filesharers for the benefit they confer?"