20 posts • joined 19 Jun 2009
Re: The default should never be opt-out
But if it was opt-in, then they'd collect so little (saleable) data that it would render the whole project useless and worthless.
Which tells you all you need to know about this project.
Wasn't the subheading an ideal opportunity to use an interrobang‽!
Deny, rebut, refute
"Smith also published a blog post in which he rebutted claims that Microsoft has built backdoor access for federal investigations into some of its most popular software and services."
Such a shame he couldn't refute it instead. Perhaps there's a reason for that; like he can't...
"Potentially exposed passwords were hashed using MD5, but it's not clear whether or not they were salted..."
At first blush, if all they're using is a single round of MD5, salting will matter very little difference.
"...it will help its customers by reducing advertising..."
No. It won't. DNT is not intended to reduce the amount of adverts, just what those adverts might be; it's "Do not Track", not "Do not Advertise."
All they're complaining about is the fact that they're supposed to promise not to track their viewers; not that some of the advertisers are honouring the DNT to begin with.
"Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA," is not a U turn.
Go-Daddy actively opposing SOPA would be a U turn.
Re: Dear Trapster...
That's all very well, but the point of a salt is that it should be different for each user, otherwise all that's needed is a single rainbow table for that single salt.
Which websites are you responsible for again?
As a mother...
"As a mother with three children I know how difficult it is to keep children from seeing inappropriate material on the internet"
As a mother, you should know better than to let your children on the internet unsupervised.
"British Internet Service Providers should share the responsibility to keep our children safe..."
Perhaps the parents could be 'persuaded' to do their bit *instead*.
It'd certainly be cheaper. And less of a burden on those of us who don't have crotch-fruit.
"Despite press reports on the scam going back more than a year, the security minister Baroness Neville-Jones said today that 80 per cent of internet users are unaware."
I was unaware of the issue until this report, however that doesn't mean I'm likely to fall for it.
Isn't this just government, again, using Big Scary Numbers to imply something that isn't actually the case?
Use shortcuts instead...
You could always use the keyboard shortcuts instead - probably quicker than moving the mouse and clicking for those used to keyboards - press ? to get a full list but:
Select all: *a
Select read: *r
Select unread: *u
Select starred: *s
For example, to archive all read: *re
Delete all starred: *s#
Re: Paying customers
"So as an Apps user, and therefore a paying customer, I get these needed updates to the contact functionality last."
Indeed. What's the problem?
I don't think paying customers, in general, want to be beta testers for new functionality/interfaces. What if there's a bug in there and paying customers were exposed to it. Would you then be one of the first to complain that as a "paying customer," you shouldn't be exposed to bugs on stuff that hadn't been tested. You can't have it both ways.
It's how beta programmes are generally accepted to work.
... both Facebook's and the civil service's attitude to protection of privacy of the proles seem so similar, would there really be that much difference if the government did use Facebook?
"The engineering team at Google works hard to earn your trust - and we are acutely aware that we failed badly here. We are profoundly sorry for this error and are determined to learn all the lessons we can from our mistake"
Are Google turning into Facebook? Their apologies for this sort of thing are starting to sound similar.
"Actually, this code should probably be on The Daily WTF"
It made it to the message boards yesterday:http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/15838/216113.aspx
[quote]Some background to this unholy spat can be found in the Somerton Town Council minutes of 23 June this year[/quote]
Um - it would appear that Mr Collolly has been blogging about the council since before then; I'm not so sure this was the sole reason (if it was one to begin with.)
What makes you think a mortgage is a right, not a privilege?
Hyperbole strike at The Register. Again. Has Murdoch bought you out?
If you're newly 'self-employed' without 3 years of accounts, guess what? /I/ don't think you're entitled to a mortgage. Because in the current economic climate, I'm guessing not very many of these newly 'self-employed' will still be self-employed by the time any mortgage they get has its introductory period run out.
If you can prove that you're still likely to be solvent 3 years hence, then by all means prove it, but I certainly wouldn't go on 'your say so.'
RichyS Posted Friday 2nd October 2009 10:50 GMT
"It always used to be that a license/tax was required for equipment 'capable of receiving a TV signal' (whether you actually had it hooked up or not was beside the point -- as long as it /could/ receive TV, you had to pay the tax). Has that now changed?"
It's been "actually used for receiving a TV signal at the time of broadcast" for some time - e.g. you can have one TV in your house for sole use with a Wii and not for actually watching broadcast TV, and you do not need a licence, even though it's technically capable of being used to watch TV.
"You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV."
Re: last couple of decades
"and he's 34."
Um, no. He's got 34 years experience. "Sir Ian Andrews, a 34-year veteran of the MoD," not "Sir Ian Andrews, a 34-year-old veteran of the MoD,"
I thought it was only /. where people didn't RTFA
"Eagle-eyed security guard Jason Cooke, 25, from Nottingham, enthused [in The Sun]: "I couldn't believe it. It's just like the descriptions of Nessie.""
Re: wait, wait, wait
> What if you are the security conscious type who changes
> their passwords regularly? Today's passwords may not
> be tomorrow's; does security mindedness automatically
> disqualify you from having a personal (police) or property
> (fire) security oriented job?
If you're the security conscious type, you wouldn't be handing over your passwords to begin with!