apparently "There is only room for 2 players, and both the seats are filled."......
1769 posts • joined 11 May 2007
apparently "There is only room for 2 players, and both the seats are filled."......
Now you've upset my old delta hf turbo!!!!
Someone needs to tell all the audi drivers, you don't have to slipstream the car in front to get anywhere....
Doesn't extend to those who can't construct a sentence then?
Fire up Lynx!
BURN THE HERETIC!!!!
Are you new here?
No, it's a simple system where you get elected if you get a big enough proportion of the votes. 30% of the votes means 30% of the MPs. It's complex, so I can see why you might have difficulty with it.
The good thing about FPTP is that all your rich mates get to keep running the country and pretending it's because we asked them to.
I love it when a plan comes together!!
No, no, no. This is totally, totally different to MS dropping support for XP, and a load of fandroids will be along to explain how any second, without a hint of irony....
A lot of software engineers forget how important it is to give your product a cool name. I want some of these and I don't eve know what they are!!!
NoScript it. You still see ads then but nothing dances and it's nice and quick.
Yes, you're the guy who posted about microsoft keyboards then replied to himself twice getting more and more irate!! That was cool!
(I've not used node.js in anger so correct me if I'm wrong!)
Yeah, Churchill and our boy's have got a lot to answer for.
We're discussing the Charlie Hebdo cover, not western foreign policy. I see your point, but not it's relevance.
The OP was talking about freedom of speech and comparing someone saying "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly" (a reference to the hostage taking nutjob in the pattiserie) to a picture of Mohammed saying that he "is Charlie" and all is forgiven. I can see how one of those is considered lawful and one isn't.
Bombing the middle east in retaliation would be mental, but isn't really relevant to the question of whether free speech should be unlimited or not.
Are you saying you think people should be free to say anything, including threatening other people, under free speech laws?
You're not equating drawing a picture of the prophet Mohammed with saying you feel like killing Jews are you? In the UK the second would be considered hate speech, the first is legally fine. I can understand and agree with this distinction.
No, we're the United Cyber Force of Islam. United Islamic Cyber Force are a bunch of SPLITTERS!!!
It's SET FOOT, FFS! Or stepped would also work.
And yet people still say they're not secure!
Grow up and use your username. Going anon just to call people names is pathetic.
Wow. Someone's not getting any....
Su-metal has an awesome voice, I read somewhere that the entire project was dreamt up as a vehicle for her. Certainly sounds nothing like a cat being strangled. The little'uns are a bit more shrill but they're there for dancing more than singing.... Altogether they're a breath of fresh air in a increasingly fragmented and insular metal scene!
No. You can tell by the fact no-ones commenting on the story.... Well, except for all the comments about not caring.
Then came and commented on how you weren't interested in it. Cool!
>> Or they could just say they have a problem and admit it, together with an idea of when they can be arsed to fix it. <<
Umm, that's exactly what happened. The problem was Google didn't want to wait the few days between their "deadline" and patch Tuesday. Next time you pull a quote from an article maybe you should read it too?
Well one of you can spot a joke. To the rest, thanks for your informative posts and many downvotes! I'm here all week. Try the fish!
I preferred the wild speculation and opinion tbh.
>> "But you're just reporting the wild speculation and opinions of a noisy minority of forum whiners with no basis in fact"<<
I like the way you backed up your comment with all those references and facts! Or is it just wild speculation and opinion?
I asked for a card without it and they told me very politely to fuck off, so I doubt it.
Yes, but the example code just uses a load of different prefixes on the same domain. Then you just use script to access each sub domain in turn using http and if the browser uses https instead then you know that bit is set.
Ok, it's not very clear from the article but as far as I can tell it's to do with using the fact that a single site is HSTS enabled as a bit and storing an identifier by hitting lots of sites.
So (I think) the idea is you set up 8 domains for example (to hold a byte). Hit each in turn with a url containing a flag to ask the server to respond with "HSTS enabled" to store a 1 or "HSTS disabled" to store a 0. Then later the code attempts to read those sites again without the flag and using http. The server responds indicating whether the connection was https or not and you can reconstruct your byte with that information!
Yeah, as Google responded "defeating such fingerprinting is likely not practical without fundamental changes to how the Web works". For once I agree with Google. Gah!!!
So reading up on this on Wikipedia and others I see that HSTS is effectively an https only header that tells a browser to i) communicate with the domain using only https for a specific time and ii) interpret any secure transport errors as meaning it should stop communication immediately. The header is ignored on http requests and shouldn't be sent.
So in normal use there is a potential for MITM attacks during your first contact with an HSTS site as the redirect to https happens with the usual 301. Once you connect with https you get the special header and your browser knows to always communicate to the domain using https, making further MITM attacks very difficult.
No where in that is there any requirement for this information to be shared with any other domain, or any advantage to doing so. I don't see anywhere in there a requirement for a magic number between the domain and the browser. What this generates is a private list of sites and durations that the individual browser uses to force https on certain sites.
So how did this become a tracking issue?
Sorry, that explanation doesn't really help.
What is the "it" you're referring to?
The article says:
>> His point is that an HSTS “pin” is set for each HTTPS-redirected site you use, it's unique to user and site, and it's readable from your browser settings by any site <<
That looks like a domain issue, specifically "it's readable from your browser settings by any site". Is the article wrong? What am I missing?
Exactly! Isn't the issue here about boundaries not protocols? Why can other sites see a domain specific secret?
No, it doesn't. What you're talking about is to do with your attitude to artists and whether you think they're cool or not. Artists change over time and success can definitely change them, but it's much more complex than "successful = bad, underground = good". Step away from that and just start listening to the music. Maybe you'll find there are successful acts you actually enjoy listening to, even though they're trying to make music other people like. Some times when an artist tries to make music people like they succeed!!
Forsooth, good sirrah, for surely that is an impossible task. But nevertheless, one can listen to said track and dislike it without expounding on it's vagaries in the comment section beneath. If one does indeed post in such a manner, then one should not take offence if a gentle ribbing ensues....
Why do people insist on listening to music that you don't like? Fucking idiots.
And what do you use when you need to get over yourself? I assume lifting gear is required....
Purchase it now and you are buying it, those who got it from KickStarter were funding it's development in return for a copy of the game. If you can't tell the difference then maybe you shouldn't be on kickstarter.
So everyone who disagrees with you is insane? Seems unlikely....
Am I? Of course I must be, what other reason could there possibly be to criticise Google?
And we're sure the monkeys in control of Google will be better why? Because they don't even have to scrape through an election to get in power? As long as they make money, that must be good for the country?
It's fine to spend your money for the results you want, but be honest about it, don't pretend it's for the greater good.
Well, that's ok then, convenience trumps monopolistic abuse every time.
Instant downvote. Just sayin'.
Sweet! Make users carry signs!!
(Signage? What is it with the desire to use a fancier sounding word? They're signs, not "signage"!)
You better mean that as "slowing" and not "mentally disabled". As a term of abuse it's unacceptable. Rein it in.
Of course they shouldn't. Those are three groups of people we can definitely trust to behave themselves correctly at all times.
It would be good to see Mr. Pointy back in action!