Posts by Adrian 4 2289 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Jul 2009
No, the fundamental problem is that the bloody editor wants to run arbitrary bits of code when you didn't ask it to.
Fix that entirely unnecessary misfeature by deleting it and you don't have to run rings around yourself trying to stop it in all the cases where that's a bad idea.
I applaud the concept, but feel that
a) Hancock as a name has an existing and much more deserving reputation
b) Politicians, especially hopeless ones, shouldn't be given the benefit of notoriety that exceeds their remembrance (ie about 10 minutes)
As an example, we might have used 'edened' to describe being conned. Or 'profumod' to describe being caught fucking. But we don't.
Perhaps the term 'coledangloed' would be better ? After all, 'lewinsky' references Clinton's' demise more precisely than 'clinton'.
Clue : don't subject yourself to the whims and pressures of an unpaid commercial service if you want a channel that you control.
This is as stupid as people who create an essential revenue stream on top of a system like Facebook or YouTube and then complain when it gets interrupted. It's the real meaning of the phrase 'If you're not paying for it, you're the product'. If you want the service provider to take instructions from you, enter a contract that contains an SLA.
"More people need to stop mollycoddling these halfwits, the charlatans that push this crap online need a meeting with a judge and a labour camp and parents who go down this rabbit hole should lose their kids until they smarten up (if they are capable.....)"
They'd see that as martyrdom and be encouraged. Better to admonish them gently as Linus did, and then ignore them.
It 's not just once though, is it ?
If they decide they want to put one there, there'll be disruption whilst it's installed and doubtless access required from time to time. And haven't compulsory site rental rates just been reduced, making a lot of people not want the hassle ?
The excuses are, I agree, a bit thin. But it's their roof. Why should they let someone build on it ?
Would be nice if it :
Stopped ads
Showed ALL the tweets from my selected twats, not just the ones twitter considers I should read
Removed duplicates.
Why Twitter feels it should select, reschedule etc. some tweets while showing me duplicates of those that are retweeted by another follow, I cannot understand.
> Challenged by MPs as to why it took two months to set up the test and trace system, Cumming said: “In lots of ways the whole core of government
> fundamentally fell apart,” when the prime minister went into hospital in April.
Given that he doesn't appear to actually do anything, it surprises me immensely that anybody would notice if he stopped.
> Actually New Jersey has/(had?) a law that the price of food at the airport cannot exceed it's costs at the > same restaurant outside the airport.
I hope they also have a law that the rents charged for floorspace at the airport cannot exceed the rent for a similar establishment outside the airport.
High rents - charged because the sellers have a captive market - are the usual reason for high prices.
English lacks unambiguous rules for precedence. I think that should be read as
(NHS and related) managament hate whistleblowers. It's instinctive. They just can't help themselves.
and not as
NHS and (related managament) hate whistleblowers. It's instinctive. They just can't help themselves.
It's normal to keep records of an action for some months in order to ensure it is completely over. There is even a fixed (minimum) time for financial records, and it's a lot longer than that.
If he were trying to steal the data, he wouldn't have told you he had a copy.
If he had only kept screenshots, how could he prove what else he had had temporary access to?
What if you came back in a few months and accused him of stealing and using some data, and there was ambiguity over whether it was in the repository ?
There's also some survivor bias involved. If the stated fact is the latter one, it could more accurately be stated as
'exclusively used by almost all the criminals we know about or caught'
which is even less convincing as a reason to ban it - not only is it likely that cleverer criminals use something undetectable, but that it's possible (perhaps easier) to catch those using OTS crypto.
Note that Signal counts there too, and is very likely transparent to five-eyes monitoring.
It's pretty sad that the first reaction to feds doing stuff like this is that they're sneaking in and adding their own spyware. More of a condemnation of the feds to have let their reputation slip so far.
The saving grace is that they (allegedly) did this using the malware itself, not the holes in Exchange. If you weren't already being attacked by malware authors and had failed to remove the web shell yourself, they (allegedly) did nothing. Presumably people cynical about the feds would have already done this.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
