Yes, you are right. I was wrong in saying it was 801.
Put it down to age and the fact that they both have a trident in their crest.
755 posts • joined 17 Sep 2009
Yes, you are right. I was wrong in saying it was 801.
Put it down to age and the fact that they both have a trident in their crest.
I note the change of header photo. This is a real RAF connected one.
There is one odd thing about it though. Manned aircraft pilots wreaths are a brown colour, these as you can see are blue. These are for the pilots of drone aircraft. This is quite a new brevet and I don't think that many have been awarded.
I'll get my anorak.
Yes they are. Sea Harriers FRS 1 from 801 Sqn Fleet Air Arm.
Probably taken in the mid '80s after their return from the Falklands.
I have sent in an e-mail letting El Reg know, which is what you should have done.
""...significant measures in order to prevent any recurrence of such contraventions."
Either that or a bigger carpet to sweep such things under in the future.
Which one would you think they will go for?
"Do you guys go to car-forums and flame the Mercedes and BMW owners...over their taste and their (assumed) lack of taste?"
I assume that that was a rhetorical question.
Form follows function.
Or in Apple's case function follows form.
It must be good, it's all so expensive.
"Which school did they go to do learn so much?"
Well as far as the present government goes:
An inquiry is all very well and fine.
The real issue is will the government actually listen to the findings.
On past evidence they will if it suits them but ignore it if it goes against what they have already decided upon.
So it's a gamble, if the input from the interested parties can be spun to reflect the government's agenda it probably will get a green light. If not it will probably disappear in to limbo.
Given the make-up of the committee it looks as if the "security" lobby will have a ready ear. Labour and the Conservatives seem to be in agreement that we all need closer watching. The only ray of light is Carol Monaghan the SNP member, she may have a different view on things.
"...I really can't see the point of hooking up a kettle to the Net."
What do you expect?
Idiots make these things and other idiots buy them.
"It's a bit of a King Lear move, with Teressa May stamping her foot and demanding that the waves turn back."
I think you mean King Canute, don't you?
"...far larger than the $175m"
Would that be at the Bureau de Change rate or the official one?
There might be a large difference.
Surely the British government will be using the £ not some sort of foreign money.
But even if it did do you really think that the Home Secretary and minions will not be making a MITM attack as soon as it goes live?
"...the United States does not thereby assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive rights or jurisdiction over, or the ownership of, any celestial body."
I would love to see them try and duly get their head handed to them on a plate.
Still, never mind. I'm sure that the mega-corps are lawyering up to see how far they can push things.
"...all the intelligence came from state agencies like GCHQ"
Being strictly accurate the organisation that was the forerunner of GCHQ was known as GC&CS (Government Code & Cypher School) based at Bletchley Park.
"I get 4 M bits/sec."
Lucky you. I feel as if I had hit the jackpot if I can get 256Kb/s.
This bumpkin won't be holding his breath. As others have said this is just an "ambition" and look how good this government is at killing those off.
"It's in there somewhere, one or two grains."
Ah, security by obscurity.
That always works, doesn't it?
OK, that's fine and if you are happy with that, good luck. As for me I'l take all the precautions I can and that includes avoiding anything to do with Google.
"web pages increasingly use third party services to enhance functionality..."
That's not in doubt. The trouble is the functionality is all for the benefit of the advertisers, not the users.
Sod the fact that they are using up my bandwidth, slowing down my machine. It's, sell, sell sell.
The biter bit!
I don't think that the "multi-millionaires in parliament" have much say in the matter.
VAT is an EU tax and getting it changed would mean unanimity with all EU members. That's a not a reasonable prospect as it involves the equivalent of herding devs (or cats if you prefer).
"One has already emerged and inflicted pain when your correspondent tried the tool under Windows 10. "
That'll be the irresistible force meeting the immovable object then.
Blimey, thinking about this, I didn't know that MS had it in them.
Banjaxing Tor, that's a coup!
"Just spent two weeks shaped to 256 Kb/s instead of the usual 10 Mb/s."
My heart bleeds for you.
Actually it doesn't, 256Kb/s?
Good God I wish it was as fast as that here!
"...and without any reboot unless it's a kernel update. "
Obviously you haven't swapped Pulseaudio <spit> in or out then.
Watch out for Poettering and co, they are trying really hard to turn Linux into a second-rate Windows clone, complete with mandatory reboots.
"...look at lot like the Russian Jet Putin uses to travel on."
Just one small problem with that. MH17 was flying at 33,000 feet and from that distance you would not be able to see the aircraft, let alone see what type it was. Unless that is whoever shot it down possesses some super optics.
The aircraft was probably targeted by radar on or near the launcher and radar cannot distinguish one aircraft from another. It's the transponders that give the ID and that is overlaid onto the radar plots used by ATC controllers.
"That releasing a report likely to bring them to public intention..."
Could it turn out that the so-called Safe Harbour scheme was cooked up by people mostly representing the interests of the US mega-corps?
A sort of early TTIP.
It does seem to unduly favour those companies in the US that had an interest in processing data from Europe as cheaply as possible, avoiding having to build data processing facilities in Europe for example.
Secondly seems as if the onus on ensuring that any data moved to the US was treated in accordance with EU rules was on the Europrean end of the chain. With the laissez-faire attitude to privacy in the US all most users could have been given was a "Yes we are assured that your data is being protected, our US partners tell us that it is so." Not a good basis for any confidence that the data really was being handled securely.
Lastly, and this is me putting my cynic's/pedant's hat on. The spelling of Safe Harbour. I have noticed that many non-US writers use the American "harbor" spelling. Does this mean that the US-centric view of the whole business is dominant and that most people see it from the US point of view in as much as it's only Europeans' data that has potentially been compromised and that nothing should get in the way of the bottom line?
I too love the BBC but I am surprised at their hypocrisy.
They obviously have the devs and in-house knowledge to hack Linux so isn't it a pity that as far as their customers are concerned they don't recognise the fact that some of us actually use Linux on the desktop?
The BBC has the facility in the iPlayer to allow users to download programmes for later consumption, all that is except users of Linux.
Currently they are running a beta programme using HTML5, again for everyone except Linux.
I have written to them on these subjects and have received a polite but firm reply to the effect that "We do not support Linux" Presumably not because it's too difficult but that they see no future in supporting the OS, yet they use the thing themselves.
As I said, hypocrites.
Microsoft would not be drawn further on the details of its model clauses.
Are these covered by "commercial confidentiality", the get-out-of-jail card frequently used by politicians, or is this classed as national security?
Azure Core Services, Office 365, Dynamics CRM and Microsoft Intune all comply with model clauses the software giant said.
If they are following the EU drafted rules, which are, presumably in the public domain, then why hide the details? Or is it a case of "We are Microsoft, you can trust us."
This is surely not the way to assure customers that their data is safe.
Timmermans was quick to point out that the “alternative mechanisms” available to companies wanting to transfer data to the US, specifically so-called “model clauses” and binding corporate rules (BCRs).
My god that was quick.
If the EU can side-step as well as this then they should be playing for England at the next Rugby World Cup.
"... please at least try and post a counter to the idea the members of the EU are just as eager to keep the NSA in business."
Well it depends on which "members of the EU" you are talking about.
If you mean the member states then yes, they probably are all trying to spy on anyone they want.
However this decision has not been taken by the member states but by the ECJ. This is the independent judicial arm of the EU. Its decisions are binding on the member states and gives EU citizens a way of holding said states to account, so that if Schrems was to make a similar complaint now he would have a much stronger footing.
Of course politicians in the member states will all say that they accept the court's decision, they have no choice, but will then go about subverting and sidestepping the new regulations as fast as they can. Being believers in the saying "One rule for us, another rule for them" they will try and carry on as usual but with the threat that if they are caught out they will get hammered.
So it's a step in the right direction. We the citizens now have a powerful stick with which to beat the spies when they get caught, but everyone must keep watching. The powers that be won't give up their lazy ways and stick to the new rules and it's up to us to try and make sure that they do.
" Seems like once again the EU is protecting people from their gover[n]ments."
And yet there are a lot of people who want to take the UK out of the EU. I suppose that then the protections granted by the data regulations of the EU will be withdrawn leaving us to the mercy of anyone who has our personal data.
Unlikely? One of the countries who expressed satisfaction with "safe harbour" happens to be the UK, the other is the Republic of Ireland, which would, I suppose, show why their Data Protection Commissioner declined to take any action over Schrem's complaint.
I think we need someone on our side on this and the only one willing to come forward seem to be the ECJ.
Or a string:
Adblock Latitude + Palemoon.
It works for me.
"ICANN can say whatever they want anyway, it's not like anyone is going to trust their words."
It's not the lack of trust that is the problem. It's the fact that even if you have a complaint or grievance there's nothing you can do about it. The way ICANN is set up all the control is vested in the management and staff. The only contribution outsiders can make to this member-free member organisation is to pay up.
As to the non-voting, that's not going to work, even if all registrars voted against there's probably something in the regulations saying that in that case ICANN can just go ahead anyway. Just like in the rest of the way things are run.
This bunch of self-serving shits should not be in charge of a whelk stall, but they are in charge and as far as I can see apart from the US government there's not a lot anyone can do about it.
“Necessity and proportionality..."
That's a couple of words that the "powers that be" probably can't even spell let alone understand.
They are making this data grab not because they urgently need it but because they can and it might just might, be useful in the future. No guarantees on that last I suspect.
It is all about power and control. The TLAs and their supporters need to feel that they are special and have extraordinary powers that other, lesser beings do not have and who should not be granted any right to dignity, privacy or control over their own lives. Pretty much the way that Roman Emperors regarded the mob, with fear and contempt. So when they say that all this is in the name of "security" they mean their security, not ours. We are all "plebs" to them.
They are doing it because they can, not because they have to.
The trouble is both parties are talking past each other.
The ICANN insiders have a seat on the gravy train and don't want to get off.
The outsiders either want to get on the train in place of the present incumbents or they want to start again, preferably with themselves in charge.
As I see it the biggest problem is ICANN's non-profit status. They have a massive bank balance due to all the fees and charges they have collected and don't really know what to do with it all. So they spend it on things like the vanity project known as Netmundial, they go on jollies in expensive parts of the world and pay each other generous sums of money as "compensation".
Things are not going to change, there are too many vested interests here and the only way I can see of anything getting done is for someone, probably the US government. stepping in and banging a few heads together. This is a strange thing to have to advocate but unless the US steps in I can see no chance of the people who actually use, pay for and rely on the internet getting a say in what happens to something that is now a very important aspect of a lot of people's lives and livelihoods.
We, the users of the internet, pay for all this and we don't have a voice in any of these discussions.
This is unacceptable.
"I'll not be at all happy if VW try to modify my vehicle to enable THEM to comply with the law."
So sue them.
It's not your fault that the manufacturers cheated and if you are unhappy with the remedy, take them to court. It's unfortunate that you may well have a less efficient car than the one you were promised but as a non-VW owner I'm glad that they are going to be made to clear up the mess.
If you are unhappy then you know what to do. I'm sure that you will not be alone in this and a class action is a way of reducing the cost of litigation.
The best of luck, I hope you win.
"..the US government telling FB, Google etc "give us the datas"
Therefor "datas" is incorrect.
"MS can't be trusted with Linux..."
MS's proxy SCO tried it on and came a very nasty cropper.
So fret not, Gnu/Linux is safely out of reach of companies like Microsoft.
RMS made sure of that with the GPL.
If anything MS should be wary, any violation of the GPL could have serious consequences, just ask anyone who has monkeyed about with Busybox for example. MS always say that they take these things seriously and so they should, just remember it's the GNU General Public License. It's been tested, and it has teeth.
"... it has a license and the license doesn't allow you to just borrow the interesting bits of code..."
Yes it does. The GPL is only applicable if you take something under the license and then re-distribute anything that you develop incorporating GPL'd components. As far as I can tell MS is proposing to use this internally so the GPL does not come in to play. How do you think that the like of Google and Facebook manage?
Redistribute and you play by the GPL. Internal use only, you're good to go.
"... redeveloping everything themselves from scratch based on reverse engineering the Linux software..."
You must be new here.
MS have no need to reverse engineer anything, see with FLOSS the source code is freely available and all the MS devs need to do is read it to find out how it does stuff.
That's one of the reasons it's called "free software".
Ah yes, I remember that, and I still have the nightmares.
"I got the impression nematoad was referring someone knowingly not running windows is not going to fall for a 'windows' fake error scam."
Yep, got it in one.
Have a pint on me!
"A winphone like a windows desktop is a tool and people generally don't worship tools."
I don't know.
Donald Trump is a right tool and some people apparently worship him!
"...but the preoccupations and desires of loyal users don’t seem to matter."
Why is anyone either surprised or hurt? It's not as if this was the first time MS have gone its own way and damn the users.
Just look at Win 8, everyone told MS that it was taking the UX in the wrong direction but MS went ahead anyway. Or that bloody ribbon, hated by many but forced on people just because MS knew best. I could go on but for anyone to be upset by MS ignoring the wishes of its users is either being willfully blind or inattentive.