Seems an awful lot of money
to enable access to government websites that only work in IE6
1533 posts • joined 5 Mar 2010
to enable access to government websites that only work in IE6
in a way, I believe that's what happened. The IRA spent the best part of 20 years bombing the population of the UK, who in that time did absolutely nothing whatsoever to indicate they had any interest in the problem.
I started Uni, sharing with an Irish chap in 1984. The Grand Hotel bombing happened, and he pointed out that a week later - as usual - absolutely no one had asked him anything about "the troubles".
The same will happen with Islamic terrorists. The great British Public will simply astound them with their total and utter lack of desire to learn anything about their "cause".
Willful, pigheaded ignorance - that's how we will beat them.
If IT Admins can access whatever they want, it's a shit organisation.
The more data that is hoovered up (strangely appropriate term, given the circumstances) then eventually *everybody* will be connected to *everybody else*.
At which point it becomes pretty useless.
Gerry Dorsey ....
will be blocked by default ?
Hypocritical cant then.
and what *can* we do? We live in a society where governments can steamroller us into an illegal war, despite millions of people marching against it (in fact the only notice they took of that was to make it illegal to march in Westminster).
I suppose we could vote Labour - oh, wait a moment - they are pledged to support this too !
For myself, I'd set up a VPN through my router, and let them try and track me. As I suspect those that are talking here will do. I don't mind leaving thick criminals to the mercies of UK plod, as I am very concious that "criminal" is what the government says it is - like reading out a list of names - rather than anything absolute
are you being thick ?
I was just suggesting situations which *will* (not may, will) arise which will scupper the whole "we need to keep records of who's calling who" argument. In a similar vein, my mother-in-law lives locally, and occasionally we run errands for each other. So a call between her landline and mine could have been between me, my wife, or our son, and her and her partner. Now you scale that up to two houses of multiple occupancy phoning each other, and keeping all the records you like won't help you know *who* was talking to *who*. Given that this is exactly what we are being told these new powers are for, I find my suspicions immediately aroused ... what do they really want these powers for ?
a lot of hot air, and then someone will gently point out to the befuddled MPs that when they talk about everyones web/phone usage being logged, they mean *everyone*.
At which point I suspect MPs will suddenly find something much more interesting the other side of the room.
you totally failed to read the question. Unless you actually record the conversation point to point, you don't know WHO was speaking.
My sons phone died a few days ago, so I let him use my work phone to call his mate. Something I will probably have forgotten in 6 months time, should plod come-a-swooping. Things would get even more interesting if the number he called for his mate turned out to be his mates Dads phone. Or (even more worrying if you have a suspicious spouse) his mates *Mums* phone.
most routers can happily support a VPN natively. Certainly mine can. So for around $50/year (use of dollar symbol deliberate, to emphasis where the money will go (or €40 if you prefer)) it's trivial to insulate my entire household from UK plc. That's everything then. Web traffic. VOIP traffic. Emails. Social media traffic (although they are welcome to my sons drivel). With the added bonus that you escape your ISPs traffic shaping. Win-Win I believe.
you could even crowdsource it ....
Downvoted because (as has been pointed out many times - including El Reg) Swedish law doesn't allow for extra-territorial questioning.
Dunno if anyone remembers, but a few years ago a US guy killed a girl here, and left her body in a car boot before flying off to the US. He was identified, we issued a warrant for his arrest, which translated into a request for extradition which a US court happily compiled with (he's now serving life in the UK).
Would you have been happy if instead of that, the US said "no, we won't extradite him, but feel free to pop over and ask a few questions" ?
is really a bit thin now. The US have made absolutely no legal moves to try and get Assange into the US. (Hot air doesn't count, btw).
*Even* if they should whip up an extradition request (which would require charges be laid, which they haven't), under the EAW, the *UK* would need to OK a further extradition from Sweden to the US.
That decision would be subject to the UK Supreme Court, under the HRA. Currently, the UK supreme court has bigger balls than Teresa May (passim). In fact, I suspect the last thing the UK *government* wants is for the US to request JAs extradition, and have the supreme court veto it.
JA knows all of this, and is supposedly an intelligent man. Therefore his motives for dodging the warrant are questionable, and appear to have a lot more to do with self aggrandisement, and fear of jail, than any possible "threat" from the US.
downvoted because there's a world of difference between physically gaining access to a server room, and gaining access under a false flag.
or his Mum ;)
thanks for saying that - I thought it was just me that thought that.
Back in the 70s/80s, wasn't the reason given for the Masters terrifying appearance (the story where the Doctor goes back to Gallifrey to run for president) that he had forced regenerations, and gone beyond his 12th ?
Presumably the 12-limit regeneration will go the way of the prime directive ....
I had my [virtual]* machine running Ubuntu 10.04 with GNOME. Upgraded to 12.04, and got Unity. Immediately discovered my "system monitor" taskbar applet stopped working. Why ? Because Unity panels apparently can't support animation.
End of line for system monitor then. As the discussion I briefly read surmised, it's simply not possible to code a replacement.
Just fundamentally change the framework for the desktop, and tell users to whistle ? Great strategy.
*Now you know why I did it in a virtual machine first.
Mrs JimmyPage and I aren't "on facebook" (or son is ... although he says it's "boring" nowadays). I didn't see the point in it, and have *needed* to use it for anything. I/we haven't ruled it out, but we've both said the only way we'd sign up is if there was something in it for us. So that would be some kind of special offer that you couldn't get any other way. Materially. So maybe a 10% discount on £1,000 purchase. That kind of thing.
If facebook is to continue, I suggest they try and leverage the businesses who have invested in it so far to open their wallets and start to make it pay to be a facebooker.
As I said our son, and his teenage mates are all "on facebook". They are also permanently skint.
with US companies ?
My first proper IT job was developing an installation routine for our companies software. I worked out you could install Windows, zip up the C:\WINDOWS directory, test my install routine, and then restore the C:\WINDOWS back to a virgin install. A godsend .... totally impossible nowadays ...
I saw that and had this brief flicker in minds ear ...
"Kettle, Klutch, Kings Bollege Bambridge. Ah, silly bunt !"
proving that Monty Python were the inspiration for KDE
Aha, but because the government needs the post to deliver their shit, the legal situation is proof of posting is proof of receipt. Otherwise you'd have to sign for your tax demand, or NIP for speeding ...
I meant 1940s ...
The ships sunk in WW1 - like the ones in the battle of Jutland - actually have a commercial value. Or rather the metal they are made of has. Apparently it's uncontaminated by nuclear fallout which has dusted the planet since the tests in the 30s onwards.
growing up in the 70s, the threat of nuclear war was somehow "normal". So much so, that when the great hurricane hit London in 1987, for a few moments I was convinced the USSR had bombed us - howling winds, eerie darkness, and telephone and radio out. After frantically spinning the radio dial, I finally hit radio Essex - 5 minutes of which was enough to make me wish they *had* dropped the bomb ....
In the event of Scots independence, I would hope *English* politicians would have the balls to follow a policy of keeping income tax, corporation tax, and VAT just a little bit lower than Scotlands. Oh, and only pay a market rate for any energy they want to try and sell us from their wind farms.
Given the relative size and wealth of the two countries, who do you think could keep it up the longest ?
they can't *prove* it. That's the whole point. Although in the UK, the Home Secretary can lock people up without proof, so it's a redundant exercise.
Don't know about you, but I rather like the idea that the law is what it says it is, not what people think it says.
IIRC, wasn't one of the dangers of using undocumented opcodes that they could vary across fabrications ? Just because a Zilog processor worked didn't mean an OEM one would ?
is a total waste of time if there are going to be vehicles on it that don't do the maximum.
The *effective* speed limit on most motorways is about 60mph. Why ? Because you get 2 dickbrained HGVs neck-and-necking for miles, and the traffic builds into an ever lagging line of cars getting up to 56mph, and then trying to overtake, pulling into L3, thereby slowing *that* down to the pre-overtake speed of - guess what - 56mph.
I have driven for 10 miles, stuck behind two HGVs on the 2 lane A34.
AIUI proceedings of parliamentary committees are covered by parliamentary privilege, so if Ms. Hodge chooses to call Google liars, she can, although I suspect there are etiquettes around this sort of thing (like MPs can't call each other liars).
I see this whole exercise as a little bit of grandstanding ... maybe a warning shot across the bows. It sounds like HMRC have pulled their finger out and found *something* to beat Google with, and this is a very public way of telling Google they might not want to press the issue. At least I'd hope so. Otherwise the message the entire world is getting is "UK plc is run by a bunch of powerless tossers". Which may be true, but I'd rather it wasn't.
tax law being so labyrinthine, Google were always running a risk that if they didn't play nicely, HMRC will find *something* to hit them with. Same for Amazon.
(It's the same principle as never *ever* piss off a traffic cop. You could be driving a brand new car out of the showroom, and he'd find something you can be charged with.)
Returning to the fray, I can't help but feel rather than trying to twist and crowbar the existing system to fit the emergence of the online universe, our politicians should be DOING THEIR FUCKING JOB and working on devising a new paradigm. And no, I don't have any answers ... but then I'm not paid to.
are you renting hardware which runs your apps, or an app which provides a service?
The latter is fraught with danger, from the company going tits up, to a forced upgrade to a version which loses functionality, or breaks *your* way of doing things.
I've always taken "cloud computing" to be more akin to a thin-client paradigm, where something remote to the user does the heavy lifting.
Funny, when I started at Uni in 1984, series PC computing was a nascent science, and 90% of work was done via terminals which connected to a mainframe (even the BBC micros were used as VT10x emulators ;) ).
Then everyone had their own PC and ran apps locally.
Now they use their PC to connect to the cloud and a remote server runs the app.
Plus ca change ...
As things are, publicly traded companies are *required* to deliver the maximum possible profit for their shareholders. Which is why they are *obliged* to minimise their tax bill.
If we start meddling, we will end up where companies are NOT required to deliver maximum profit for their shareholders, but to deliver maximum tax take for the government of the day.
Which would *you* prefer ?
Wasn't there a (UK) story a few years back where some guy got thrown in chokey because he signed up to Facebook who slurped his contacts and generated an email to his ex-missis who had an injunction against him ?
Which once again makes me ask: What part of Hotmail, GMail et als T&Cs allows you to give a 3rd party your password ?
can we add to that:
SMS is an inherently unreliable medium and should never be used for critical applications
And if it's the first time ?
Don't forget, with great power, comes responsibility (c) Debian 2013 ...
And so, you can infer they didn't want a usable ID card.
So what *did* they want ?
Where will the internet end ? YouTube just recently announced that every second 8 hours worth of content is being uploaded.
There is more and more historic data coming online, plus the growing number of world citizens with access to the internet, busy generating content.
No matter how much storage you have, eventually something has to give
There's also the matter of the more that's out there, the less it's worth. A little like speeding points now. So many drivers have them most insurers ignore the first 3. In the future, it might be so common to have some indiscretion on the interwebs it means nothing.
I really wouldn't worry about it, I really wouldn't.
I did say you'd need a lot of cooking (and hence fuel ££££) ....
the Earth itself is pumping masses of heat out - without any solar radiation. And given the news last week that the Earths core is much hotter than previously thought ...
BT, Virgin, et all would pay someone like (say) Microsoft to release a new games console that required a permanent internet connections to work.
Because I image some of those ingredients will take a lot of cooking.