MySQL's replication isn't the only available replication in the MySQL ecosystem though. So, erm, oops.
976 posts • joined 5 Jul 2010
Re: Good job..
so I suspect not relevant to HSE regulations
Doesn't sound like a safe system of work to me, of course it's "relevant" - it's a serious injury (arguably worse than Ford's) in the work place. It's literally why the HSE exists.
Re: Out means out
Don't Brits deserve to have their human rights protected?
Because why is the ECHR nescessary to do that. The UK literally invented human rights and due process.
No mention of the ECHR or any other international convention or organisation.
We'll still be in the Council of Europe post-brexit which requires membership of the ECHR - indeed the ECHR is the Council's court not the EU's. Not taking a position (well not expressing one at least), just relaying fact.
"if PrivacyShield is deemed adequate for transfers of personal data from the European Union(EU) to the USA"
But it isn't. The only thing that would be adequate is wholesale change of US constitutional law to cover non-US citizens outside the US; which is never going to happen in - even with legislative branch support (which there is none: they think it's hilarious that people outside the US have expectations of a right to privacy. No really, they actually laughed when they were asked about it) - more than 25 years, best case really.
People hiding behind this stuff are ignoring the basics of the issue that brought Safe Harbour crashing down. That the 4th amendment doesn't cover non-US citizens outside the US and that the president has the power to do pretty much whatever he/she(? maybe?) wants even if it did. Corps in the US have zero control over any of this and are in no position to certify, guarantee, prove, attest, swear by anything.
As Caspar Bowden said, the only thing they're really going to understand is stopping the data flows.
I don't think it's even fit for the UK either if we get the kind of law that's been floated recently, there's effectively zero checks and balances in there so..
I've been saying this for some time now, it's a solution looking for a problem and instead of letting it be applied naturally where it makes sense (it genuinely could be a solution to some actual real-world problems) it's going to get shoehorned into a lot of things where it doesn't belong or simply isn't needed.
This would all be fine because Darwin - the issue is a lot of it being floated by government departments and it's going to be money wasted at taxpayer expense.
Re: Why not wireless?
Why are we investing in cable systems when mobile can offer just as good or in some cases a better connection?
Because it, y'know, can't.
There's isn't a wireless system anywhere at any price that can push 40Gbit at the lowest latency possible. Because you're an outlier doesn't make physical connections the "wrong choice".
What makes what BT is doing the wrong choice is they're not investing (enough) in the right tech at the right time and they're taking huge taxpayer funded windfalls for doing that.
I planned to stay in London long term (I absolutely don't) I'd be all over this like a rash, sounds like an interesting job.
Re: Once again. We have passed peak PC.
I don't agree but one thing is for sure: people are only going to upgrade hardware when they have a compelling reason to do so which I think is what you're really trying to say.
Do people really..
still think that decompiling Java is anything but trivial to lie about this stuff?
No really though I imagine if it's blocked by the country then it wouldn't be unreasonable to block it in your app just to stop negotiating it and extra load to your gear. That said the sensible thing to do would be to tell people that.
95% chance it's directly related to..
the idiotic block from 2014 where they blocked access to many sites (declaring an interest: including one of mine) because they were hosting "terrorist material" despite the sites involved a) not doing that and b) the Indian government making no attempt to contact the sites involved.
India doesn't like user generated content and more-so doesn't like user generated content that's arguably legitimately critical of the Indian government.
They went around accusing such terrorist organisations as Github of being, y'know, terrorists and that was that. Don't need to contact the sites explaining the issue or anything. If this isn't in the same vein I'll be amazed.
P.S this sort of blocking never ever ever works.
Re: The Brexit cloud
Our government agreed the rules on Vaping via the council of ministers and our elected MEPs then approved it too.
I'm fully aware but the government has shown it can be moved on vaping. EU has proven it is utterly incapable of even discussing the issue. The progress that's been made with the Lords alone has underlined how much even a little public pressure can be brought to bear against the people who listen to ASH and get them to change their opinions to align with reality.
If it was possible to get the commons to agree to discussing it without saying "it's EU law so we can't do anything anyway" (which will be the post brexit outcome) then that same pressure can have an effect. Government departments are already being completely reasonable even in the face of the TPD.
I make my own eliquid because I can be sure of the quality of the flavours that go into them; I only buy flavours and base liquids I can get datasheets for and frankly that's what sensible regulation would have looked like. If we're all using the same sources for our liquids why do companies who make liquids have to individually go get every flavour at every strength tested to reach the same conclusions. It's illogical on all sorts of levels and completely ignores everything we've learned from science, ever.
The fact the EU completely missed this simple point is the exact problem with the TPD. That and the fact that there's no point in limiting the size of something you can refill (i.e. the tanks) other than just to annoy people.Same with the actual size of liquid bottles you can buy; why in the name of all holy hell not just require that caps are childproof (which *all* manufacturers are doing anyway). You wouldn't limit a bottle of bleach to 20ml so why do it with eliquids.
Also yes it only benefits manufacturers (see: traditional tobacco companies who have been buying those manufacturers) of the kind of ecig that you can buy from your local garage and those things suck if you actually want to quit smoking.
Re: The Brexit cloud
TPD confirmed to me everything I knew about the EU before and made it absolutely clear that the EU wasn't prepared to discuss anything sensible on any level. One doesn't vote to leave solely for that reason but it cemented my decision in stone.
Any competently instantiated blockchain should be cryptographically secure.
This is utterly untrue. Blockchain attests data it doesn't secure it against reading (you could crypt the data you push into it though but that would be very unsmart)
Also not for nothing but storing personal data permanently and indestructably (even if it was secured) in a blockchain is obviously illegal in EU and (as it stands today) UK law soooooo...
Re: Andrea Leadsom...
It's obviously physically and budgetarily impossible to do this so it's not a real issue. Stuff May thinks is a thing on the other hand..
Re: No Problem...
Not a problem. If you remove the cost of pre-installed Windows 10 you can save approximately 10%, and install Linux instead.
If you buy from elsewhere you can save even more AND get better gear. Wait people still buy dell gear?
Where's that then? Israel? (I *think* they operate a fairly pure form of PR. I don't think many, if any, other countries do.)
Uhm. The outcome wouldn't be any different regardless?
Plus not for nothing but PR is insanely bad for democracy. People already cry like babies that we don't elect our PM - imagine a world where you don't elect your MP either. Like we don't have enough problems with politicians who haven't actually worked in their lives.
Also it creates an environment where parties can stack members who agree with them which is incredibly dangerous.
Right or wrong, the process could be tied up in litigation for years
No because Parliament is sovereign to the action either way; they have a debate and any MP in England who wants to get re-elected goes with the vote or they make this nonsense illegal and the courts throw it out. Either way it's a huge fail of the actual intent.
Also not for nothing but it's a constitutional issue and the power in law is held by the crown and loaned to the government vis-a-vis the prime minister. It's a fundamental misreading of UK constitutional law to think otherwise. This stuff isn't even difficult.
Non-natural persons don't get to decide the outcome of votes, natural persons do; the end. We operate a one person one vote system here, the very idea that a few (I'm guessing mostly foreign) corps can control the outcome is offensive to the very idea of democracy and must be stamped out with the maximum of force that the state can bring to bear.
It doesn't pass the laugh test and I can't imagine any court entertaining it for more than 5 minutes (courts AFAIK aren't allowed to control parliamentary business directly regardless) and ignoring all that they need to grow up anyway.
Re: What a horrible waste of time and money
Constitutional issue which was put to the people by parliament and apparently parliament needs to look at it again because unspecified reasons. We used to call these lolsuits.
Not for nothing but referenda has the same force and effect as general elections - if that result isn't followed we have a name for that. It's amazing how real life makes the NWO nutties look a bit more sane every day.
I do hope the news media is putting some effort into the actual story here and figuring out the shady characters behind this action and also this isn't America so piss off anyway?
Re: Although the burden of proof lies with Love
It's pretty clear from this as I've stated a bunch of times that the police don't want this tested in court. The law is basically there to scare the ill-informed.
DSTL still exists which was part of DERA. But yeah it's the kind of thing where smart people would say "privatisation of a good thing that was doing well f**ked us in the ass". Not for nothing but the entire reason it was privatised was down to EU rules so on some levels he's completely right that post-EU we could expand DSTL into areas QQ work but it'd be.. y'know, weird.
Smart thing might be for the govt to aquire QQ if this was going to be a thing - seems like taxpayer would get bent over on that at least inititally though.
Browser certs are a joke though. Github supports U2F which has got to be the way forward; I've been using it myself for many months now and it's absolutely rock solid.
Re: "What do our sysadmin readers think?"
Funny you should mention that I've been working on for a while what I think is the first third party implementation of a SUS server (it's a well-documented open standard - no really) and it happens to be Open Source and also, y'know, run on Linux (for updating windows hosts) :)
"What do our sysadmin readers think?"
WSUS. That's what I think.
But yeah, trash. Lets not even discuss the win 10 store connections for completely unrelated apps that never even came from the store.
It really is easy...
Stop burning though so much cash and it should be easy to turn it around.
Also I'd actually pay for the ability to edit tweets. Pliskthxbai?
Did you know there's a mega cybercrime backlog in Ireland? Now you do
No but given what goes on there I could have guessed. Not in any way shocking. Also why are the FBI involved. How about make some *cough* companies pay tax and get your own police force?
Re: Just when I think I've firmly decided on Remain
1. Premium quality, made with care and attention to the ingredients in Cornwall.
2. Meat slurry sprayed in to a second hand purse in Cornwall.
3. Premium quality, made with care and attention to the ingredients in Hampshire.
4. Meat slurry sprayed in to a second hand purse in Hampshire.
Why do we give protection to pasties 1 and 2? If we must give protection to pasties (and I'm not sure why we need to) then wouldn't we want to protect 1 and 3?
How about we don't want to protect any of them and they're made to stand on their own two feet in the market place. Not for nothing but the EU rules on this stuff need not apply. In your 3/4 calling something a "Cornish" pasty is okay but saying it was "Made in Cornwall" when it wasn't would be obviously fraudulent. What we need here is consumers to either buy reading glasses or I suspect more likely actually give a toss - if consumers are getting quality anyway they probably won't; they're going to buy whatever is economically justified to them and I'd imagine given the ranges available in supermarkets that probably isn't going to be made in Cornwall anyway. Ginsters regardless though (god help us).
The outcome of cornish pasty protected status wasn't people bought more pasties from cornwall it was people bought more microwave pizzas from Tesco and more "Cornish-style Pasties" or whatever the supermarkets are calling them. Heck probably even just calling them "pasties" is probably enough to take 90% of the market and that's a generic term nobody is getting protection of.
Also wow I'm having déjà vu...
The heavily sarcastic article here attempts to belittle and undermine the idea of protected status for regional foods
The number of British foods of equal or greater standing the EU *refuses* to protect there's no wonder people belittle it. Also It offers almost no protection of merit anyway, all one has to do is stamp the word "style" on one's product and there's nothing that can be done and it makes a mockery of the entire system; and that's *inside* the common market - outside of it there's not even that "value".
And worse of all it's nothing but an advertisement for the kind of silliness the single market breeds: protectionism and uncompetitiveness. These products should be made to compete on quality not assumed quality a pointless label provides.
Re: Basic, bottom line:
The issue is that people are totally and utterly pig-ignorant about the medium they are entrusting their data to
I'm not pig ignorant and I know data can be secure if governments stay the f out. Email CAN be secure, it's just people choose to allow their mail providers to use ciphers we've known are broken for years now just so they can support outlook express for the 3 people still running windows 98.
.. that we allow as a society phone connection records to be recorded then stored is because billing of most phone networks requires it - once you're creating/storing that data for billing you have to be able to give it to customers so they don't feel like you're ripping them off (I mean you probably are ripping them off but not in the lying about calls sense) and in a way it's fair game for intelligence (but obviously because of privacy restrictions apply).
This simply doesn't apply with the internet. No ISP records this data because it isn't required for billing, so you have to create entirely different laws for it thus proving beyond all doubt that they're not at all the same and that courts and systems of law shouldn't treat them the same.
With the internet the metadata is as private as the content, because it can reveal as much (and in some cases more) private information.
Re: ...or anarchy
Given they know that, the only logical conclusion is that this is intentionally part of a strategy to spy on the population and control them.
I don't disagree, what I don't know is if the footsoldiers at GCHQ/NSA et al are actually telling their bosses they need huge mountains of data to do their jobs. Can't imagine why they would given it would seem to impede them in doing so.
I'm all for intrusive surveillance but it actually has to be targeted at individuals. All we're trying to do now is carpet bomb dresden rather than hit bin laden with a drone strike like we should be doing. Yes you have to find targets in the first place but very few people mouthing off on facebook are going to be actual threats, the way you'd tell is with actual old fashioned intelligence work and maybe less with the allowing people to piss off to Syria whenever they feel like and we might start making some headway.
They can try - they'll end the economic system they're supposed to protect if they do. Plus pitchforks are an option.
"Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants; it was the creed of slaves" -- Pitt the Younger.
Seemed relevant seeing as Hague brought him up.
doesn't end up in the traffic cops back pocket but their paymasters instead since its not a paper handshake but a plastic shake down
Until they start paying bonuses based off assets seized which by my understanding is already going on in various states - and by the smell of what's discussed in the article one might assume is already happening there.
Also not for nothing but generally when you're paying protection money the guys threatening you aren't actually the ones receiving the money in the end anyway, they just work for the guy who does. See why somebody might get confused?
Re: Commons passes snoopers' charter
Remember that we only have this bill because previous attempts have run foul of the courts
Yeah but UK courts. When it's gone before the various courts of the EU legal system the government has said "national security" and they've said "okay then" as opposed to "proportionate? no?".
All I'm saying is there should be consistency of law with this stuff. I'm not by any stretch saying they were wrong with safe harbour - I'm saying they were wrong with their response to the UK doing the same thing; and clearly so.
Re: Commons passes snoopers' charter
There is a more serious question at the intersection between this article and what you're talking about which is why does the ECJ allow the UK (and Germany/France) to do exactly the same thing without question that the US does that invalidates safe harbour.
It can't ever be fit for the ECJ purely because of the exemptions; but without them it still won't because the only way it can be made fit for EU law is by the US changing it's constitution to cover non-US persons outside the US - which is obviously never going to happen; so anything that happens without that is always going to be illegal.
Those of us who are competent realised this was a thing a long time ago, just saying.
Sorting it out on mail protocols at least as important as HTTP - but a lot of people take what Google do as best practice (it definitely isn't) so maybe it'll help a bit in the general population.
Plus attempting to screw us over on the Manhatten project ( taking our research with an agreement to share back anything you learned, but then refusing to do so until we had built a nuclear power plant to generate our own fissile materials
Basically everything related to the Tizard Mission if we're being fair. Jet engines alone the Germans couldn't get right and I imagine the yanks were nowhere even close. Lest we even discuss the humble cavity magnetron, what would the US do without microwave TV dinners.
Actually your Indians are not the same as our Indians so I highly doubt anyone from England is the original owner of anything in the US if you choose to go that route.
Oh god, not blessed with many smarts.
Smokeping isn't this quite clearly if you're trying to say what I think you're saying;.
I've been working on a similar system, I'll be interested to see how they visualize that data on a global scale in real time because it's been my main blocker..
Interesting that it sounds like they've taken different approaches to data collection to what I have - but then they probably also have more resources than me :)
Sorry, headline comment..
Because the world needs another distributed storage software solution
(No it doesn't)
Until there's a perfect system that covers all requirements (neither of these are fulfilled) - yes it does actually. I'm done, go about your business.
Re: Not TeamViewer's fault
I don't think I'm a fan of this denial first attitude. It's the same attitude that caused the storm in the first place - it's entirely *possible* they could have had a breach and not know about it and instead of properly investigating they just flatly deny it when there's some good evidence suggesting there's an issue. Teamviewer is a legal back-door that breaks open most system (and firewall) security with credentials, if there's a wiff of a problem you revoke first and ask questions later - their attitude has been deny first and ask limited questions. They've obviously been attacked and they should be figuring out if that attack was cover for something more serious, and yes; giving people tools to secure their accounts.
We've been here before and we'll be here again - if it's 2016 and you can't give people the tools to convince themselves their systems are safe you're (rightly) going to have a trust problem.
You don't expect EU to collapse because the UK leaves do you?
If you want changes in your lifetime, better be on the inside making those changes.
There's no effective change that can be waged against the EU from the inside which is the entire point, which is circular with see above. Can't even get the Germans to stop inviting people to show up on their doorstep rather than make the refugee camps in Turkey better places to live in and sort the Syria situation out. Hell the EU is making no effort to sort Iraq's IS population where we're invited explicitly so..
Hence we're better of out. It's not changing either way but the UK can be a freer and richer place where citizens can effect change. Sure can't as EU members.
I'm a brexiteer, I'm not xenophobic - quite the opposite; I'm even a European federalist. The problem is the EU needs to burn to the ground so we can replace it with something fit for purpose. Yes there are racists and xenophobes for brexit; but they're a minority at best. Our problem is we don't like the EU not we don't like other Europeans. Best way I can sum it up is it feels like we're the only ones who can see the iceberg the Titanic is bearing down on. Feels like.
Re: One point
This guys in Calais are almost exclusively from the Horn of Africa. The lessons in migration the EU is going to have to learn the very hard way is exactly the problem here. The are absolutely, without doubt, mostly migrants in the economic sense not refugees in the my country has a war sense. Merkel made sure of that even to the extent it was true at one point; I hear it's working out well.
Re: But... TeamViewer doesn't *require* an account, does it?
You'd have to start by assuming the account-less auth is the one that's safe. There's no evidence either way honestly. People with account-based access still have their machines set up so they can be accessed by pin; it's entirely possible if there is an issue that this could be the real problem. Actually I'd personally wager this is the more likely threat given the alleged involvement of 2FA.
It's not as if nobody ever used a DDoS to hide some other attack. In fact it's been the modus operandi for multiple well-known groups it well-documented attacks for some time now. The fact TV don't know this concerns me greatly.
They might genuinely not know; personally it feels like they need to revoke a lot of creds here. I just revoked all the auth for all the systems I have TV installed on but a lot of people might not be aware of the risk.