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.
953 posts • joined 5 Jul 2010
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.
I assume this is another article that's supposed to be ironic and just comes across as dumb and missing the mark on every single issue?
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.
Re: So the bar is now much higher for e-cig makers
Yeah, you say that, but MHRA and DoH were dead set on making e-cigs medicinal only (IE a defacto ban) only a few years ago until vapers actually stepped in and told them what a fuckwitted idea that was
I'm fully aware of the history. The government is quite capable of directing the on policy. They can't however ignore EU regs. The EU won't move on the regs.
Surely you see the problem?
It took Greenland three years to get out, for reference - and that was back in the 80s before the red tape truly took hold; I'd expect a UK exit to take at least that long.
I wouldn't. I mean it's not the end of the world but if it comes down to it you can leave in 30 seconds if you want to. Leaving the EU doesn't erase laws as they stand; you can still use the EU regs as guiding light and unpick stuff as you go, starting with the easy stuff.
What takes time is bending over for the EU when you decided you want to leave. There's WTO rules on trade so you don't NEED to negotiate trade deals with the EU to trade with the EU - indeed I suspect that any negotiated settlement would actually be dangerous and get us back to where we started so actually we probably don't want an FTA with the EU regardless; companies wanting to sell to the EU would have to abide by relevant EU regs but that's true if you want to sell to the US you still have to follow their regs, and it's the same for everywhere else but you don't have to bend over backwards and get shafted everywhere else.
Re: rambling, there's plenty of reasons to want to leave the EU; and this one is a monster that's going to result in the deaths of many people - it's one of many but as I say; it's pretty huge and they're intractable on this as they are in many other issues.
Re: So the bar is now much higher for e-cig makers
leaving the EU on June 23rd won't make a jot of difference for at least three years, as we need to negotiate an exit plan, rework transitional regs, replace existing trade laws etc
Utter nonsense - these things are really easy to tidy around, you can unpick EU regs as they stand in our laws really easily from outside the EU.
even then, if any vendor wishes to sell to the EU, they still need to comply with the TPD
Irrelevant - the kit people who don't want to smoke want to buy or already own isn't TPD compliant - only stuff owned by tobacco corps (that will never in a million years get 100% of people away from smoking) is. UK sellers can't sell their fit for purpose gear to the EU either way but outside the EU it can be imported into the UK and sold to customers outside the EU. That's a win for everybody except people who would still be in the EU but they're screwed anyways.
Lets be clear here, the EU is killing millions of people who are alive today with these regulations. One is too many; given the EU has made it clear that these regs are not able to be moved because they're based on bad science and tobacco/pharmaceutical corp lobbying - the best thing the UK can do to save hundreds of thousands of lives and massive expense (via disability harming the tax take and through out of work benefits) to the treasury is to extricate ourselves from the problem: the EU.
Re: So the bar is now much higher for e-cig makers
A hard hat is a piece of safety equipment whose only purpose is to prevent you sustaining head injuries in a dangerous environment
An e-cig is a piece of equipment designed to stop the tobacco industry killing me. The TPD is a piece of toilet paper (I strongly resent calling it legislation because it was written like 3 years ago and wasn't fit for purpose then and sure as hell isn't fit for purpose now) that's designed to bulk out the coffers of the tobacco industry by regulating people back to smoking and regulating the e-cig companies they own into market owning positions.
The EU is MURDERING EU citizens. We'd be safer if we policed petty crime with drones that fire missiles: if I had literally any money to spare to do it I'd take the EU to it's own court arguing my Art 2 rights, but I don't so they'll get away with it.
And yes, not for nothing I'm dramatically under-playing what's actually happening here.
June 23rd, don't forget to vote.
Re: You missed out Napoléon.
There is nothing farcical about the comparison. Hitler tried to create a monolithic Europe by force, the so called EU are trying to do it by stealth
What stealth. They've never tried to hide what they're doing.
>Paxman in Brussels: Who Really Rules Us? <
It was a real eye opener, it changed my mind.
Didn't change my mind (I've been locked into lets leave and lets do it quick for a number of years) although the Strasbourg thing actually blew my mind, had no idea that was going on. What really caught my attention was Paxman swinging between looking like he wanted to throw up in disgust and trying his best not to laugh all the way through it.
.. of the key players GCHQ?
Bucket of fail honestly
Re: Age Verification
My understanding is they're talking about CC verification either directly or through a third party. What could possibly go wrong anyways.
Besides, weren't the default-on porn filters supposed to prevent children seeing porn?
FYI: this govt thinks it can bring foreign sites into line by blocking access and it might well work - some will comply with regs and others won't care and be blocked in the UK (goes the theory). I think we're becoming Turkey pretty quickly but apparently nobody but me gives a toss so.. VPNs all round.
Re: Possible .NE. Practical
It's interesting that what we're essentially talking about is fraud, which is the well-documented canary in coal mine of a bubble.
Stuff that always bothers me with tech bubbles is they harm the competent more than the incompetent. Those of us working hard and making the business world and investors actual returns find it difficult to get investment in tech because the investors throwing cash at stupid are always busy running for the hills after getting burnt.
The entire deal is harmful to progress; and the worst part is it's easily preventable with liberal application of a clue stick.
Re: Snake Oil
To be commercially successful public transportation needs high throughput. It doesn't matter how fast it is, if it can carry only a few hundred people an hour it's not going to pay for itself.
If this were true nobody would fly anywhere, which my understanding is exactly what hyperloop is initially designed to compete with anyway - both on price, cost and speed.
I see some serious technical issues that will need to be sorted through but I don't see capacity as one of them. As for your 2 minute rule, it sounds pretty nonsense, assuming they're automated you should be able to fling them seconds apart and I see no technical issue with running them in a train just there's no benefit to doing that; there's little drag to contend with which is the entire point and drag/air resistance reduction is precisely where trains benefit.
Re: providing free upgrades to customers.
I'd be *amazed* if anybody who reads the 'reg is a customer of these clowns.
And we call this group of the population "TalkTalk customers"
Yep. If you put up with the service (connection quality and customer) before the breach it's not exactly a huge shock that you'd stick around if they bend you over with a massive data breach - you're obviously not one who cares.
My concern is it might give other companies licence to be lax "because nobody cares anyway".
EE / T-Mobile merger is fine. BT taking over EE is fine, even though BT are known for their Anti-competitive practices and generally poor customer service.
The O2 / Three merge isn't allowed even when they want to invest billions.
The EU regulators need to be more dog.
Yep. This. Right here.
EE from T-Mobile/Orange was on the same level. BT/EE takeover is about 100x worse in terms of consumer harm and nobody (in the UK or EU competition authorities) bats an eyelid.
The whole thing is massively shady honestly - here was me thinking that the EU was TRYING to create a pan-EU state monopoly to stomp round the world breaking markets and killing competition; they allow two successive mergers that lead up to this (involving the "former" German state monopoly both times) and then any time anybody does the same they completely freak out.
Unprovable but the whole thing stinks of being.. what's the expression.. "fantastically corrupt". If they're doing this they need to unpick the EE/BT deal for anybody to have any confidence.
Re: Disruption but not as we know it?
to offset the phobia that such an access point could become a gateway to the UK for the "wrong sort of people"
But this has always been true - both the fear and the reality. Nothing about in or out will change anything even remotely related to any of this.
It's not like any of this is difficult to do, easily patrol-able with MQ-9's until something more permanent could be set up. Indeed the only reason it is like it is is purely down to historical reasons that aren't worth anything when it comes down to it. Sends a message that you give a shit about security of people in the north if nothing else.
Re: More FUD
continue to allow US companies to pretend to be in Ireland and pay no tax?
This is precisely why brexit would screw Ireland's pooch. They wouldn't be able to "evacuate" profits they claim were made in Ireland despite coming from UK sales and claim a single market defence. Upshot: Ireland's tech bullshit low tax low income low benefit to the state economy takes a massive proverbial kick in the teeth.
Either way it's not going to affect UK voter opinions on the matter.
Well I thought it was hilarious and I've only had 5 hours sleep in 4 days so maybe the no sleep is the answer.
Whoever actually invented bitcoin has spent so long hiding they're now, in fact, irrelevant no matter who they are.
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
Most of the information available about this subject, along with most of the studies carried out are extremely biased at this point so just because you've read it somewhere doesn't make it so
There's NO evidence young people who aren't already smoking are choosing to take up vaping. None at all. There's evidence that young people are vaping but if you pay attention they were smoking anyways so it's still positive.
Also not for nothing I've stated why this information exists.
As for you as a non-smoker taking up vaping: don't - it's not for you and the industry doesn't need you as a customer, there's plenty of smokers that will keep them in business for decades.
Final note: vaping is an opportunity for a total ban on smoking because, simply, there's an alternative that fills the market that smoking currently sits in but people need to be able to buy the equipment that allows them to stop smoking comfortably so we can avoid massive backlash. The new EU regs make all the gear I own illegal to sell (and therefore buy) within the EU when they take effect and as somebody who doesn't want to smoke the situation with juices is frightening to me. There's people on the ejuice subreddits stockpiling litres of nicotine base (highly concentrated nicotine in PG or VG) from fear they won't be able to buy it any more. Situation is extremely unhealthy and the UK government needs to make it clear to the public that they will under no circumstances seek to or allow public bodies to enforce the EU regs.
Main issue was that nobody has worked out how much is too much
Yep, they have.
Re: A report based on evidence instead of prejudice ?
Have they done a thorough long term health study on the effects of the various chemicals in the goop which goes through these things? As a non smoker who used to smoke, I'm just as worried about inhaling that crap as I am second hand smoke. What's more worrying is that most "vapers" think it's just water vapour they are breathing and when I tell them it's not they are quite often surprised
<- Ex-smoker who now vapes.
The simple answer to your question is yes.
The base liquids like PG/VG/Nicotine are very well understood no issues there. The risk comes from flavourings that are varying degrees of well understood - why? Because most of them are used in industrial settings where they're heated and atomised into much higher concentrations than you'd ever see from vaping over longer periods you'd ever be exposed from vaping.
Most of them are just plain safe to breathe in, some have varying degrees of issues - some could outright dangerous if you use enough. Thing is this information is available freely.
Couple of things: even the worst stuff you could put in juice is orders of magnitude safer than smoking itself. Most people don't put these chemicals in their ejuice anyway and those that do tend to use them at levels where they're likely to be almost completely safe.
You have to weigh these things on risk. If you're going to weigh this stuff up and say which is safer: smoking or vaping then the simple answer is it's going to be vaping every time. Once you find a flavour you like (which for most adults is going to be the fruity flavours that are *allegedly* aimed at children) and a tank that works for you you can just stop smoking - it's really like flipping a switch.
If you're gonna make assumptions because you don't understand something that a lot of smart people have spent a lot of time researching (including many scientists and many in the medical profession) then you should just keep it to yourself - because you're not helping, you're impeding the fight against smoking and you're helping tobacco corps in doing what they're doing. You're actively supporting them because they're going around buying up all the ecig companies that are compliant with the EU regs but are also really terrible at getting people away from smoking - and many have said (and this is completely believable given the evidence) that they essentially wrote the new EU legislation.
This stuff can be a global health panacea if it's allowed to be and people getting in the way should be fought wherever they show up (and they should be fought with evidence and facts because there's plenty of both).
How do you keep millions on millions of people smoking when they don't have to? Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. And bullshit regulations with no basis in reality.
Pretty sure that's the point. This is all.
Re: Time to make your plans
because your freedom to live & work in Europe will likely vanish overnight if Brits vote for BRExit
Funny I'm not actually sure voting "get out, get out now" by a convincing margin will actually be enough to extract us from the EU - but even if it was there's no immediate legal or practical effect - all that's happened at that point is a vote has taken place. Government has to give notice and there's probably a period before that takes effect and even when it does neither side is going to boot out people working legally in-country.
For workers there's going to be compliance periods where they can apply for visas and I'm 99% sure on both sides there will be some sort of automatic right for people working there already.
Either way this will all be decided and won't happen "overnight".
I wanted to guarantee my family the protection offered by ECHR rights, including right to privacy/freedom of expression/freedom of association/right to effective remedy.
The Home Office/Police/Security Servics seem to regard human rights with complete contempt; they will ensure a British Bill of Rights is simply a worthless sham without enforcement.
But funny how the ECHR and ECJ has taken zero steps to remedy any of this contempt that the security services and government treat those documents with. Almost like they're not worth the paper they're written on.
Be fascinated to learn what country you're living in given most of the EU operates with similar contempt for privacy and security of the person.
Re: And on the other side of the channel...
But what about other EU countries?
In EU countries EU law will stand. Not sure what you're asking, the law isn't going to change in these countries simply because the UK left, and it's probably going to take decades for UK law to diverge too much.
It may be that you have substantive grounds for hating BT and everything it stands for but it would strengthen your case if you explained exactly what those grounds are.
I absolutely don't I was prefacing being on their side on this particular issue. You could also try reading my previous comments :=)