Now lets hope...
It deletes the right nagware, and not something else. Because I can imagine it already: "Ok, so now that Win7/Win8 users can no longer upgrade to Windows 10 I guess they won't be needing that update option anymore either...".
2100 posts • joined 19 Dec 2010
It deletes the right nagware, and not something else. Because I can imagine it already: "Ok, so now that Win7/Win8 users can no longer upgrade to Windows 10 I guess they won't be needing that update option anymore either...".
I picked up Opera around version 19 or 20 (I think) because I wanted to try something else but I don't trust Google enough to start using Chrome, it's also a matter of principle (a bit). The first start was an instant hit: it could easily import favorites from both Internet Explorer (which I used sporadically) and SeaMonkey (which is still my 2nd browser). Both without any problems.
A lot of stuff got added over time and I think it's impressive. Take the internal Ad blocker: I tested this against AdBlock pro and it's doing an excellent job! I have several friends who now fully rely on Opera to keep things out. And I noticed something: they're much more open to the idea that Opera might allow a few ads to slip through than an AdBlocker plugin. Simple reasoning really: "They gave us a free browser, so why shouldn't they try to make some money out of that?".
Not sure I fully agree with that idea (Opera also pushes some of their favorites forward I'm sure) but I do agree that they're really trying to work with their users instead of against them. For example: ever since I started using it (1 - 2 years ago) I've always had (roughly) the same interface. Eventually 1 extra icon appeared in the programs title bar (tab menu) but that's hardly intrusive. I still remember Firefox with its always changing interface (which is also why I stopped using it).
This VPN feature is just the next step in my opinion. I probably won't be using it myself, but I still think it's an awesome feature. Especially for those who might be in need for free speech options (protection).
And they're not exactly friendly in some ways either. First to think about the infamous Top Gear episode which made Tesla actually sue Top Gear not once, but several times. And they lost every time. I can understand that Tesla didn't like that episode, but really: what did they expect? The original Top Gear crew never made it a secret that they weren't exactly fond of electric cars. And it's not as if they hadn't done something similar before (they tried to take a road trip using electric cars, and ended up stranded several times because some cities didn't have any charging options).
But I also remember the recent crash in the Netherlands. Tesla was plain out disrespectful with the way they handled the aftermath and cared more about their precious reputation than the family of the deceased. The problem: while the Dutch police were still investigating the crash and hadn't officially informed the next of kin yet Tesla felt the need to share a press release in which they shared a lot of details about the crash before the official police report came out.
Tesla could have waited a week, or heck: 3 - 4 days or so, so that the family didn't have to hear all details from a press release, but apparently they obviously didn't care all that much about showing a bit of respect and courtesy towards those family members who had lost someone.
And with all that in mind I wouldn't be surprised one single bit if Tesla did bend the truth a little here as well.
"If the industry wants me to adopt IPv6, then give me a translation router that: allows my v4 network to work internally, via static addresses if necessary; allows my website and email servers to be connected either via v4 or v6; allows me to prevent snooping backwards into my individual devices."
Well, fun fact: I actually have an IPv6 connection but mostly use IPv4, for the simple reason that apparently my provider doesn't fully realize how IPv6 should (or could) work.
You see: my router supports IPv6 on the outside (also has an IPv6 address) but only provides IPv4 on the inside. It gets more bizarre: my IPv6 address is an /128 one. In other words: one fixed address, I'd have expected some kind of subnet for sure.
As such my connection still relies on IPv4. Heck, because of the lack of IPv6 on the inside its the only thing I can do. Note that I don't mind all that much: I'm happy to have a gateway between my PC and the Internet instead of having my PC's firewall act as the first and last line of defense. But this wasn't the way they intended IPv6 to be used, that's for sure!
"They created MSN Messenger from scratch and people quite liked it."
So much this! And I think it also goes to show that it almost seems as if one part of Microsoft has no clue at all what the other part is doing. Take MSN: that got shut down. That is: it was supposed to, then someone suddenly remembered that the XBox was fully build upon MSN / Messenger. Oops! As such the original shutdown got delayed.
"Charities these days are a sham."
Just because a majority seems to be taking it lightly with ethics and such doesn't automatically make the whole thing a scam. Though I do agree with you that there are many problems right now.
For me a charity which needs some kind of profit to sustain itself (and its staff) is usually a scam. Because of their double morale: they maybe trying to do some good things, but as a commercial institute their first priority will always be to generate profit in order to sustain themselves. Because of that they can = per definition = no longer put other peoples interest above their own. Which should be the basic principle of a charity.
This goes double when the founder / CEO / board of directors / etc. all get a very hefty income out of the whole thing. And with hefty I refer to having the ability to easily purchase luxury items like mansions, boats and yachts. Because in my opinion those things have nothing to do with charity.
"With the entry fee capped at $295 if you’re company that’s less than six years old, privately funded, or at C-series stage, what have you got to lose?"
"The wannabee lawyers would not have seen it, therefore they have fair grounds to sue."
I'm actually not too sure about that, though I don't want to pretend to know exactly how the law works in this manner. But it would be more logical for these students to sue the institute which held the exams. The software may have caused the mistake, but it was the institute itself which eventually didn't pass them. So it seems more logical to me to put the blame on the institution.
I would be more inclined to side with the press if it weren't for the fact that the press themselves more than often work without any scrutiny or morale at all. A major accident or catastrophe? Lets make as many pictures as we can, preferably from people who actually got hurt. Who cares if they might be improperly dressed or if the police hasn't had the time to identify everyone and inform their next of kin (in case of a fatality). That is more than often a regular journalist at work for you.
As to the incident itself... Everyone who knows a tiny bit about computers knows better than to blindly click on a link in an e-mail. No matter who it's from. It wouldn't be the first time that spammers try to impersonate someone else (like an African lottery agency).
Also important: it's not as this was a destructive piece of malware, all it did was call home; send back any available (contact) information. I agree that there are always risks, but in this case nothing too major. This was a carefully orchestrated pin-point attack, and I honestly can't find too much wrong with it.
I'm happy to hear they caught that annoying SOB.
They should listen more to Trump: maybe they can build a wall around the server, a great wall made out of fire to keep all the pesky intruders out. We could call it... A firewall!
Can put the need of others above their own. In a way I've always considered my sysadmin job to be a bit ironic, because in a way you're always busy by making yourself obsolete. To a certain extend.
Think about the things you do in day to day operations. A good practice is to have those documented so that others can take over your tasks if the need arises. Yet this also means that theoretically they could kick you out from doing that task in its entirety and have someone cheaper simply follow the procedures which you laid out.
Even so, this has always been my philosophy on sysadmin work: you're basically doing things which make yourself obsolete. Because you always strive to make things better, but making things better also often means less interaction and more automation (not always!).
Of course there is much more to this. But that's also where the danger lies: the moment when the shit hits the fan, then we're getting where things count. Now your expertise and knowledge will be put to the test, and that is something which your "procedure following John Doe" won't be able to cope with. But that part is dangerous, especially when the upper brass starts to assess risk calculations. How often could this happen? How much costs would it take for them to get "ad-hoc" help? Maybe outsourcing so you only pay when you need a sysadmin's help?
For the record: I'm also one of those old guys who despises the fact that in many companies the helpdesk (sorry: service desk) is where they park sysadmins, claiming that the job is actually the same. It is not, and any managers who claim otherwise are in my humble opinion stupid idiots. As a sysadmin I do not mind doing service desk help, absolutely not. But don't think that I can actually work on server maintenance or other specific tasks while there's a risk that I'll be interrupted at any given time. Concentration is key with some things, and that's an issue many "highly trained managers" apparently never heard of, or can't even remotely imagine.
Just my 2 cents here.
"That Brexit is looking better every day...
Well, there is definitely some irony to be found here. Because I know city councils who are busy to experiment with providing free Wi-Fi for the entire city and all its guests. Guess Europe now put a stop to that ;)
Being able to make up rules and tell people what they should do while you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Cynical? Yessir, but that's honestly my impression about these political 'geniuses'.
Why I say that? Because I can turn this around. When a machine interacts with a wifi hotspot it'll send out its MAC address (you know: you can limit wifi access based on that as well, works quite effectively). Therefor I can argue that the identity got revealed, in the form of a MAC address. Which is, by theoretical definition anyway, a unique identifier.
I know what you're thinking: that is not really an identification because I don't know who the person is. Welcome to the phenomenon of: "the letter of the law". They clearly said:
"it is necessary to require users to reveal their identity to be prevented from acting anonymously before obtaining the required password."
And the definition of identity is left out. So when looking this up on the Innernets (Oxford dictionary):
"Identity - The characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is.
Note: or thing? And as said: a MAC address is supposed to be unique, ergo, I have established the identity (of the machine aka the thing, which is still operated by the user), so they're free to use the open Wi-Fi.
"The lobby group thinks that the developer has an obligation to depict the swine-herding experience with complete verisimilitude, including pigs being slaughtered by being “hung upside down, stabbed, and dropped into scalding-hot water.”
I can actually respect their opinion, because it is true that sometimes us humans don't exactly treat animals as gentle or kindly as we could. Not every country has applied laws which demand that slaughter houses try to keep the stress on the animals as small as possible.
But having said that... Slaughter houses... A farmer who has livestock usually doesn't slaughter these animals themselves. They get loaded into a truck, unloaded at the slaughter house and after processing (yes, I know how that sounds) the farmer gets the end product(s): the meat and such.
So... even though I can respect PETA's opinion on this matter I also think it would suit them to get their own facts straightened out as well.
Modern software as a whole seems to be fully relying on patching. From games which are released while the product actually wasn't fully finished right down to open source projects where small caveats are found during usage which then also need to be fixed through patching. I know: sometimes a new version gets released. But is that really so much different from releasing a patch?
This thing doesn't stop with Microsoft, Adobe and Google....
"The fact that ABP users aren't very likely to click on ads, let alone purchase the item advertised, causes the whole advertising 'value proposition' to fall on its face."
You seem to be under the impression that those advertisers actually think these things through. Would you buy something from a firm which has (proven!) infected your computer with malware which made your browser automatically go their website dozens of times (unwanted), even up to a point where your PC slowed down to such extremes that you called in some help from a friend to "clean up" your PC?
I don't think so either. Yet malware is still heavily spread around and actually being used.
You seem to forget the golden rule of advertising: It doesn't matter how they talk about you, as long as they are talking about you. (your product, brand, etc.).
Here in Holland we have a TV show which allows viewers to vote for the most irritating TV commercial of them all. The intend (or so we're led to believe) is to shame those companies for annoying so many people. Guess what? The "prize of shame" is actually highly appreciated by companies, and they're actually proud if they won it. Why? Simple: because that prize is also solid proof that dozens of people were talking about their product, the undeniable fact that their commercial actually raised product awareness, right up to a point where people voted for it, which is all they care for.
You won't easily get me to use an Internet-only product such as Office 365. Once the Internet goes down my demand to be able to work or at least do something goes up. Heck, even Minecraft works perfectly without Internet, so why shouldn't all the other stuff?
Same... I think fondly back about my 3mx and my 5. I loved both, but in all honesty I also think the 3mx was a bit more suitable for its intended use: keeping track of notes and schedules and such. The 5 was most definitely more feature rich (I even managed to run Norton Commander on it through the use of a DOS emulator!) but also quite bulky.
Still, the moving keyboard to preserve space was brilliant in my opinion. Even had a very nice touch response to it as well, I was even able to type letters on it!
If it wasn't for the (more) difficult way to synchronize my data with my PC I might have still been using it today. Because that has always been the problem with Psion for me: syncing. Psion 6 + better sync. support would be an instant winner with me. But... unfortunately they stopped their consumer line :(
Another post, while the thread is more or less 'done', but even so... Usually the aftermath is just as important (if not more) than the moments shortly after the event itself.
"And yet you want to have a go at bashing them. Well, good for you."
Well, no bashing from me, but in the aftermath of this incident Tesla has shown to have very little consideration for the drivers family. Which I think is appalling. Here's the problem: while the police were still busy investigating the crash and had not given any official statement yet Tesla considered it necessary to send out a press release in which they declared that the driver was speeding together with other information involving the crash. Before the police had given any official reports, even before the police had a chance to contact the next of kin.
In my opinion Tesla only had their own reputation in mind here and apparently couldn't care less about the drivers family. Who got to hear some details first from a company's press statement before being contacted by the police.
I think that's disgusting on the part of Tesla. They could have waited a week or so before releasing this but no... Their reputation obviously came first.
So yeah, you still think they're doing everything they can to keep people safe? Or are they doing everything they can to preserve their own reputation?
I mean, they are firefighters, how would they tackle an electrical fire in any other situation?
By making sure the power gets shut down.
Why didn't they just use the already-existing steps to tackle electrical fires? It's not as if a Tesla car is anything special in that regard.
Because the safety system which should have done a complete shut down had failed due to the crash, therefor the risks of electrocution were still there. Also because some of the batteries had caught fire.
I'm actually from the Netherlands and could follow the news around this...
"In this case, a man has, tragically, died in a car crash. That is all we know."
Oh, we know a lot more. It took 5 hours before the fire department finally could start to remove the body. It's also not 100% sure yet if the man actually died during the crash or after because... As it turned out the safety system which should have done a total shut down failed, due to the crash (ironic in my opinion), and because the batteries of the car had caught fire the fire department feared risk of electrocution, therefor couldn't do much. As such it took them 5 hours.
I do agree that you can't blame Tesla here, though the failed failsave sounds peculiar to me. However I do think people might want to re-consider driving electric cars considering the extra hazards it could cause.
If this had been a normal petrol car then the fire department could have acted a whole lot quicker.
"The CJEU said that it is not necessarily an unfair commercial practice to bundle computers with pre-installed software, so long as "such an offer is not contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and does not distort the economic behaviour of consumers".
Yet Microsoft got fined and were forced to provide users with a choice of browsers and quite frankly I fail to see the difference. Especially considering the fact that all those browsers can be picked up free of charge, therefor I'd argue that there is little commercial impact. In fact, one could even argue that the browser can be used to download other browsers on the Internet.
"A commercial practice is to be regarded as misleading if it omits material information that the average consumer needs in order to make an informed transactional decision"
I think one could also argue that it's not the role of an operating system to inform the end users that there are more choices when it comes to browsers, also because the role of an operating system is to be used to run software on it (any software). And with search engines such as Google and Bing (or the Internet as a whole) I think it's not that far fetched to argue that consumers can easily use that to get hold of other software (such as browsers). All they'd need is a browser to get there.
Now, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the EU's ruling back then, but I do think that this new ruling contradicts the verdict we got back then. And that's not exactly how the law should work: it should apply to everyone. Which then leads me to wonder if there are any benefits for the EU with Sony's current presence.
Dumb on many levels.
Have we already forgotten about running out of IPv4 addresses? A website which uses plain HTTP allows the webserver to perform name based lookups. In other words: you can host several websites using 1 single IP address. Enforcing HTTPS takes this advantage away due to its structure, HTTPS needs a dedicated IP address for a website. So basically... While we're in the middle of struggling with running out of IPv4 addresses Google tries to push the demand for IP addresses even more forward.
Second, just as obvious: by marking all HTTP using websites as insecure people will become more immune to such warnings. And that can have serious effects when they actually do come across insecure websites. Because how are they going to notice the difference? Worse: would they still care as much? I can picture it now: "Meh, Google calls all the websites I visit insecure these days and nothing bad happened, so how bad could this site be? <clicks>".
As also stated in the article: it's not as if the use of HTTPS ensures safety. That's plain out bollocks. Don't believe me? How about that story on the SSL skeleton key? Or what about the story earlier this year about a Compromised HTTPS website.
Third: we already established time and time again that there are dozens of CA's out there who don't exactly take safety very seriously. Remember those articles about easily obtaining certificates for known domains? Like getting one for Mozilla? There has been a recent issue as well, but I wasn't able to find the article so quickly.
Even so... HTTPS is no guarantee for security. And I think it's stupid if someone tries to make it look as if it does. Makes me wonder: I know Google sells domains, do they also sell certificates by any chance? Conflict of interest perhaps?
The party who truly violated copyrights, those who put those pictures online in the first place, are fully ignored. And the pictures remain as-is, because it's that hyperlink which is the root of all evil here.
See no evil, hear no evil... Ignorance and in my opinion plain out stupidity at its finest.
Problem is, all this lacks the big-picture feel that added the gravitas, the appeal and the narrative of the TV series – and even the follow-on films."
I think the main underlying issue here is what drives current producers and what drove the original ones. The original ones had to come up with something new and creative, also because there was some "Sci-fi competition" on the other channel, and that led to Star Trek.
The current drive, in my opinion obviously, is solely fueled by money. That's why they're trying to keep a broad appeal: the more people go to see it the more money they'll get. Nothing more or less.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned but if they truly loved the Star Trek franchise then I think they should have either left it alone or come up with a new spin off / idea instead of continuously trying to re-do the original era. Take the Next Generation, I think that series was quite satisfying, and in general I don't even like reboots and the re-doing of stuff all that much.
Of course that comes with a risk, and that brings us to the underlying issue again: taking a risk with something new could mean that it might fail. And that would cost them money, so they won't do that. Instead they go with something which has much bigger chances of grossing in some extra cash: stuff which people already like.
When I was a kid I never really liked the Star Trek movies even though I loved the series. And the reason for that was quite simple: it was all different! Different uniforms, different settings, the actors looked different (or so I thought)...
And that problem manifested itself in many movies which were based on television series. Heck, it was one of the things I immediately liked about the Transformers movie (no, not that modern nonsense, I'm talking about the 80's animated movie): the intro music did honor to the original. It was different, sure, but you could at least recognize the opening theme in it. And the same more or less applied to the settings of the movie itself (Cybertron, Metroplex, etc.) and the figures in it.
"The most successful Star Trek film of all time, JJ Abrams’ 2009 reboot, made less than the least successful entry from Star Wars – $299m versus $450m."
Most successful? Or did you mean to say "most grossing"? And even if you refer to that then I think you're comparing apples and oranges. For starters you should take inflation into account. Since most people have more to spend these days in comparison to last century I don't think it should come as a surprise that movies today make more money in comparison. But does that really mean being more successful?
I somewhat beg to differ, I think the most successful movie is still Wrath of Khan, whereas the most successful era being the original. Even the modern reboots couldn't stop referring back to the original era, including Khan.
And well, wouldn't you call it a success if people still talk about something 34 years later?
"The odd signal turned up over the weekend"
Yet the original article stated:
"Hence even though a signal in the 2.7 cm wavelength (11 GHz band) was spotted for four seconds on May 15, 2015, the SETI Institute's Seth Shostak only goes as far as to say the signal is “interesting”.".
So not the signal but mentioning of the signal turned up over the weekend. But here's the part I don't understand: initially this information was withheld from the public, apparently because of its nature and origin. It was treated as classified and was only studied and seen by specialists (or so I assume). Surely one of the first things they would do is to rule out the obvious, such as "rogue" satellite signals? Or is that kind of reasoning a little too obvious for the elite?
And then of course also what SETI itself told us: that it's quite uncommon to wait so long with the disclosure of this information.
Are they trying to defuse alien conspiracy theories before they happened or to actually fuel them?
But even so, I find it highly peculiar that the select elite specialists who were given access to this information apparently couldn't manage to rule out the obvious within one year...
"when someone spoofs the 'updates' .. using P2P-type methods for software patching is beyond asinine."
Although true there really is no reason for concern. We've already established that Microsoft's own updates also often manage to break parts of the system, so if this would happen then customers would basically get the experience they've already been expecting anyway.
If we're talking about anti-EU minded people here then trust me: I'm a big part of that. But please be careful not to let your negativity or cynicism to get the best of you. As bad as I think the EU is it doesn't mean that everything they do is bad per definition as well. That's just plain out nonsense.
And I think this is a good thing to happen. No, I do not condone child abuse material or any other related abusive crap that's out there. But here's the thing: just because a provide blocks it doesn't mean that it'll "just" go away. Blocking these things is like putting your head in the sand: see no evil, hear no evil...
I hope that this move might help get providers to work together amongst themselves and law enforcement agencies to actually put a stop to all this. That would be so much better than just blocking this mess and pretend as if nothing happened.
And if you don't believe me ask BREIN: they tried to block the Pirate Bay in all of the Netherlands (granted: at a time where most people were already using alternatives, agencies like BREIN aren't exactly aware of recent events) but the end result was nill. Now, several years later, said blockade is now also gone and the Pirate Bay is still pretty much alive.
Just so we're clear, I suppose I am a little biased because I'm quite anti-EU. At the very least in its current form.
But having said that: It was Ireland who made this tax deal possible, Apple struck a deal with them. Even though Ireland was a part of the EU. Now the EU deems this an illegal treaty. So shouldn't it be Ireland who has to cough up the fine? They agreed, while it apparently was against the "EU rules".
And having said that: biting the hand that feeds you anyone? Sure, I can understand that the tax deal might be against the rules. But it's not as if this is only an issue of profit. Apple also brings in new jobs for EU citizens, shouldn't that be weighed against the relaxed taxation they're paying?
The way I see it the EU honcho's only smell money. Totally oblivious of the obvious: if you squeeze Apple too much then there's a decent chance that they'll move elsewhere. Which would result in hundreds of people getting unemployed. So are these EU boffins really acting on the behalf of the citizens here? I have some serious doubts about that.
I think the main problems are caused by the commerce sections. Because let's be realistic here: the best you can hope for with HTTPS is that the contents of the website you're visiting is encrypted and this would block 3rd party listeners. Here is step one where the commerce ruined things: advertisements. Because those are highly important and should be included, who cares if you end up with a website which mixes encrypted with unencrypted data? Fortunately my browser cares and blocks all of that by default.
And then you got companies which suddenly tried to sell "identities": using HTTPS for something it was never really intended for: to put (theoretical) trust in a domain name where the browser would show you that whatever you're visiting is really "real".
But in the end the one thing which really matters is that the data between the webserver and the visitor gets encrypted. And many people seem to forget all about that.
What good are rules (such as a license) when you don't enforce them? I think that the statement about companies abusing the GPL isn't all that far off to be honest. And I can also understand why they would prefer this topic to be addressed at a Linux conference. After all the GPL and Linux are pretty much interwoven so to speak. So with that in mind I don't think the request is as ridiculous as Linus makes it sound.
Especially if you look at the way the US legal system works: when a precedence is set then that can be used for future cases.
Of course I do agree with the statement that lawsuits do more harm than good. True. But what good are rules if you don't plan to follow up on them?
Either way, when it comes to the GPL then I think Stallman is a much better suited candidate to decide if this topic should be addressed or not (instead of Kuhn).
I see your Windows 2k and I raise you Windows 98. With more pain attached to it: during a public presentation of Windows 98 the host was going to show how easy it was to connect USB devices. He plugged in an USB scanner: "Let's plug it in, it's going to see a new device. You'll notice that this scanner build.. whoah!".
And the next moment both the host and Bill Gates who attended the presentation were greeted with a BSOD. Which unsurprisingly triggered quite an applause from the audience ;)
I think Microsoft should change their slogan. The "Where do you want to go today?" just doesn't fit anymore....
Microsoft Windows 10: "What do you want us to break on Tuesday?".
"Any customers downloading the software become self-qualifying leads for Maxta's channel."
Being a customer means you bought something from the company, and that totally eliminates the 'free' in 'freemium' in my opinion. If we take a look at what Wikipedia considers Freemium to be we learn that: "Freemium is a pricing strategy by which a product or service (typically a digital offering or application such as software, media, games or web services) is provided free of charge, but money (premium) is charged for proprietary features, functionality, or virtual goods.".
Anyway, as a non-US resident I can't get my hands on this, but I can still see what might go wrong here. Providing your software is one step, actually making sure that potential customers get the right impressions about it is something else. Considering that this doesn't come with any support at all I cannot help wonder how they're going to deal with people who download this but can't get it to work?
If you visit the Maxta website you'll notice that they don't really have any community going, there's no forum for interested people to gather more information. Which in my opinion could be crucial when it comes to Freemium products: a community helping the community, which will only add to the appeal of the product. Of course this also comes with risks: once you get in touch with less satisfied customers then they will also make themselves heard.
Still, I know I can be quite the cynic but I cannot help wonder if this is really going to help them out as much as they might anticipate.
"So we wait until he kills someone?"
Have you actually read the article and the linked articles?
What has happened here is that this guy confessed to his GP (General Practitioner, so his doctor (as a non-English speaker I actually had to look this up)) about his wild sexual fantasies and that he wasn't too sure that he didn't rape someone. Basically: during the past 12 months he never really asked his girlfriend(s?) if they agreed. So his doctor reported him.
Then it got out that he does show some odd behaviour. Even getting into fights himself (it is unspecified if this is with males or females) and taking some things to extremes. So you won't hear me say that everything is totally normal here.
He was tried and I'm pretty sure that his girlfriends were also part of that trial. Surely that would be the best evidence they had against him? But even despite all that a jury cleared him of all charges. Now, take note: they cleared him while he himself was the one who brought it all up: he wasn't sure the sex was consensual.
And after that it was the Judge who suddenly started the hate campaign; stating how this guy was a very dangerous man in his eyes.
Here is my problem with the whole thing: for all I know that judge could be someone who totally despises SM or any forms of kinky sex. Either because he's just disgusted with it, or because of other personal issues he has with it (religion?). Leading up to this guy getting convicted merely because 1 individual considers him dangerous, even though all the evidence in the trial itself has been taken into account by a jury and they still acquitted him.
Do you honestly call that justice?
Let's also not forget that it was he himself who sought help in the first place! Instead of trying to help him his doctor apparently called the cops on him. So here's my real problem: what if all this drives him over the edge and things go downhill from here? Do you honestly believe that he'll ever try to seek medical help again?
And who's fault would that be, hmm? Once again: he fessed up himself! So he has a clear understanding of right and wrong in my opinion and better yet: also acted on it! As a result he gets condemned without proper evidence because of one man.
This is a witch hunt in my opinion.
Reported by El Reg some time ago: you could log onto the Hammersmith / Wimbledon website using only an e-mail address. And to add insult to injury the (valid!) e-mail address of the administrator could be found right on the about page of said website (for more details see link to El Reg article).
Makes you wonder where in the heck those websites get their infrastructure from. Maybe a local "web guru" or -gasp- could they have hired the services of a "skilled" web design agency?
Google steps in, starts developing specific laser technology and before you know we'll be "enjoying" region targeted advertisements in the night sky clouds. Time for the black helicopter ;)
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We thank you once again for choosing Microsoft airlines, we get you to your destination in a Bing!
The weather is excellent today and we'll soon be making our approach for landing. The sea looks calm and if you look outside the left window you may get to see a glimpse of the capital city of Tokyo while we make our approach to Melbourne. Please be advised that... What? Excuse me ladies and gentlemen, my co-pilot is interrupting me again. <whispering voice> Of course I know what I'm doing, how often do we have to go over this? Look: maps.bing.com, look it up yourself, ok? Now stop bugging me or you'll looking for a new job! </whispering>
We will now be making our approach, please fasten your seatbelts. It appears as if Melbourne has suffered from a minor flooding but that's nothing which our state of the art Windows 10 powered plane can't handle!
<2 days later>
This is CNN. Investigators are still puzzled as to why a plane heading to Melbourne suddenly ended up crash landing near the isle of Japan. This is yet another of many setbacks for Microsoft which was the first to push Windows powered planes forward after Google had grossed in tremendous success with their self-driving taxis.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates has said to be shocked with the news of the crashing plane but that there is no reason for concern. All airplanes are said to have undergone emergency upgrades and are now using the latest release of Windows 10. When asked about the rumours which claim that a previous version of Bing maps depicted Canada to be near the south pole no further comments were given.
I can't help wonder what all those people might now be thinking who disagreed with Apple's decision to oppose the FBI some months ago . You know: not creating a backdoor for iOS because of fear that the government was going to abuse it.
If all this turns out to be true then I'd say it is also one heck of a confirmation that Apple did indeed do the right thing back there.
"So was Julian Asshole’s big idea just to establish Wikileaks as the worlds largest malware market?"
I think there's a little more to it than that. The main problem is tampering: if they removed all the attachments then they're basically changing the e-mails contents. Which raises an obvious question: if they think it's ok to alter e-mails like that (remove attachments) then what guarantees are left that they didn't change even more?
So I don't think they have much other alternatives here. But I fully agree that more and better warnings should have be put in place.
Not sure I understand why anybody would use this in preference to sh, bash, dash, csh, ksh, zsh, et al.
Well, it is true that PowerShell is an extremely flexible tool when it comes to administrating Windows servers. Having the ability to easily access the registry of a remote server or its SSL keystore can be very useful.
Yet that 'remoting' as it's called is also where PowerShell shows its weaknesses. When I'm logged onto a remote server I can't simply start a commandline based text editor to edit remote files. Not because those aren't available, but because PowerShell doesn't fully support this (yet?). Not even running something as trivial as edlin can be used through PowerShell on a remote server: the very moment I start a new process then the output of that process will not find its way to me. It's unsupported!
And as we all know this is completely different for your average Unix-like console together with SSH.
PowerShell has its uses, but not so much in comparison to what you can already do on an average Unix shell.
"It doesn't do that."
... yet. I was under the same impression with (win)RAR, then all of a sudden an overflow exploit was found. I'm not saying you're insecure, but it's also no reason to get sloppy either.
"He carries on biting the hand that is currently feeding him"
The real question: is he?
Don't assume that someones motivations (or intentions) are always negative when they're spreading negative (or critical) comments. I can easily turn this around: this could also show you the superiority of Mother Russia over the NSA, and I doubt that premier Poetin couldn't be flattered with that.
So I actually read the EULA (End User License Agreement) and it has some interesting point there. For example, what it's saying about mods:
III Additional license information, people (players) agree that they will not:
E. Use any unauthorized third-party programs that interact with the Software in any way, including but not limited to, “mods,” “hacks,” “cheats,” “scripts,” “bots,” “trainers,” or automation programs, or any third-party programs that intercept, emulate or redirect any communication between the Software and Riot Games, or that collect information about the Game by reading areas of memory used by the Software to store information about the Game.
It looks to me as if they should go after those players who use this, not the website which provides all this.
One of the problems which our current society has to face is the growing "I" mentality. People who believe the world should center around them and what others feel, well.. that's not as important.
Freedom of speech is and always should be absolute. Meaning so much that it doesn't matter if you actually agree with the speaker or oppose all of his ideas with a passion. The freedom to speak your mind should apply to all of us. "Free to speak your mind as long as we agree", isn't freedom.
I get the impression that some people seem to forget this part.
freebsd-update is used to update the base system, though in 'binary' format. The other alternative is to check out the source code using Subversion and then compiling that yourself. I'll admit it's more tedious than letting freebsd-update handle things, but its still a way to work around using it.
Portnsnap is another example. A very easy way to keep your ports collection (usual location being /usr/ports) up to date. But once again you can also use Subversion.
I use adblockers. But not merely to get rid of annoying advertisements and pop-ups (my browser can handle the pop-ups on its own) but mostly to ensure the safety of my computer!
When I go to a website then I have a good idea what kind of contents I can expect. But it'll always be a mystery to me where the advertisements are coming from. Worse yet: what is going to happen when the source of advertisements gets compromised and starts spreading malware or other virusses (don't try to argue that this could never happen, events from the recent past clearly proof otherwise)?
So yeah, the moment a website tries to force me to remove my adblocker then the effect is very simple: said website will be removed from my favorites list(s) instead. There are tons more websites which can provide me with the same experience, thank you very much.
But back to my initial comment: this is a disaster just waiting to happen. Because what's going to happen when FB's advertising source gets compromised and its proven that FB has (indirectly) started spreading malware and other junk?
Their desire for more revenue could very well lead to their own downfall.
Because I'm under the strong impression that Oracle has no clue what so ever as to what micro payment actually is, especially when thinking back at how previous Sun licenses all tripled in price after the take-over.
... or a deliberate scheme by both O2 and Microsoft to somehow force a lot of people to upgrade their operating systems? To the latest and greatest Windows 10 of course.
Sure: this is a (somewhat silly) conspiracy theory. But how on earth did they manage to obtain such a virus which also only targets older Window versions?