Posts by Aqua Marina

Re: Some of these are collector items

Shortly after the Playboy issue she must have realised that there was a market for nerd fullfillment cos she started her own website called Babylon Babes. It didn't last long.

Re: Possible error?

"but we can read every email."

Challenge accepted!

Re: GDPR

They are running it with unrestricted uploads and downloads from pre-authenticated trusted devices which are susceptible to data theft. Is that enough to get your imagination going thinking about how to exploit it, or shall I get the crayons out?

Bollocks 2.0

I'm sorry... actually I'm not, I'll come out and say sir that you are talking absolute bollocks.

The NHOS logo on your websites homepage is 75% the NHS logo. You have taken an existing logo and tweaked it. It's the equivalent of taking the Coke logo and changing the text to Cokee, whilst keeping the same font and colours.

On your home page you have a video. The image even before I click it shows the 100% NHS logo, with the letters "b u n t u" appended after it. This would be no different to me taking the Disney logo, not changing the font or colours, but putting "buntu" after it and then trying to claim it's an entirely new logo with no disney logo or branding present.

It's not often I call someone a complete liar, but sir, you are lying completely. You know it, I know it, the NHS know it and anyone that visits your website having looked at the following link knows it.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=nhs+logo&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB751GB751&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAxOeiyeLYAhXJK8AKHfsUC-IQ_AUICigB&biw=2560&bih=1309

TLDR: Marcus Baw is talking bollocks.

Re: Arm Laser Turrets!

In the old original X wing PC game, you could come to a complete stop, divert all power to engines, fire a laser then go full throttle and catch it up. After 30 seconds or so the laser bolt just disappeared. I assume the game is based on real physics!

Re: Bot

Please tell me how you feel about For your inconvenience?

In 5 years, surely he could have dug a tunnel to freedom with a tablespoon by now.

She’s also very likely a fat balding bearded man who lives in his mother’s basement.

Just remember, this is the internet where men are men. Women are men. Teenage girls are men and children are probably FBI agents!

He managed to get the data by misusing his position, Director of "Accident Claims Handlers Ltd". The kind of company people use when making insurance claims.

Re: Unenforceable.

Certainly within the UK Nvidia cannot retrospectively remove these cards from data center use by changing the EULA at a later date. Whilst they can stop you from using subsequent driver releases after the EULA has changed, the doctrine of first sale protects anyone that already has the GPUs in place and the earlier version of the driver installed. In fact I believe there would be no legal recourse for Nvidia if someone was to continue to purchase and use the cards in a data center as long as they only used the driver release from before the EULA change.

I also believe that Nvidia could be opening themselves up to legal action if they refused to allow continued driver updates for those people that already have them in place prior to the change. Any driver update with “bug fixes” is an admission the previous version of the driver contains faults, and as such brings concepts such as “not fit for purpose” into play allowing for claims under warranty.

In the US however YMVV.

"I wonder where we stand legally now?"

If you are a UK based consumer (not business) you have up to 6 years to make a claim against the business that sold you the CPU (not Intel) because of the wonderful Consumer Rights Act. If the manufacturer admits the fault, then all the relevant criteria have been met. A 30% performance loss would be considered unreasonable without compensation.

The "First 6 months" and "since months or more" paragraphs on the Which website explain it best here https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

The simple answer is no. The company cannot insist that criminal assaults go to arbitration, despite the article clumsily suggesting the opposite. What it can insist on is arbitration of civil cases. This is perfectly legal and above board.

Re: So what did the police say?

“The accused should have been transferred; he, after all, was the alleged wrongdoer, not she.”

So regardless of guilt, he should be punished and be forced to change his job because allegations?

It also means that the new Star Wars films can have the 21st Century Fox fanfare at the beginning of the films again. It hasn’t felt the same without that in the past couple of films.

Re: Insurance fraud costs everyone money

Um, I do believe that in this case, the court said it was!

Re: Like me dammit!

So many people are incapable of comprehending that actions have consequences, or even that an effect had a cause they were responsible for. They just go through life one minute at a time dealing with the moment.

Reminds me of my teenaged uncle who has always considered himself a bit of an inventor. He had the bright idea of building a submarine out of 5 oil drums. He was in the middle one, and the 4 outer ones would be flooded to submerge him in the pond. His solution to surfacing was to have hose pipes going from the outer ones, to the inner one, and he simply would blow into each pipe until the water was pumped out of the outer drums.

He did live to tell the tale. His next great idea was a pedal copter, but that's a whole different story.

While they’re at it they can sort out the black box that is google search. Something is fishy when thousands of companies offering the same products are under the impression that their unique SEO practices have got them first page on google.

Re: Headline

El Reg didn't conclude that, the researchers did. Re-read the second to last paragraph.

Mine was the other rejected. Seems like a right royal dick move to me.

Bugger it, i'll repeat what I put below.

"Judging by the amount of similar mistakes I'm reading in Reg articles nowadays, I'm wondering if the articles are being auto corrected by the authors portable devices of choice at the time."

Or even better pull the English Electric Lightning out of mothballs. These things didn't need a runway, they could be launched vertically like a rocket. You could literally push it off the edge of the carrier, throttle up and it would be flying of into the distance before it would have a chance to splash into the ocean below.

I remember reading that when it went ballistic, it was the only plane that caught up with the US's SR71 blackbird and got a missile lock.

They don't make em like this anymore!

Re: Streisand effect

Funny thing is, if they've gone into administration, then they must have been a Ltd company. As a Ltd company they do not have any kind of right to privacy. So google seem to have deleted links for no reason in this case, contradicting previous cases where they have strenuously denied being able to censor their indexing of articles available on the internet.

1990 - Timmy Mallett in Bombalurina

Musical genius’

Re: Tesla semi?

...and we could run them on special tracks so they could be much longer with a whole series of trailers. They would need to be more powerful for the long train of trailers. But, instead of batteries, they could take power from overhead lines.

Re: Why...

Pics!

Or it didn’t happen!

Re: @Doctor

I'll quickly explain where the confusion arises. When written into law, there is a difference between the words "should" and "must".

If the law said "You should not ask for data that is not required to operate the service", then the trader still could ask for an opt-in. Legally speaking the word "should" is a suggestion.

If the law said "You must not ask for data that is not required to operate the service", then the simple act of asking for an opt-in would be illegal. The word "must" when appearing in a law means what is written is mandatory.

The law actually says that (and I simplify) "you should not ask for data that isn't required to operate the service, and you must not use that data it if you have it without consent."

It is this last example that has people thinking that you cannot refuse service if someone opts out. People are confusing the words should and must.