Britain = London + Oxbridge
I'd argue it doesn't, but to many, the author seemingly included, it seems that way.
561 posts • joined 13 Aug 2007
I'd argue it doesn't, but to many, the author seemingly included, it seems that way.
Form the developer documentation: "Caution Although the directories provided by getExternalFilesDir() and getExternalFilesDirs() are not accessible by the MediaStore content provider, other apps with the READ_EXTERNAL_STORAGE permission can access all files on the external storage, including these. If you need to completely restrict access for your files, you should instead write your files to the internal storage".
Sounds like you need to read the permissions somewhat better.
Android's shoddy approval system ("access files == access all files" for example) and the lack of permissions-on-action is the reason that my "smart phone" is most decidedly dumb. Two extra apps and that's my lot: every download is a risk I am not prepared to take. Hell, I don't even allow vanilla google apps to keep on with their rampant rights bloat - there are an ever growing list of google apps I haven't updated in months due to extra permissions.
They aren't thick, so the fact google doesn't seriously revisit the permissions suggests they don't want to for internal reasons. Tin-foil hat time?
But a better policy would have been "we will not do this".
Such rules have a simple basis: that management are simpletons and don't know how to allocate (and, were they competent, to modify) budgets, so they apply a simple rule, sit back, do sod all and take the (considerable) paycheck.
So we have a group of idiots doing nothing paying competent (or not) others to do nothing too.
will soon becomes metaless data when linked/copied into any other social media site (including the BBC et al) as inevitably will done by some clueless friend/relative/colleague.
Good effort though.
The technical debt of the NHS is quite simply staggering. Even costing it would be a staggeringly expensive job. And while the FDA has nothing to do with the NHS, the companies that make medical equip must adhere to the (worst) requirements of both which are onerous indeed. As medical companies outwith phrama tend not to make much money, they aren't going to verify/validate the upgrade path for old equip they make nothing on, nor add new security features. So to be blunt: this isn't going to change, even if bad things do happen as a result.
In mass-market use, won't this just lead to yet more highly-resistant bacteriological strains evolving?
For example: "access to files" refined into a set of permissions such as "access to files written and maintained by this application" (general app); "access to all file names and dates" (file manager app) and so on.
Who pays the piper etc. The ICIJ belongs to the Center for Public Integrity:
I'm going to guess that the leak is likely honest enough. The processing of that leak will likely be politically/economically "regulated". then again, I'm a cynic in such matters, as I already belived this to be true without the papers!
Old companies rarely create new stuff: new companies do that.
The old companies try to survive by buying the new companies, which they rarely understand well. I suggest that this is because companies typically act like living things, trying to survive come hell or high-water, when they should be no more that economic vehicles for getting stuff done - created for active purpose and allowed to dissolve once that purpose is no longer significant.
A better scenario is for the shareholders to sell their shares in the old and buy shares in the new, letting the old company dissolve when it no longer has anything to do. But that requires CEOs and employees who are not afraid of loosing position and "face" with a faster company-death cycle and shareholders who actively know about the companies they own. I don't see either of those things happening any time soon, so it is little more than idle speculation: never going to happen.
Companies that treat their staff badly deserve to be badly treated by their staff.
All of them.
"... better equip ministers and senior civil servants responsible ... with the skills and wider awareness they need to deliver them ..."
Or maybe (a) don't employ civil servants for jobs they are not skilled to do and (b) don't let ministers get into any level of nitty gritty: policy only, then vamoosh.
Some browsers will "helpfully" auto-fill and/or pre-cache as you are typing. Not too unlikely that such data gets sent off to the ad-men (or ladies).
Tricky bit might be that it sounds very much like a particle measurement, while temperature is an ensemble property. But then again, tricky is what such people do!
I'm a Nexus user so vanilla works just fine for me. Any other droid seems to be running a greater risk by risk if they keep to supplier updates rather than "jailbreak" into the world of Cyanogen. A sad state of corporate affairs really: what value a brans name when you instantly throw their stuff away?
We are all in need of Team America: a class action vs nytimes or the like. They sold your security for their profit (profit = ease of "management" = no management 'cos that costs).
And should they go bankrupt and bought in a administration fire-sale, will I trust the new owners?
"... the new Privacy Shield has been negotiated and, with some additional oversights from the US and a little less snooping, this will validate EU/US data transfers once more..."
I'll admit to being entirely the target audience for this article: is this claim really leaglly true? I would not have thought so myself but, erm, haven't read the law or contracts...!
"... society accepts that the people that break its rules and laws should not be able to rely on those same laws to prevent them from being punished..."
What the author refers to is the original meaning of the term "outlaw": one who was outwith the law and the law *would not protect*. Being an outlaw was tantamount to walking around with a target on one's chest: anyone could do anything to you with no comeback.
As a result, being declared an outlaw was considered a very harsh penalty indeed. Not a default position taken before guilt has even been established!
So what exactly do the "judges" do then?
As your doctor has had a look I'm sure all is well, but be aware that readings taken after waking are expected to be higher than normal: google "morning surge index" for more info (the index is a means to establish if a given surge is more/less than expected).
Most machines one can buy in Boot and the like say something like "not suitable for hypotensives; not suitable for hypertensives..." and the like. Making them about as useful as a sticker saying "120/80".
That the measurement itself is difficult and not very repeatable (the "gold standard" by your doctor suffers similarly), and is almost always never used in the correct way, is another set of different problems!
"...later seizes hold of Noble's camera tripod and refuses to let go of it..."
"...The police spokesperson continued: “No offence has been reported ..."
Well an offence certainly seems to have been committed, one that the officers were clearly aware of. Nulfeasance in public office anyone?
Is this actually intended to pressure (public) companies / bodies into paying their invoices promptly?
If so and if it works, will it roll out to all companies later?
MS just don't like to admit they got it wrong.
It took years to kill Clippy; likely similar for this.
The other 13000?
And what ratio hits/misses in these two groups?
They invented new letters? How do you type them: my keyboard only has the old ones.
Thanks for filling in one of the many gaps in my memory!
I have some shadow of a memory that "SCO's lawyers" were related to SCO's owners and that this long, tortious legal work was a means to "legally" asset strip what remained of SCO's bank balance to another member of the family. Could be an urban myth though.
Not sure on the last bit but simplifying the tax code is clearly a must-do.
Alas, complicating the tax-code to ensure it is riven with "the right holes" has been the lifework of a great number of people and most of those in parliament, so unlikely to occur. Sometimes even for misplaced "good cause" (to manipulate investment; public behaviour etc. via the tax code).
"Something like paying for a service isn't going to actually stop them."
An upvote just isn't enough for this.
I particularly liked "it does not allow for people to be anonymous or to verify the identity of the person they are talking to."
Is it only me that isn't allowed to be anonymous then?
Given El Reg's tagline, some form of chomping device seems a must?
If your banking system has companies that are too big to fail, your economy has a big problem.
Similarly, if your transport system has companies that are too big to fail, your city has a big problem.
Assuming we are talking about utility patents (rather than design patents), a patent requires to be inventive (not just clever or cunning) in addition to being novel,
I seriously doubt 7000 things were invented last year, let alone by one company.
Hopefully less drone, more zeppelin.
Zepplins are cool.
Previous "make old stuff better" from back in 2009 (from work started in 2006 or so):
Might even be related: can't tell it its colour or structure from the old report.
No bugs? My code.
What do you mean there's no bugless code?
Must have got lost in the process loop... erm...
Are you allowed to sack somebody for something that seems to have had no relevance to the company?
With the old Nexus, it was smashed back-plates that was the biggest gripe.
Initially sounds a nice high number but just think of the error rate!
The consumer public don't much care about security: they assume "that just happens" and buy the cheapest.
The same ideology seems to be working at CEO level re. their IT security.
Every example of the fallacy of this thinking is seemingly followed by "somebody else's problem" or "an unlucky hit - won't happen again" and is discounted.
Market forces won't help here: they require "knowledge on both sides" and it is clear the (dominant) buyers are thick as a brick.
So now what?
"... data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes ... data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed ... shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes..."
Tsk tsk tsk.
In fairness, I think Moffat was a tad clever there: all hypothesis were correct. The hybrid was the Doctor; Me; Clara and/or any combination thereof.
Methinks that was a cover for the Doctor lying again. No reversing the phase; no "unsure what this will do". He takes the knock again, just like the last 4.5 billion times. Or one can easily postulate: does he just turn it off and pretend?
... surely it is time for a revue of due process in such a court?
What the data is currently used for does not guarantee what it may be used for later.
You fired me.
You have no right what-so-ever to be calling me, or indeed, to have retained my phone number.