Posts by Matthew Ellen 93 publicly visible posts • joined 1 May 2008
So all I have to do to get a free security audit from a professional is to say, loudly and in a public place, that I intend to target my site at children? Excellent.
--------------------------------
Hi Mother Hen,
Calling your site Facebook for kids could land you in court if you intend to make money from it (and perhaps even if you don't). Unless, that is, you have got permission from Facebook to use their name.
p.s. I am not a solicitor
I've been guilty of using "going forward" once or twice. I always cringe afterwards, then remoind myself it's better to not say something rather than say going forward.
Another word I hate people using, because it almost never has cause to be used, is methodology. 99.99% of the time the word you should use is method.
True, Kieth, this isn't about eve's dropping. Well spotted.
It is about telling a government that has an appalling track record with anything IT related to fuck off.
It's like baby sitting a toddler. You keep telling them not to touch things, but they don't listen and things get broken.
"No, Peter, don't put your fingers in there. Damnit! Now see what you've done. We'll have to get the contractors in to clear the mess up, and they're ever so expensive."
Well, at least I'll be able to find work.
"...others incite violence against them..."
Yes! That's it! Violence will make it all ok. It will solve all your problems.
Violence got the parents into this situation, so your violence will put them back on the right track.
And remember, since you can't attack your target directly, attack someone else. Violence is always the best answer.
I'm paying for 22MBits/s down, some other amount up, from be internet.
The router they supply comes with software to tell you the connection speed. I've checked it against speedtest.net and they tally.
Currently I have 1044 KBits up and 6159 KBits down. I realise that service will degrade the further I am from the exchange, but 16 MBits/s degredation is a bit much.
I know someone's already said it, but just to remind anyone who has forgotten between there and here: they're not storing the messages, just the source and destination of the messages.
I'd ask any IT contractors to decline opportunities to work on IMP, but I guess we all have a price, and £12bn is a big flavoursome pie to want a bite of.
Won't someone think of the children?
So I went to altavista.com and searched for "Man Stabbed" to bring up news articles. Most of the results don't have any date. 2 did, out of the 30 I looked at, and that was part of the excract from the page, so would likely also be in the similar extract that Google does.
It wasn't stamped by Alta Vista.
What are you talking about?
I then did the same search on Google and most of the first page had dates in the extract.
You sound like an Alta Vista fan boy.
I've been tracking the communications and data bill since I read about on the reg some time ago.
I've been to the draft legislative programme's website at direct.gov.uk, and I've looked at the page about the communications and data bill. wow. what a wealth of information. (That's sarcasm, if you couldn't tell.)
The page at commonsleader.gov.uk isn't much better.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: a central database is a waste of time.
Would you expect to find nonsense like this in The Financial Times? I'm all for nonsense in The Register, just not this kind.
I'm not comparing El Reg to The Financial Times, but just commenting that stories should be appropriate to the target audience. The Financial Times knows its target audience. This story puts into doubt if The Register knows its own.
At first I felt possessed by the twat-o-tron when I heard the idea of creationism in a science class. Then when the clarification came the next day, that he didn't mean teach creationism, but to explain the difference between it and science, I felt that it was a good idea.
Shame it's come to him stepping down.
I was going to complain about the fixed width thing, but then someone said ctrl+ and I gave it a try and now everything is bigger and better.
I had a great joke too, about how you were turning your site into a fashion model (pretty but too thin), and how this would make all us web devs bulimic.
Comedy gold I tell you.
Oh. It only stays zoomed until I go to a new page. Well, that's disappointing.
"The use of multiple affiliates to buy and sell online ads also makes it hard for sales staff at established websites to separate legitimate ads from those that are designed to defraud or attack."
Well, if that's the case, all ads should be hosted by Google. One point of failure then. Especially good, as we know we can trust them.
Since this was a research paper, why didn't they approach the company and request to do it. That way they get to do the research, the company benefits by knowing their vulnerabilities, everyone's a winner.
I don't see the advantage of letting the public know about these security issues except to aid in fare dodging.
Wow, James. So, we should allow you to be inconsiderate towards us just in case your offspring one day might help us. Great argument there.
I don't have a problem flying long haul on an aeroplane with toddlers and such, I've slept through it before and I'm sure I'll do it again.
However your argument that you are entitled to annoy other people doesn't make any sense. You aren't entitled to.
For those out there worried that the government are going to use this data to spy on the conversations you have with other people; you need not worry so much. The data being stored only details who communicated with whom and when. What was communicated is not stored.
The issue is that the Home Office is going to take the data currently stored by ISPs and phone service providers and centralise it. The data is already stored and accessible by law enforcement once a warrant is obtained. This will remain the case with the centralised store. The Home Office believes that the centralised store will make finding the data easier. This obviously is wrong, and will cause more problems than the Home Office already have, while costing the tax payer millions of pounds.
When the draft bill is published (I'm not sure if it has been, I haven't checked in about a week) take part in the debate and make your voice heard.
The reason this happened is because the agressors did not understand or did not care for the consequences of their actions.
They do not see that hurting people as a negative thing. I'm not sure where their lack of empathy comes from, but I doubt playing violent video games helps cure them of it. Also their alleged confusion between reality and fantasy implies that they are far from able to look after themselves and should be put imediately into care.
They need treatment for what appears to be serious psychological issues.
Of course if it had been my face, I'd be chomping at the bit to have them hanged. That's the problem with bleeding heart liberals, we're inherently NIMBY types.
The iGoogle privacy policy link isn't what you think it is. (To paraphrase the Princess Bride.)
The URL at the bottom of the iGoogle page links to the iGoogle Privacy Note (http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/help/privacy_fusionph.html), which is not the privacy policy. This page has a link to the privacy page (http://www.google.co.uk/privacy.html) which, again, isn't the privacy policy. The privacy page has a link to http://www.google.co.uk/privacypolicy.html, which is the privacy policy.
Not so smug now, eh?
Not that it matters. As someone pointed out, the internet was not created to be a bastion of liberty, it was created via the USA's military. I'm sure Sir Tim (co-)created the web to be a wonderful place for science and research, unfortunately the public and commerce got their grubby paws on it. When stupidity and greed collide, there's not much room for common sense.
And to those of you who have said "Oh! Well if privacy was so important to people they should know to read privacy policies." I say tosh! If people don't know that their privacy can be impinged by using Google, and the ramifications of this, they need to be educated. It's not necessarily their fault that they think they can trust Google.
WRT to your other assertion, at the end of your post, I have to agree with steve.
I was off the mark about Ritalin being addictive. I read the article that says something along the lines of "People take Ritalin to increase their concentration ... concentration enhancing drugs are addictive." Put 2 and 2 together and made 5. My mistake.
The symptoms you describe your son having are similar to those experienced by people who take speed. A commenter has already mentioned that Ritalin is an amphetamine. Just an FYI, if you didn't already know.
So it seems I should have taken speed before exams. If only I'd known.
Doing well in exams proves that you can do well in exams. It doesn't necessarily prove that you know your stuff. Someone who leanred in a comfortable and relaxed environment but then finds exams very stressful will find it hard to recall what they have learnt when in an exam. Also learning anything when stressed is difficult.
Offerning university students Ritalin seems like a good idea, as it should allow them to perform at their best. It doesn't make you smarter, it helps you concentrate. The only downside (quite a big one, granted) is the addictive qualities of Ritalin. It's not like taking steroids, because the relation between improved ability to create and use muscle and the performace in athletic events compared to the relation between how well you concentrate under extreme stress and how clever you are are quite clearly different.
Had I known that it would improve my concentration even if I didn't have ADHD, or a related neurological condition, then I would have probably tried to get some Ritalin 5 years ago.
Make people pay before the content is produced.
Here is an example:
Before a band makes an album they need to build up a following. They do this by playing clubs and bars and pub and whatever they can get their hands on. If they're good people will like them.
So now you have a following. these are people who will pay to hear your stuf (e.g. entry to a gig).
Some kind soul sets up a website and charges a nomial fee (to pay for hosting, etc.) for bands to sign up to it.
Your band that has a following signs up. The website allows bands (and movie makers and games companies) to put up a project page that allows people to donate money to enable the project to be made.
People donate money to your band. You use the money to get studio time and produce a single or album.
The album can then be released under some licence that says you can use the music for personal (so not for broadcast or advertising, etc.) use without charge, and has a torrent set up for it.
The band gets paid, and the freetards get their music.
Marillion get people to pay up front. I've never knowingly heard their music, but they seem to be doing ok.
Also this means that there are no more labels producing music like breakfast cereal.
Yes there are obvious security flaws here, and there are other ways of doing this. But the best way to get money to artists is to give it to them directly, and the people who pay for the music are the people who want to hear it. If you don't want to hear it you don't pay for it. That's a more realistic "dawinistic" (yuck) approach.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
