Re: Marry a laptop?
They should call his bluff and make him marry it. I'd enjoy seeing the consequences when he had to get a divorce because he actually wanted to marry a real person later, and the laptop got half of his stuff.
4539 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
They should call his bluff and make him marry it. I'd enjoy seeing the consequences when he had to get a divorce because he actually wanted to marry a real person later, and the laptop got half of his stuff.
>>"Most of our bodies' atoms weren't there when we were born, and yet we are the same personae, so..."
If you're the same person as when you were born then... No, wait - never mind. This would explain a lot of things...
>>"But everything worked as it should, although it did give me a few things that needed to be discussed afterwards for improvement."
It never gets better than this!
Yeah, BA IT staff told their CEO they needed greater redundancy... So he fired them.
They're called Tata because that's what they say once they've got your money.
Tata have stated they'll be flying hundreds of engineers to the UK to resolve the problem. As soon as they find an airline able to transport them.
It technically IS a power supply issue. Alex Cruz should never have had any.
Yes, but as people have remarked here before. It's not seeing the ads that bother me. It's the tracking.
>>'cp' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
I don't know when the last time you used Windows was, but "cp" works. Open up Powershell and try it.
Same here. Firmware version V126.96.36.199_1.0.1 and no option that I can find for this. I clicked update because I figured better to get the new version now and turn this off than to have it come down later on and be overlooked. But it's not finding any newer firmware! It thinks this one is the latest! Something not right here if you have 188.8.131.52 and mine can't find an update from 184.108.40.206. Could it be updated by region? UK user here.
You're right - it's not worth the headache over $17. Which means that really it's about something else. "Getting even", I would guess. A news station contacted him and arranged for them to meet her again so she could hand over the $17.31 which she said she would willingly do if it got rid of him. The guy was pretty gloaty about the attention and seeing her "apologise" on TV to him, him grinning at the camera with pleasure. Honestly, I got a pretty bad vibe from seeing the guy. As you say, $17 is not worth the headache. What he really wanted was to put her in her place, was my impression. :(
>>"I expect my date to share half the bill on the first date."
Presumably however, you let them know you're going halves up front and that you don't pay for everything and then present them with a txt demanding money back two days later when they don't want to meet up again.
I'm not sure about that last part (I agree with the rest). Female of the species here and I don't think it would be right either way round. Anyone who has ever had to wait for a court date or been to one knows there are a Hell of a lot more important things they could be getting on with than crap like this.
Also, apparently before he went to the law he had started hassling the woman's little sister to get the money for him as well. Maybe she had more than one reason to leave.
Holy shit! This is my new favourite theatre and I've never even been there! Beer for all the staff at that place.
If he was planning to take her somewhere the pizza costs $4, she was probably wise to leave.
I don't think anyone is saying just walking off and forgetting about your date isn't bad. And they're certainly not saying that txting in the cinema is okay because it's downright unconscionable. I don't think most people are even suggesting that he shouldn't be upset.
But what I believe pretty much everyone thinks is that suing a date to get the price of their movie ticket back is downright petty and hysterically over the top. Seriously - if we've reached the point where such trivial human interactions and sleights are handled through the law courts rather than human interaction, we might as well just reboot civilisation now.
>>I always take first dates to somewhere where I don't have to talk to them! I've done it loads of times...
That's pretty considerate of you, all things considered.
Suing is really not appropriate.
Using your phone in the cinema should be criminal court, not civil.
Fun fact: A Texan man was once prevented from marrying his horse because the horse was under four years old which state law forbade.
>>"A 14 year old is legally a child."
Agreed. Also agreed if you want to raise it that the law has been broken. However, I prefer not to use the law as my starting point for whether something is harmful or not. (See for example Ecstacy and Heroin being the same class of drugs.
>>She or he hasn't the adult judgement to know the seriousness of what they are doing
Well, often they don't. But sometimes they do. The law rightly errs on the side of caution but there's many a fourteen year old who is more sensible and informed than most sixteen year olds (the age of consent in most of Europe). The suggestion is that these two girls will be psychologically damaged. I think that's unlikely given they were willing participants. Further, your comment assumes that they don't know "the seriousness of what they are doing." But is sex really that serious a thing? It's a risk, but is it serious? The distinction is important because the point being argued is that they will be psychologically harmed by sexting, not that meeting up with a stranger (which we don't know if they ever even intended to do) is dangerous. What makes swapping flirty texts and images inherently "serious". Maybe they were serious - maybe he was leading them on thinking it was a serious romance. But equally possible they knew exactly what it was about which was sexy flirting. We don't know. Outside of the risks of meeting up or stalking - which weren't the case here - what is so serious about sexting that it means they'll suffer psychological harm?
Again, I think it's necessary to point out that I'm not advocating or condoning a man in his thirties flirting with a 14 or 17 year old girl. But I am arguing the notion that it's not traumatising to the younger party when they are a willing participant and there aren't significant accompanying factors that make it traumatising.
>>And no adult is EVER the victim of a child.
I think that's rather too black and white. This isn't paedophilia (pre-pubescents) in which case I would agree with you. It's ephebophilia (attraction to later adolescents). Or as a male friend of mine indelicately put it: "Ephebophilia is what you shouldn't do, paedophilia is what you shouldn't want." A girl of fourteen (and especially one of seventeen) may not be an adult, but they're not a child either, regardless of what the law says. They're, well, an adolescent. Which is to say an adult with bad judgement. It's not always the case that an adult and a teenager have significantly more power concentrated in the adult. And it's equally not the case that the adult is the more ethical. It is entirely possible for a teenager to make an adult their victim. Entrapment is possible. People are fallible and that fallibility (sexual attraction) can be exploited. It can be exploited by adults and it can be exploited by teenagers. I think this last statement of yours therefore, is very misguided. Sexual relations can be very complex things. Therefore statements that an adult can never be a victim of a teenager, are wrong.
>>"You digress with attacking or killing. Which is worse? killing a child or leaving them to a life where they can't have relationships because some git used them."
I highly doubt those corresponding will be unable to "have relationships" because of sexting. One was 14, one was 17, and the third was a 32 year old FBI man. ;)
Now without details, there is a wide range of possible circumstances but there's nothing in the story to suggest that it was harassment or traumatic for the two girls (one of which would be over the age of consent anywhere in Europe, btw).
I don't know how long it's been since you were a fourteen year old girl but at that point attraction to older men is not uncommon. If she felt anything genuine towards this man, then learning he's been sentenced to twenty years for sexting with her is probably going to upset her more than a dick pic ever did.
Now none of this is suggesting that it is a good idea or right for a man in his thirties to be flirting with a girl of 14. It isn't for several reasons. But it is saying that you're wrong to assume that the girl is likely to be damaged psychologically or unable to be willing or even actively encouraging. Given what is said about the ongoing sexting, it presumably wasn't one sided as the two girls didn't just block him. As it never even made it to the point of following through (which we don't know if he would have or not and in one case it would be legal in Europe anyway), they were probably fine with it and it is unlikely to be traumatised.
This sentence has more to do with (a) American puritanism and (b) his being a Secret Service agent which invites a super harsh sentence as a means of deflecting damage to the organisation's reputation.
>>"How much does it cost to keep a prisoner in a (for-profit privately run?) US prison these days?"
According to a report from the Vera Institute the average cost of imprisoning someone in the USA was $31,286 per annum, in 2010. That was seven years ago and it will certainly be significantly higher today. That figure is how much it costs directly, including all services. It does not account for loss of income from an employed member of society such as in this case.
The figure seems off compared to the UK where average cost of imprisonment per year is £40,000 per annum. However, the USA has the highest prison population per capita anywhere in the world barring the Seychelles (where there are only around 80,000 people in total and the place is used to imprison Somali pirates). So maybe the USA just has economy of scale or a more "battery farming" approach to its prisoners.
Regardless, this is a very expensive dick pic. for everyone, except the private companies that run the prisons. For them, it's profit.
>>so it would be illegal for me to hack them and illegal for me to not....
"There's a catch though," said the Doc.
"What catch asked Yossarian."
"Catch-22" came the reply.
>>Not white - Check (get real idiots he was NOT white)
It is very probable Jesus existed, but what his race was in modern terms there's really no way to say. It's been argued that he was everything from Caucasian (for reasons of racial ideology), Black (for reasons of racial ideology) and even North Indian (because why not?). Jesus's race has been a political football for centuries but nobody knows what it actually was. It's fairly safe to say he was Jewish and was probably what we call olive skinned and dark haired. Probably. IF he came from Nazareth as described, then that whole region was a heavy trade centre with people from many different places and a big ethnic melting pot. Unless you think Jewish people aren't White for some reason (which if you don't, has probably far more to do with modern identity politics than science), then it is at least as possible that he was White as it is he was Black.
Bitlocker doesn't do this - it encrypts but doesn't conceal you have done so. However, there are several successors to TrueCrypt such as BestCrypt and VeraCrypt which do support Hidden Volumes / Hidden Containers which are what you're referring to.
Because all of an encrypted partition or file appears as random noise, there's theoretically no way to distinguish empty space on the disk from used space. So you can have two encrypted containers appearing as one and determine which you're accessing by the password. Think of it as a magic door. You knock three times and it opens on a room where you've stored a few innocuous things like your email password. Knock five times and it opens on a room where you hide the state secrets you just stole. The magic is that the number of knocks can't be guessed so you just tell the interrogator it's three knocks and that's the only room they'll ever see and they can't prove that a different sequence of knocks would show a different one. It adds the last vital component of encryption which is deniability.
>>Much of this work was done for a reason, and it wasn't all to provide better reliabilitiy for Skype based communications. I believe Microsoft were part-paid by the NSA to decrypt Skype's peer to peer secure model, and hence the high price Microsoft was willing to pay for Skype.
Quite probably. But I'd say there was also a pretty big stick held up visibly as well. I used to work in telecomms and was once interviewed for a job writing an interface to enable real-time eavesdropping on phone conversations. (Hence this will be my second or third ever Anonymous post in all the many years I've been commenting on El Reg.). I didn't know what the job was when I applied for it, only that it was in my area of expertise (Add-Drop Multiplexer controller software) and paid well. I like to think that I would have turned it down for ethical reasons but I was rejected anyway due to a poor interview performance (seems likeliest).
Anyway, as I understand it, nobody gets away with not implementing backdoors for Intelligence Agencies. Nobody. Anybody recall when Vodafone's eavesdropping system was subverted by an unknown party to listen in on the Greek Prime Minister and cabinet? Much like this case, the hacker or hackers looked at what a State agency had done and then just repurposed it to their own benefit. I'm not sure the hackers were ever caught - somebody simply noticed some dodgy software connected to their "legal" APIs. That was ten years ago. Incidentally, the person in charge of the Vodafone networks in Greece was found hanged and Vodafone were very uncooperative in the investigation to the extent they were fined £76m for it. (Link for those who still have optimism in their hearts and need citations).
I don't trust the spy agencies, and nor should you.
>>What is criminal is Microsoft deciding that millions of PCs running its software are suddenly obsolete
Are you by any chance a Galapagos tortoise, a sentient giant redwood or Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged? I just ask because most of us are not blindsided by something that has been known about eight years in advance.
Windows XP had fundamentally poor security. I mean conceptually in its design. These problems were not fixed until Vista (and then not usable until 7). MS have been doing everything they can to get people to move forward - they don't want to support XP systems any more than the sysadmins do. Half of the people who wrote it are probably retired by now - it was released in 2001. Goddess knows how long it was in development for!
Enterprise licences don't do this. It's only Home and Professional et al. that spy on you. With Enterprise you can disable every last bit of telemetry if you choose.
Microsoft will provide you privacy if you pay enough.
>>Or they're simply wary of being "upgraded" to Windows 10 with the next automatic update, that curiously lacks a "No, I don't want to upgrade" button - and interprets the closure of the popup as "Yes, please upgrade me to Windows 10", even in violation of previous documented configuration policies that expressed a customer's desire to stay with their current OS.
I see you've already been modded up twice for your reply to my post. But we are talking Enterprise Windows licences here. You have control over updates in Enterprise licences and they also don't suddenly randomly upgrade themselves to Windows 10, either. The rest of your many paragraphs all follow from not being aware that Enterprise Windows functions differently from Home and Professional licences. There is no excuse for being two months behind on updates marked Critical or for using Windows XP which is four versions out of date of the current. Neither have anything to do with home users being updated to Windows 10 making Sysadmins reluctant to apply updates. The idea is nonsense.
>>Not to speak of the company that after 3 decades worth of producing software STILL cannot produce something that shows signs of the most basic principles of security. Yes, Microsoft, I'm looking at you.
Alright, I'll take that one on - you tell me what the "most basic principles of security" are that Microsoft have missed in current Windows and we'll see if your GNU/Linux distribution of choice has or has not also missed them. My contention is that a similarly neglected GNU/Linux system would be similarly risky. If someone were running SuSE 6.4 I think you would be leaping to say the problem was the neglected state of the OS, not the GNU/Linux itself.
So come one then - back up your statement: "Most basic security principles" that Microsoft have neglected that don't apply to other OSs.
>>BTW People make a big thing about XP but this SMB stuff is in all versions of Windows.
Yes, and patched automatically in all supported versions before this happened. The reason people make a big deal about XP is because nobody should be using this 2001 OS in 2017. If you're running Windows 7 / 10 then unless you've somehow prevented it updating it's not vulnerable to this. You make it sound as if all versions are.
That's not a correction. A patch for this was issued in March. If you are two months behind on your patches that would be a problem for GNU/Linux systems as well. Or do you leave your systems unpatched for that long as well? If so, you're not fit for a job as a sysadmin.
The greater problem here is agencies such as the NSA instructing companies to leave vulnerabilities available such as in the case of the Intel AMT bug which according to Semi-Accurate was almost certainly left in by request. What we're really seeing here is a highly visible example of why we shouldn't be allowing the government to mandate backdoors into systems such as Theresa May and Amber "we must know the necessary hashtags to combat terrorism" Rudd want us to create.
Seriously - an unpatched OS is a security risk. Using an OS written sixteen years ago and STILL refusing to upgrade it - that's on Jeremy Hunt and his ilk. Don't try to deflect the blame elsewhere.
All tax payer money gets handed over to criminals.
A small portion of it they give back to us.
Having worked in the NHS and seen how hard people at the bottom often work, I'm more inclined to say it's PEIDO. (Problem Exists In Director's Office).
Quick, someone blame Russia/DPRK/Iran/China/ISIS/Tory cuts/Donald Trump/Jeremy Corbyn
One of these is not like the others...
I believe (having worked in the NHS) that it was safer when all the data was stored at individual GP practices. Firstly, this prevented a massive treasure trove of data being collected which will inevitably be stolen (if it has not already). Rather than numerous small troves which had to be individually gone after and thus weren't pursued by intelligence agencies or criminals. Secondly, it inherently partitioned the data according to need. Someone couldn't find the sexual history of their partner or look up the address of someone they were stalking just because they worked at ANY GP practice. When we pointed this out, they told us only people who had agreed to strict privacy controls were given access. By this they meant the bit of paper that every GP secretary and anyone else signs without reading. We pushed and were told that all accesses were logged but we investigated and at the time they weren't (not that this takes the place of restricting access). I.e. they lied to some of the people actually responsible for this stuff! Maybe those controls are implemented now but the principle that far, far more people have access to this data than need it remains in place.
So no, I don't think it has made it safer even in principle. A thousand boxes, each individually locked and each containing a pittance. Or Smaug's heap of gold entrusted to whichever company's director is mates with the Health Secretary of the day. I know which I think is safest in principle.
Yes. But in a democracy, they aren't the same lies.
No, you could get LSD in the Nineties. Now nobody seems to carry it.
LSD is one of the safest illegal drugs there is.
I've never understood biscotti. They're rock hard and very thick which leads me to assume that they're designed for dunking in your coffee. This would make sense and would probably taste quite nice. But I've never seen someone dunking them in a coffee shop. Do people dunk them?
I don't know if it's so much science being better or worse in the 1960's than today, so much as it is different degrees of harm being tolerated. In the 1960's if you said that a bottle of wine doubled the risk of health problems from 0.1% to 0.2%, they'd probably shrug and say people make their choices, it's pretty much a tiny change to someone's personal risk. Today they'll look at what the 0.1% does to society as a whole and cry armageddon, running headlines about millions of £'s lost each year due to drinking and "thousands at risk of liver damage". There's just no acceptance of any risk at all these days. In the Sixties, people considered risk a normal part of life.
>>"Only if you tell it to remember your password. You can delete saved passwords under advanced options."
I don't think that's correct. Or else you misunderstand me and think I'm talking about it signing you in automatically to web sites. What it does is every time you start it up connect to a Microsoft account for you, tracking any search history and browsing history, et al. The only way around this is to switch to Private Browsing every single time you open it. There's no setting to disable the Microsoft logging, so far as I'm aware. It's nothing to do with saved passwords.
Um, I'm just as old as you if we're going by using Mosaic and I have to say things have changed. These days Chrome is responsible for more standards violation and strong-arming of how the Internet works and IE11 / Edge is the one that plays nice. You know why? Because it isn't determined by which company is a Good Guy and which is the Bad Guy, it's determined by which one has the power. And these days Google do.
I'll add my voice to the crowd. I actually like Edge fine - but it signs you into Microsoft automatically. You can put it into private mode every single time you start it up but you can't set it to not try and track you every time you fire it up.
>>"They may not be doing all users at once but once your machine is selected there seems to be no way of preventing the upgrade.
Which I'd actually be okay with if it were just an update to performance, security fixes, etc. But they should have no power to force functionality changes onto a product that I have already bought.
I've done one start-up in my career, the rest has been established companies. I fortunately didn't have the problems you listed - indeed, our founder and director worked shockingly hard and was extremely driven - which is one of the reasons it was so hard to give less than my all myself. It's one thing to hold back when you're being asked by a hypocrite for extra effort. A different thing when you know your boss is working just as hard and is taking huge personal risks. But I doubt that applies in Uber's case!
I think you nailed it when you talked about people who take pride in their work and just can't "fail" at something. I'm like that. When the expectations are out of control, that sort of professional pride can destroy you. We don't deal well with being set up to fail. Ironically it was after the start-up stage when other people came in who were essentially reaping the harvest planted by others that the problems you talk about (Old Boy's club, inexperience and ego) started to manifest. I eventually resigned my position because I felt I was unable to do a good job at my work. I think as many engineers have probably quit over that as have quit over money.
I'll say one minor counter-point, which is that the figure of 8.8% isn't evidence of racism. Do people just tout such things because it sounds like a small figure? The proportion of Black people in the USA between twenty and thirty (prime hiring age) is around 7-8%. Now I can well believe it's possible that there is racist culture in Uber given the evident sexism at the company (-isms are often found together), but the 8.8% figure isn't evidence. And that's just comparing it to the population as a whole without allowing for the fact that Black people are disproportionately poorer in the USA and less likely to be applying.
>>Touché, although they never pretended to be anything else, or act for the good of humanity.
Yes they do. SInce when do Daily Mail or Fox News preceded their outpourings with "but keep in mind we're biased." Ditto for pretty much any news outlet that isn't purely focused on a financial audience (who care more about information than being told what is right or wrong).
If your criteria for being a journalist or a news organization is being unbiased, you're going to have to discount the vast majority. So either change your criteria or accept that it doesn't single out Julian Assange how you'd like.
Really, what should matter is if what Wikileaks publishes is true, which it is the case is it not?
Well the USA has traditionally had a rather novel approach to debt. Namely, if you can invade / overthrow / imprison the person you owe money to, you don't have to pay them. (Libya springs to mind).
>>You didn't go online much in the 90s did you?
I did actually (note my hopelessly archaic l33t username ;) ). But you've misread my comment as saying that the 90's tech was better. It's actually a snarky commentary on the person I was replying to suggesting that they'd be happier back then because they're a grumpy anachronism. Not because things were better then!
We're in agreement. And yes, thank the gods that I now only very rarely see comments about "a girl on the Internet" and even then only from hopelessly out of date Geek-culture types.
Stay there. You'll be more comfortable.
Not to blunt your righteous rant, AC, but you are aware that this CSS grid is not currently a standard? It's a candidate release. I mean, you're talking a lot about standards so I'm sure do. Don't you?
Windows XP was released a decade and a half ago. It's replacement was released a decade ago. Extended Support ended three years ago.
At this point, you should really consider your vendors inadequate for the job.
Yes, basically. We know the malware was created by the Equation Group and they are certainly a state-backed group. As you mention it, the Equation Group has created firmware malware. The malware in the article just isn't one of those.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018