"Peppa's hilarious, though. Not as good as Octonauts, but right up there."
Hush your mouth! Octonauts are OK but Peppa, Ben and Holly and Go Jetters are miles better!
1068 posts • joined 1 May 2007
Ha, that old outer-London-doesn't-count-as-being-in-London thing that over 40s always seem to go on about, even though a lot of them weren't even born when it was shifted into London in 1965.
Note: I'm 41.
Also see: Croydon (London, not Surrey), nearly every single East London town (London not Essex!), and Middlesex (no such place - well for the last 59 years!)
Also also see: postcode wars (no, there's no such thing as a London postcode/postal district!)
Facebook has reasonably high-quality images. Judging by the amount of idiots who make their photos public (and the fact that it seems to be really really trivial for the news media to grab photos for their bulletins and articles), this is not a problem for anyone who wants to get one.
1809 is just the public-facing version number (obviously based on the last two digits of the year and the month it was released in). It's just a name plucked from the ether for something specific.
Build numbers have a different significance compared to version numbers, generally.
Nah, this is simply a change to the current indexer that exposes it to the entire set of folders (and is an opt-in option - not a default). As usual, after indexing searching any folders should be the usual quick self because the details are pulled from the indexed database.
The current search (i.e. what's been in Windows since Vista) only indexes a few user folders, but a user can elect to search outside this, which means the searcher physically inspecting those folders which takes far longer.
The old built-in search before Vista didn't have indexers so searching would actually mean the searcher going through whatever folder was specified to grab details, a process that takes a lot longer than just pulling the already-collated details from a database.
Google are going to reverse this in Chrome 70 - https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-based-your-feedback/
I find this behaviour weird - if I want to clear all cookies, I'm explicitly asking it to clear ALL cookies including Google ones, so I expect to be logged out of everything. What issue did they think they were solving by keeping Google cookies persistent?
If they want to give the option of the user keeping Google cookies persistent while deleting everything else, they simply need to produce a better cookie deletion interface that lets people delete individual groups of cookies instead of users having to rely on the Inspector to do it.
The whole panopticon concept mentioned in the article doesn't really work in practice though, does it? I mean the whole "you could be watched so don't do it" doesn't really discourage people to break the law, for example CCTV coverage doesn't really stop crime taking place in the areas, right? And speed cameras used to be hidden (as a supposed "deterrant") until a concerted effort to show that this doesn't stop rule-breakers breaking the rules of the road, right?
Compromise device of mark with physical access to isolated network.
Send messages purporting to be from a higher authority, and purporting to be "secure", to gain information, and to then ask them to do something that would normally be dodgy in itself e.g. throw the on/off switch.
For example, compromised "secure" messages could be sent from a higher authority stating that a project to test the fall-back capabilities of the isolated network is in operation, messages are sent back and forth requesting certain information based on valid information already sent to mark, then mark is finally asked to switch off "isolated and important system" off. Mark doesn't question anything, including the "switch isolated and important system off" message, because messages sound like they are from someone in the know.
Our company works like the proposal, it seems - we are 100% fully owned by the parent company, but have our own board and are fully independent, so we can make decisions (any decisions) without having to go to the parent company for approval.
The only thing that bounds us to the parent company is money - wages are paid to staff by the parent company, and our yearly budget is set by them too, which requires higher-up board members to make a case for such-and-such/fully justify every year.
So if it's going to follow the same, Openreach will be fully independent and no the BT board won't have a say in any decisions beyond having a person or two on the board of Openreach (if that). BT will be handing out the yearly budget though, with Openreach having to justify the planned expenditure every time it comes up.
So it should work out OK without having the hassle of forcing BT to fully spin the company out.
First used it when I was back in Uni in the late 90s. Closed that account and signed up for a new one probably early 2000s - been using it ever since.
The recent stuff has made it miles more useful, in my opinion - stuff like aliases that allow you to have several addresses tied to the same inbox, and the country-specific domains (if you know how to manipulate the signup form, or the alias creation form ;) ).
"Windows 95 & 98 allowed you to set a password, yay!, but you could just get through the logon screen by hitting Esc <---- all your data is belong to me!"
That's because it was never a security feature, it was merely a feature to allow "profiles" which held certain Windows settings (like background, etc.) so you could have custom settings protected by a password (for people who liked to have their own set of colours/background/screensavers/etc). Hitting ESC simply loaded the default profile.
Issue is with the INSTALLER. not Skype.
If you have Skype installed already, you're fine. No need to update to 8 (but obviously Microsoft would *prefer* it).
Installer for 7.40 has been removed from the servers (apparently). Website was offering the 8 installer since late last year anyway (unless you had Windows 10 in which case it directed you to the Windows Store for that version).
Google didn't buy the entire phone division, only the ones that worked on the Pixel phones, so yes they will continue to make phones, but with significantly pared-down staff.
Depending on your viewpoint, it might actually be a good thing, considering the same staff (might have) produced the likes of the M9, 10, U 11, etc. Maybe they need a fresh set of people.
>>The point you people understand is that some middle aged lady who writes a baking blog or some kid blogging about cats won't have a clue what you just wrote means.
That middle-aged lady you speak of is almost certainly not someone who has single-handidly set up their own site on a hosting service and so therefore doesn't need to worry beyond asking their third-party blogging platform company (Wordpress.com? Blogger?) whether they are checking their certs.
"The way this is announced is though the satellite broadcasts will be switched off in the next 12 months."
No. Sky are introducing their subscription service over IP, and the UK won't be getting it till end 2018/early 2019 - so obviously they aren't switching off satellite broadcasts in the next 12 months. Nothing in their press release refers to satellite broadcasting whatsoever, so you can easily assume that this is IN ADDITION for those who want it over IP instead of a dish.
That would only be valid if the opportunistic thief had Superman vision and could accurately determine that his house has hidden sensors that used an alarm system of the type that required a cell jammer to block, compared to a house with nothing.
"At the risk of starting a shitstorm of downvotes from Spanish fans of proto-fascism, I would point out that the government of Catalunya declared the country independent."
Not recognised by any country (as defined by the UN, and before you ask - also not by any other state in the world whatsoever) in the world though, including the one you're in.
Therefore, Barcelona, Spain as far you're concerned (officially).
"The trouble is, and this seems to be what the ECJ has managed to wade through, 'Uber' isn't one company; there is 'Uber' the app developer, 'Uber' the platform operator, 'Uber' the taxi company (which is likely to be a different entity in each geographic region 'Uber' offers services in) and is the one the drivers contract with, etc.."
I think you misunderstand - it's pretty much the same with many other companies with subsidiaries in multiple countries.
It makes not a jot of difference what the operating company that's filed at Companies House/EU-country-equivalent is, if it's operating as a taxi company it's a taxi company. ALL of Uber's subsidiaries that operate in the EU (that uses the parent company's resources to provide the same service) are all taxi companies as defined in EU law.
This whole episode stinks to high heaven, emanating from everyone involved. Green sounds like he's as dodgy as fuck - his "proof" is nothing of the sort, just circumstantial evidence. Actual proof would be a video of him being nowhere near his laptop at the time of the downloading of porn, or actual video of whoever did it.
On the other hand, the cop that ratted to the media is clearly a loony with an agenda - I mean the bloke's alleged porn collection wasn't criminal so had nothing to do with the police, simply a matter for his employers, so him claiming it's in the public interest is nonsense.
> But FF has this built in natively (and it works). Why would you need this addon?
Yes it has it NOW, but yeeears ago it didn't, and this addon also works cross-browsers, as well as have a full version history.
These days Firefox and Chrome have account sync capabilities, so if you're not bothered by the cross-browser sync, or the version history, there's little point in it.
I'm not sure about IE but 1. I think it may do when you sign into your Windows login with your Microsoft Account and 2. IE is dead now anyway. Edge may be the same (not as dead but not as alive as the other browsers either).
But they didn't go scouring through his laptop, they inadvertently encountered proof that it wasn't his laptop to begin with when the big HARRODS logo appeared when they booted up. That, coupled with his request, would have made them suspicious enough. So not illegal.
It's the same debate with Gary Glitter's laptop - could have been illegal but then again they stated that as part of their diagnostics (i.e. testing to make sure Windows was working again and files could be launched) they came across the dodgy images. There wouldn't have been a high-enough burden of proof to prove that they went further i.e. blatantly scoured through the HDD for things they could find.
Same with this one.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019