Re: Time for a language law?
Well we've made a start with Patisserie Valerie...
33 posts • joined 19 Jun 2009
the appearance of a seemingly useless empty HTML div tag in YouTube videos that had the effect of slowing down the Edge browser. According to the intern, that tag caused "our hardware acceleration fast-path to bail"
They wouldn't have been trying to game the whole system themselves would they? Why else would a seemingly innocuous empty tag cause such problems?
but what's the "right answer"?
Women must be forced, against their will, to enter these positions whereupon the mixture will be a more pleasing 50:50, but all said women will be miserable doing things they don't want to instead.
So the gender-mongers will have that to bang on about instead.
The right answer to to roll your eyes at such 'research' and then ignore them. Then they'll accuse you of being indifferent.
Kafka-trap. You're in one, and you can't get out.
"Perhaps some government regulation is appropriate..."
If government regulation is the answer, then you're asking the wrong question.
Government regulation usually involves egregious abuse of said regulation further down the line. RIPA being used to spy on what people put into their waste bins for example.
It's another one of those "using biometrics as authentication instead of identification" situations.
And they keep doing it. Why do they think using something that a 3rd party can trivially observe/see/copy as a proxy for a password is ever a good idea?
> according to a new survey from Visa
Clearly it will have been impartial and not a single leading question in sight.
> Nearly two-thirds of consumers (64 per cent) want to use biometrics as a method of payment authentication.
Then nearly two-thirds of consumers are ignorant and/or stupid, or the wrong question was asked, or the wrong answer assumed.
> Consumers favour fingerprint authentication (88 per cent) as the most secure form of payment
Sorry, make that nearly 9 in 10 consumers (that were questioned.)
"As for revocability, thanks but no. Up to me."
That latter is exactly what it does mean. As in "You should be able to revoke the current authentication and replace it with another." i.e. changing your password.
What it doesn't mean is someone else can do it for you, which is what I think you took it to mean..
In other news, those who see fit to hector others into living a mundane life are seen to be more prone to heart-attacks and strokes caused by high blood-pressure due to the proles ignoring their bully-statism pronouncements about anything that they don't like (thus - in their eyes - no-one should be doing it.)
Sadly, having been told about this, they continue to tell others how to live their lives, despite the risks.
"Smith also published a blog post in which he rebutted claims that Microsoft has built backdoor access for federal investigations into some of its most popular software and services."
Such a shame he couldn't refute it instead. Perhaps there's a reason for that; like he can't...
"...it will help its customers by reducing advertising..."
No. It won't. DNT is not intended to reduce the amount of adverts, just what those adverts might be; it's "Do not Track", not "Do not Advertise."
All they're complaining about is the fact that they're supposed to promise not to track their viewers; not that some of the advertisers are honouring the DNT to begin with.
"As a mother with three children I know how difficult it is to keep children from seeing inappropriate material on the internet"
As a mother, you should know better than to let your children on the internet unsupervised.
"British Internet Service Providers should share the responsibility to keep our children safe..."
Perhaps the parents could be 'persuaded' to do their bit *instead*.
It'd certainly be cheaper. And less of a burden on those of us who don't have crotch-fruit.
"Despite press reports on the scam going back more than a year, the security minister Baroness Neville-Jones said today that 80 per cent of internet users are unaware."
I was unaware of the issue until this report, however that doesn't mean I'm likely to fall for it.
Isn't this just government, again, using Big Scary Numbers to imply something that isn't actually the case?
You could always use the keyboard shortcuts instead - probably quicker than moving the mouse and clicking for those used to keyboards - press ? to get a full list but:
Select all: *a
Select read: *r
Select unread: *u
Select starred: *s
For example, to archive all read: *re
Delete all starred: *s#
"So as an Apps user, and therefore a paying customer, I get these needed updates to the contact functionality last."
Indeed. What's the problem?
I don't think paying customers, in general, want to be beta testers for new functionality/interfaces. What if there's a bug in there and paying customers were exposed to it. Would you then be one of the first to complain that as a "paying customer," you shouldn't be exposed to bugs on stuff that hadn't been tested. You can't have it both ways.
It's how beta programmes are generally accepted to work.
"The engineering team at Google works hard to earn your trust - and we are acutely aware that we failed badly here. We are profoundly sorry for this error and are determined to learn all the lessons we can from our mistake"
Are Google turning into Facebook? Their apologies for this sort of thing are starting to sound similar.
[quote]Some background to this unholy spat can be found in the Somerton Town Council minutes of 23 June this year[/quote]
Um - it would appear that Mr Collolly has been blogging about the council since before then; I'm not so sure this was the sole reason (if it was one to begin with.)
Hyperbole strike at The Register. Again. Has Murdoch bought you out?
If you're newly 'self-employed' without 3 years of accounts, guess what? /I/ don't think you're entitled to a mortgage. Because in the current economic climate, I'm guessing not very many of these newly 'self-employed' will still be self-employed by the time any mortgage they get has its introductory period run out.
If you can prove that you're still likely to be solvent 3 years hence, then by all means prove it, but I certainly wouldn't go on 'your say so.'
RichyS Posted Friday 2nd October 2009 10:50 GMT
"It always used to be that a license/tax was required for equipment 'capable of receiving a TV signal' (whether you actually had it hooked up or not was beside the point -- as long as it /could/ receive TV, you had to pay the tax). Has that now changed?"
It's been "actually used for receiving a TV signal at the time of broadcast" for some time - e.g. you can have one TV in your house for sole use with a Wii and not for actually watching broadcast TV, and you do not need a licence, even though it's technically capable of being used to watch TV.
"You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV."
> What if you are the security conscious type who changes
> their passwords regularly? Today's passwords may not
> be tomorrow's; does security mindedness automatically
> disqualify you from having a personal (police) or property
> (fire) security oriented job?
If you're the security conscious type, you wouldn't be handing over your passwords to begin with!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019