Re: "oh boy"
"or Microsoft could've possibly introduced Windows Mobile to the consumer market."
They already had done IIRC.
3391 posts • joined 26 Nov 2009
"or Microsoft could've possibly introduced Windows Mobile to the consumer market."
They already had done IIRC.
"I guess the satire was a little too obscure for some people."
I thought it was hard to miss - the article was dripping with it. So much so that some has dripped out of my computer and I've had to wipe it off my desk.
And the fact that I've somehow replied to the wrong post just goes to prove my point. My brain is not to be trusted today.
Yes, it's an incredible orbit - a perihelion of just under 65AU to an aphelion of just under 2040AU.
That gives it a semi-major axis of just over 1050AU, which I *think* means it doesn't fit my Titius-Bode (re)workings, but my brain doesn't seem to want to work it out properly at the moment. It's been a long week. I want to say the closest point on the sequence at that distance would be 1200AU, but I don't trust my brain right now.
"It's all about doing more with less. So this will send daily missions to the moon at £5/capsule."
Yeah, but those are Ryanspace prices, so don't forget to add several million for your luggage, being able to pre-book your seat, and for priority boarding.
Just tried that in Palemoon and it brought up a "Clear recent history" dialogue, with the option to select what you want to delete (Cookies, browsing history, cache, etc) and to choose "how recent" (last hour, last two hours, last four hours, today, or everything).
I have it set to wipe cookies, history, etc, when I close the browser - but this could be a useful shortcut sometimes.
I so want to be outraged by the loss of service, I am tempted to buy one RIGHT NOW! But I fear that by the time it arrives, the problem will be rectified and I'll have a creepy snooping device on my hands that I don't really want!
Oh, the dilemma!
Again, Google's new slogan should be something like "We're Google. We don't take no for an answer."
Tut, you're just having a stamping your feet event.
And it's prompted me to have a reply to your post event!
New slogan for Google:
"We're Google. We won't take 'no' for an answer."
Retain the picture of Farage, and use the caption "This is what happens when you don't use protection!"
"I'm all for that. The only problem is what the choices will be?"
That is the question. (Or was it "to be or not to be?" I forget.)
But being serious, you are quite right - do it wrong, and it's likely to get us in an even bigger mess. It has to be thought out carefully, and worded correctly, with no bias and in such a way that it is fair. No hint of "based on what we now know" or any reference to the 2016 outcome and whether it was "overwhelming" or "marginal", etc.
The problem is, the longer things go on as now, the less time there is to prepare for such a vote - and (should it happen) the more rushed that vote becomes. And I think we're more likely to see another snap election first (which there are now murmurings about) - and that'll just mess things up further.
I think what I'm saying here is: Bottom line, we're fucked.
As you say, there's a good chance we'll see civil unrest in the two main opposing scenarios: If the government just turns around and says "No, we've decided we're not leaving after all" or if they end up taking us out and people become worse off and unable to afford basic necessities due to job losses and rising prices. (And ironically, I think the people most likely to be involved would largely be in the intersection of a Venn diagram of both).
That's why I honestly believe that the so-called "People's Vote" option is probably the best way forward now. It isn't back-pedalling to say to the voting public "Look, we've listened to you, and we're going to listen to you again - this is what's on the table, so what do you think?"
There's still a possibility of civil unrest in that scenario, but it's the least likely to lead to it, and if it does it would probably be the least amount.
But since our PM is more interested in trying to keep her party healthy, rather than the country she and it serves, I might have to learn about gardening, and growing my own veg.
""The referendum was supposed to be non binding"
I'm perfectly well aware that David Cameron did a stupid by saying it would be honoured, and quite a big one knowing that there are an awful lot of people out there that don't understand the due process behind which such things are brought about. But I was talking about that due process, and the legal status of the referendum as debated in and brought into being through an act of parliament, to answer the question that was asked about what the term meant.
The bottom line is that the referendum was legally only advisory. The government did not have to act upon it, but chose to do so - with too much haste and too little planning.
"Cameron changed that with his big mouth."
Don't forget how the law is made in this country. The PM doesn't make or change laws by opening his (or her) big mouth. If they could, we'd probably all be in an even worse situation than we are now.
"How much risk is there that they’d get their hand pregnant? Coz I can’t see much chance of the young UKIPer being allowed to put it anywhere else…"
I asked the same question twice yesterday in response to seeing comments/pictures - although I was a touch more blunt. I simply asked: "Why do wankers need condoms?"
'What was that with the "not a binding referendum"?'
The referendum was supposed to be non binding in that it was supposed to be advisory only - which (oversimplified) means the result would be looked upon as the advice or suggestion of the people. On that basis, the result should have led the government to start looking at the possibility of leaving the EU, all the possible methods and degrees of doing so, before deciding whether to go ahead (or returning to the public to say "these are our options... what do you think?")
Perhaps more importantly, because it was supposed to be only advisory, it was argued in Parliament that there doesn't need to be a super majority result. The point of a super majority is to ensure there is absolutely no doubt - including a greatly reduced margin for error when taking into account the number of people who didn't bother to vote. A win for either side that is as marginal as that of our EU referendum, when 28% of the people didn't vote, is one that shouldn't be considered a clear win either way - and certainly not one that will change this country in such a fundamental way.
I thought that was Boris - isn't that why he's now separated; because his wife found out?
"The site is with a hosting company. We hope they know what they are doing in relation to the problems this article reports."
That depends. When you say "a hosting company" do you mean a company that specifically handles (and in your case handled) the installation, set up, and maintenance of WordPress, or do (did) they simply provide all the tools necessary for you to do it all yourself? If the latter, you need to look after it. (You = the group, obvs.)
Did they know in advance there was a crashed Tie Fighter on the asteroid?
"Anyway there can always be a transition period and then a post-transition period transition to the new technology period, and then a post final transition deadline transition to accommodate the timetable slippage of the post-transition transition period...
Speaking as someone firmly in the remainer camp, and who therefore thinks Brexit will be bad, you've just made it sound a whole lot worse.
You've just conflated it in my mind with the confirmation prompts in Windows Vista.
"What we have is either a nation of already-retired millionaires splashing their money on tat and pizza and enjoying sitting in a London street in a queue, or a nation of people who really have nothing else better to do spending money they don't actually have or should be spending on other things.
I'm not entirely sure which one I find more disturbing."
The latter possibility is worsened by the fact that:
Apple customers will presumably be lining up to buy the latest iGadgets on Friday, though they will only be able to purchase the most expensive iPhones first - the XS and XS Max - with the other models due to hit the streets next month.
The nature of fanboyism (and this doesn't just apply to Applytes) is that sufferers are more likely to try to get something sooner, even if it's the more expensive option, rather than wait. Companies like Apple know this, and they're exploiting it.
"If you read TFA, you'll see that the neweggstats domain was specifically created to exfiltrate data in this hack. "
I did read TFA. And I've just read it again - while the phrasing says the dodgy domain was used for newegg, it doesn't say it in a way that firmly leads me to infer exclusivity. There's enough ambiguity there to make me question it based on my recollections.
That said, however, on my drive today I realised that what I was actually remembering was the name newrelic, not newegg.
So, all you have to do is check every single site that you might input your credit card into and make sure that none of them are connecting to an unauthorised third party site, bearing in mind that many websites uses scripts on different domains to function, and that you probably won't be able to guess which are legit and which are bogus without at least checking the whois records for every single one.
Can I assume from that helpful explanation that you didn't notice the mention of NoScript in my original post? I would imagine most people who use NoScript are perfectly well aware that "many websites uses scripts on different domains to function". That's a large factor in why we use it, not to mention why I'm able to vaguely remember seeing (albeit incorrectly in this case) a particular domain name in play on other sites - a result of looking at what scripts sites are trying to load.
The article says it was created on 13th August by the crooks. The article says Newegg's customers were affected. I'm questioning whether there's a possibility there may be a wider problem, based on my (possibly dodgy) recollection of what I've seen via NoScript.
I've never purchased anything from an outfit called 'Newegg' - and I don't remember ever specifically visiting a website with that name. However, I am familiar with the name, and I'm pretty sure that's in the context of NoScript - its list of scripts on a given page.
This leads to the question: Are there sites using services provided by (scripts from...) Newegg - or is what I'm remembering Neweggstats? i.e. are there potentially other sites out there that were also running the dodgy Neweggstats script?
"Have them ask for a refund ?"
The deadline for claiming back PPI is getting nearer - so there does need to be a new thing people can claim back in order for the PPI claim companies to stay in business.
Well, I was thinking of additional steps - but your reply makes me think they may be a step too far:
I was considering have the user appoint their preferred T-shirt printing company. When I send them the code for the card, I would also send a checksum to the company; they would print it on a T-shirt and despatch that to the user to wear in the same picture. You've heard of 2FA - this would be 3PA (third party authentication).
If they don't want to go to the cost of having T-shirts printed, another option would be to appoint a trusted third party who would write the checksum on the user's forehead using permanent marker.
Options I considered but discarded include having the user have tattoos of any codes (or imagery to make it harder) - but I realised they'd run out of space.
Another option would be biometric - fingerprints. In this case, though, I was thinking that they'd have to cut off their finger and use a same day courier to get it to me for verification. So I'd know it's not just someone using a gummy bear. The flaws in this were twofold, however: First of all it would limit the number of possible log-ins because they'd run out of fingers to type with (and worse, it would be fewer than ten, because as the number of fingers is reduced, their typing would diminish - long before they actually run out). The second issue is that I wouldn't be able to be certain if the fingers were cut off by themselves as part of the log-in, or by criminals trying to defeat my system.
I've got this cracked.
When a user wants to log-in, they input their user name and password.
Then there's the second factor authorisation - they get sent a code they must input.
Then they enter digits x and y from their existing authorisation code.
I am then sent an alert. I look them up on a old fashioned rolladex.
I then ring them using their number on that rolladex and see if I recognise their voice.
If I do, I give them another code to input into the next stage of the log-in.
I manually check this, and if it matches I email them a new code.
They must write that code on a piece of card, and email me back a selfie with them holding it in shot.
If the code in the picture matches, and their face in the picture matches the one in the rolladex, they are finally granted entry.
A line that effectively highlights form ("beautiful") before function ("accounting software").
I use it for a client, and I hate it.
"Let's see it pick up a cup of tea by the saucer."
Well, unless I blinked, we didn't even see it pick up the mug - only look at it briefly before the video cut to it (initially) failing to pick up a cuddly toy.
"and we know it has an atmosphere containing organic compounds and five moons."
I'm not entirely sure that's true - I suspect its five moons are beyond its atmosphere.
The specs for the existing APIs and (I think) beta ones are all published on HMRC's site somewhere, and there is a sandbox for developers to test them - so I would hope that includes this, and that all third party accounts software developers therefore have access.
I suspect what he means is that because they are supposedly registered in the EU, but in a different member state than the customer, they should be able to accept the VAT registration number of the customer and charge net - the VAT is deducted at source.
But, presumably, they aren't doing this. And if they don't, it complicates reclaiming the VAT - you can't deduct VAT from a different member state on your UK VAT return; only UK VAT charged at the UK rates.
"The boxes relating to EU transactions will need to be stripped out (2, 4, 8, 9)."
(Without having a return to hand to look at, so from memory...) If box 4 is removed, no businesses will be able to claim back any VAT on expenditure. I think it's just 2,8,9 that directly relate to cross border EU trade.
Er... MonkeyBob was joking about the USB ports because a (normal) BBC Micro doesn't have such modern niceties.
I say normal, because people do tinker - for example, this is from 2012:
"I don't care if it was a third party that leaked, the data was entrusted to them."
So if you use the same log-in credentials on Site A and Site B, and I manage to steal them from Site A and log-in to Site B with them, it's somehow Site B's fault?
You've just left a spare key somewhere, which I've got my hands on and used, and then you've blamed the house for allowing its front door to be opened with that spare key.
[Browsers set to wipe cookies at session end]
"It's year 2000+, website changes too much for cookies to have any meaning to be kept on disk for long term. Every user should be doing that."
Speaking as someone who also configures the browser to wipe on close, yes, I agree - browser developers should be thinking along these lines: Make this the DEFAULT behaviour if you truly value the privacy of your users.
And as a further suggestion: Consider how to implement a UI to go hand in hand with that basic default that can be used to allow exceptions, without the user going into the settings and doing it manually - some kind of button on the toolbar, clicking on which shows the cookies in use by the currently displayed site, and an exception toggle by each one, perhaps, so it's on an individual cookie basis, not a site/domain basis.
(Although for all I know there could be add-ons/plug-ins that offer something like that - along the same lines as Ghostery, but for adding end-of-session-wipe exceptions).
On my desktop, they're easy to ignore because they don't take up a huge amount of space - and I could safely click "Ok" on the basis that as soon as I close the browser, they'll be gone.
On my phone, though, they take up a ridiculous amount of space - so now I find I'm using the browser less and less for anything other than the basic set of tabs of a few regularly visited sites.
Please, please, please... if this is done, even if it is only a Pepper's Ghost effect, can the people involved prank him by convincing him it is absolutely necessary for him to have an 'H' stuck to his forehead. To help keep the cameras or whatever other equipment is used calibrated as he speaks.
"with some dodgy characters"
Well, that's 8-bit graphics for you.
Especially when it's a 2-bit company behind it.
"Our genetic makeup is pretty much the same"
Exactly my point. Don't forget, people, that the person I was replying to said that humans in 10,000 wouldn't look anything like us now. While being taller or shorter, or having a bigger or smaller brain, etc, may well be significant changes, they are a long way short of that. I said we haven't changed that much - and we haven't; we would easily recognise a human of 10,000 years ago as, well, a human.
Why? We haven't changed that much in many more than the last 10,000 years - so why would we change so significantly in the next 10,000?
"because ‘Google could not verify that you are the owner of this account’."
Yeah, I've had that recently - but not for gmail, but logging in to my Google account via the web to look at a Docs spreadsheet. Well, when I say my account, I mean one of them...
A couple of years ago I created a separate one to my own for use at a particular client, so they could share docs with me; since it was a use specific to them, I used my email address that I have with them. But - just as with my own account - I log-in *very* rarely.
When I did a couple of weeks ago, even though I had the password absolutely right, I got locked out because "Google could not verify..." - part of that verification, though, was that they allegedly sent an email to me with a code in. That email didn't arrive until much later.
I think it's a couple of things at issue - very rare log-ins and the lack of cookie persistence. Google never recognises my machine, because there's no history there.
(I got around the problem at the time by going to someone else's computer, and simply accessing the sheet from there, using his account - so, er, yeah...)
"this is a sting I took last year"
The last time I remember being stung was when I was a teenager. Some friends and I inadvertently disturbed a nest - and when we realised, ran like hell. Quite some distance later, I said I can still hear one of the buggers. Then I felt a sting in the back of my head - and a few seconds later another, then another...
One of my friends spotted it, trapped in my hair - and it was stinging me repeatedly in the same spot because that's all it could do.
My friend then splatted it. Problem solved.
That multiple sting aside, we were very lucky, really - AIUI they're more likely to be able to spot you if you move. And also, when one stings you a pheromone is included as a bonus extra that marks you as a target for its angry pals.
That "comedy" was awful. I'm surprised it didn't run for at least ten years.
"Hold up, if it was on the travel website with no indication of copyright either by watermark or signature then how exactly were the school to know of the copyright in the first place?"
As well as everything Lee explained, there should be a fairly simple way to ascertain the status of the image: That website it's on? Look for contact details. Contact whoever owns or runs the site and ask.
Had the pupil and/or teacher mentioned done this, they would probably have been told the image is subject to copyright and licensed for use on the site, and given the contact details of the photographer, so that they could ask for permission to use it in the project.
An unboxing video I found on the twitter a few days ago: https://twitter.com/ChinnyVision/status/1023198756018122752
Ditto - which is why I'm baffled as to why a bunch of online clothes shops have people's dates of birth on file. Do they apply some kind of rule when browsing their websites to ensure people over a certain age don't try wearing fashionable things and thus make them uncool, or something?
And even with these properties in the pyramid, they'd still struggle to get good reception.
"Though when I tried to login to the news and got an HTTP 500 I genuinely feared that the site had become overwhelmed because some large (and catastrophic) newsworthy Event had occurred."
My immediate thought - because I noticed the flames on the test card image - was that they were pranking us, perhaps in order to add something real that people would remember when (say) an upcoming Doctor Who is broadcast, with a story set at the time the website supposedly went down due to whatever disaster/invasion/whatever the Doctor averts.
Also: it says in the article that iPlayer wasn't affected - but it was if you scratched the surface: Click on the iPlayer link and the site appeared to be up, but following through to anything therein (at least for me) resulted in the same error.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018