Are any of these services going to offer a conference facility?
Groups are a useful feature for exchanging messages between more than a pair of people, so the next logical step is voice between them
2756 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Jan 2010
Well, duh!
Which assumes you can get to Airplane mode quickly enough after it crashes and before it crashes again.
Unless you permanently live in airplane mode, which kinda defeats the point of a phone or smart CONNECTED device.
I hope everyone is aware that Apple have hard coded wifi networks that their devices will automatically connect to when in range, for example when in an Apple Store, and this has also been expanded to Bluetooth to further refine your store journey. (Look up iBeacon if you don't believe me)
While I get where he's coming from, through his own arguements he's shot himself in the foot.
"Due to many institutions having policies against FTP and peer-to-peer protocols, HTTP has become the de facto standard in sharing scientific data."
So, the arguements is that some organisations need a waiver policy to permit FTP and peer-to-peer (and any other traffic type) depending on the requirements of the application (and I mean proper requirements like time critical delivery and minimal packet size, not just lazy coders who can't be arsed to learn about security when it's actually important). p.s. Those protocols may be secured on dedicated networks or in many other ways
Don't care WHAT the picture is, they are (to me) a pain in the arse.
Please El Reg, introduce something to turn the images off. We've all consented to your cookies, there must be something smart you can do to remove the images for those readers who don't want them. It's meant to be responsive after all...
Keep an eye on Grouon, LivingSocial and the other similar sites. There's regular offers on online courses dirt cheap. I got a years access to the entire set of Cisco courses for £99, and I saw one recently that had access to 4-5 different vendor related sets (which included the Cisco and Microsoft courses) for about £300
Doesn't get you the exams, but if you can find the time and can't afford to pay for the classroom courses it might be a viable alternative.
10 out of 10 for the concept.
But given most server rooms have restrictions on the use of mobile phones and other radio transmitters, I'm going to suggest these will be useless in many IT scenarios.
Occam's razor, a bit of string, or the slightly more sophisticated retractable keyring (http://www.amazon.co.uk/BLACK-RECOIL-RETRACTABLE-CHAIN-RING/dp/B00569W0EO)
"Illegal terms are unenforceable..."
Not only that, but terms which may strictly be legal but are unfair are also unenforceable, although the test of unfair is subjective and would more than likely need to go through a court (oh wait, this case is...)
"Check out the Goods Inwards area too. If you purchase equipment for the data centre it's likely to be bulky, so you'll have it delivered straight to the data centre"
Depending on how critical your business is, you might want to consider the delivery arrangements. All deliveries should be pre-registered, and unexpected deliveries should be rejected by the data centre. Because who knows what else could be delivered if they'll just accept anything. Some may even only permit deliveries in the presence of one of your named people and the packages must be unpacked immediately.
And while there may be confidentiality agreements preventing you, try to find out who the other tenants are. You might not be a target for terrorists, anarchists, animal rights groups, etc, but are your co-tenants?
The first thing you learn when you retail quality and high value products is that nobody is unworthy. You treat all comers well from the outset, and those not worthy will soon leave of their own accord. True customers will stay and buy.
And remember, just because someone might not be able to afford it today doesn't mean they won't be able to afford it tomorrow, and you want them to come back. And not like the shop scene from Pretty Woman.
... and at best the password is stored with reversible encryption. When you phone the call centre they ask for your password, and I've received it in emails and written letters from Virgin.
As I say, at best, reversible encryption. It might not even be encrypted at all.
I've got the original Pebble, more because I'm a curious geek more than anything else.
I spend a lot of time in a suit and the phone lives in the inside jacket pocket if not actually in use. I found it all to ease to miss alerts, calls, messages and notifications as the phone would be silenced and just vibrate. Now my wrist vibrates no matter where the phone is. I'll continue wearing some form of alerting watch from now on.
(And no, I don't spend time phoning myself just to make my wrist vibrate. Honest)
Since it's about legal principles and not financial loss then perhaps when they win the plaintiffs will donate all their winnings to UK charities.
Because let's face it, nobody will have suffered severe financial hardship through googles actions. Totally agree Google should be answerable for those actions and deserves to be fined, but it's about upholding the principles of privacy, not about financial gain for the sake of it (which is what most of the plaintiffs will be).
I do hope the action group wins the case, it sends a red flag to business not to ignore the law.
Don't know why you put the joke alert icon, that's exactly what HMRC do.
It goes even further. HMRC know, for example, exactly how many meals each type of restaurant can get out of a chicken. Posh French might get two meals per chicken, Italian might get four, Indian six and Chinese eight. They also know (and feed back to trading standards) when a restaurant deviates from the model and is selling more meals than they buy chickens, thus implying the local cat population is at risk.
As always, it's just a model, but it proves that if you're attempting anything out of the ordinary you're going to stand out. Got to buy the boxes to match the sales. So if your local purveyor of genuine Italian pizza is regularly taking unused boxes to the recycling, they probably are genuine Italian of Sicilian extraction.
Not all vulnerabilities are created equal, so a raw count is meaningless.
Even if you take the comment "1698 (11 percent) are deemed highly critical and 43 (0.3 percent) are extremely critical", where's the breakdown across browsers?
The moral of the story is that ALL software potentially contains vulnerabilities of varying degree of severity and you've got to put as many layers of security as possible between you and the bad guys.
Not trying to defend it as I think it was doomed from the start, but I think you've missed what the scheme is about.
The Government has essentially outsourced the validation of your documents when you apply for a Government ID.
The third parties provide the initial matching of who you claim to be to your passport, driving licence, bank account, voters roll, etc and allow you to create a government verified ID. That ID is then used to access the Government services by authentication within the Government services, not back through the verifying party. So Experian et al only see your first ever logon.
The theory is that Experian, Banks, etc have already physically checked who you are, so why should the government set up another office doing exactly the same thing - just rely on those other organisations. Having previously spent several weeks working with Experian to tie together my credit report (and I've only lived in two properties in the last 20 years) my confidence that any of the third parties will help reduce fraud is somewhere between slim and fuck all.
Even if European Law is interpreted as a right to create a service, it will be WITHIN the existing laws and regulations of the member state.
Would Uber expect to be able to set up a service providing children to paedophiles under the same European right, as that's what their statement implies!
There's a limit to how much you can pay in one transaction to an unverified contact (i.e. Someone you've not set up to pay through other channels)
There's a limit to how many unverified payments you can make in one day.
There's a limit to how much you can transfer in one day.
If someone takes you to a hotel and renders you unconscious I think you've got more important "assets" they're going to be after.
If the allegations are fabricated and the case is truly politically motivated (to allow extradition or rendition to Merkinland) then the best thing Assange can do is fall on his sword and become a Martyr.
The authorities cannot win. If he is extradited, it proves the governments cannot be trusted and will cause international revolt by the people.
Certain anti-government groups won't be served by due process being followed, a fair trial taking place and a jury decision based on fact. That wouldn't serve the cause at all.
I hope everyone's got their Business Continuity plan dusted off.
If you buy an application and run it locally, your "service" probably won't be effected if the author is forced to stop selling it. Not much they can do to shut you down.
If you're buying a cloudy service and the courts tell them to "cease and desist"...
The Diet Coke ads always puzzled me.
Is it really the blatant sexist sell to women of the hunky guy stripping off?
Or is it much subtler. Is it trying to sell Diet Coke to men, since let's face it ALL the women in the Diet Coke ads are pretty foxy, so which straight guy wouldn't aspire to be the workman/lift operator/lawnmower man.
Mines the one with the spray stains...
So what's wrong with someone buying the rights to some intellectual property and then licensing that in the future? The "inventor" gets cash now, and the "investor" risks money on that idea being useful and sellable in the future. Standard investment model.
OK, now you're fuming, here's the problem. All sorts of shit is being granted a patent, and the detail of patents is so loose that they are being applied to scenarios that the original inventor never even thought of.
So yes, the patent system needs overhauled. But don't blame the players, blame the game.
I don't fully support googles 90 day limit, but I understand there needs to be a limit otherwise some vendors will just prevaricate until the end of time.
Perhaps Google needs to enhance its rules - give the vendor 90 days to announce a patch release (with the detail redacted), and the release must occur within the following 30 days (which should catch most vendors scheduled release cycles). Rushing out patches is as dangerous as delaying them longer than necessary.