Re: "He would put in a (fake) trouble ticket and request me."
I think it stops being stalking once you go to dinner with them.
At that point it's either a date because you went voluntarily, or kidnapping because you didn't.
949 posts • joined 10 Mar 2010
I think it stops being stalking once you go to dinner with them.
At that point it's either a date because you went voluntarily, or kidnapping because you didn't.
'"It does contain a known carcinogen and various irritants."
So do tomatoes!'
Yes and if you liquidised tomatoes then heated them to vapour a blew it around an office we shared or a pub we were both in I'd have a problem with that to.
I'm not going to argue whether vaping is directly or passively harmful, there's no evidence it is (not that lack of evidence is proof) but it's not important.
This isn't a health related debate it's a social one.
I agree that we don't need specific legislation banning vaping indoors in public places or work places. Not because it should be allowed but because people just shouldn't do it out of consideration for others.
If I turned up at the pub or my office with a steam cleaner and just sat there letting off puffs of steam because I enjoy it I'd be told to fuck off, and rightly so. Just because your behaviour isn't specifically illegal and doesn't harm other people's health doesn't make it ok.
"Why don't you see it as just a simple choice that reflects the times that we are living in?"
Because Doctor Who isn't a character from the times we're living in?
If it was another male Doctor Who but he'd picked up a new companion from 2017 who was transgender there would be far less conversation about it, and it would be much more relevant to the times we're living in.
To me it simply doesn't make sense, it would be akin to Star Trek Discovery having a transporter accident that changes the Captain's gender and they decide to stay that way. It just feels like shoehorning a gender change for the sake of it.
"then why exclude shows with strong followings? "
I'm not. I'm more than happy for a show with a strong following to kill off a main character and replace them with a female lead. However in Doctor Who they aren't killing off the main character it's supposed to be the same person albeit with a new body and personality.
I'd also have no problem with a character being transgender if that was clearly the writer's intention from the start. But Doctor Who has regenerated a dozen times now and never been female, suddenly deciding to do it now seems very much to be pandering decision not a planned plot choice.
I think you mean Cyberperson, how dare you assume their gender!
You mean Cleopeter, and Frankentina.
How about a person with white skin who identifies as Black, or vice versa, who is also non-binary gender and gets super offended if you assume their gender.
I'm all in favour of strong female lead roles, Voyager is my second favourite Trek partly for that reason (Patrick Stewart is too awesome to come second), but making The Doctor female seems like pandering to political correctness/feminism to me. It's not like the show hasn't had numerous fantastic female characters, they don't need to prove their credentials on female characters.
I've seen talk of making James Bond female, but really why? Create a new spy in a similar style sure but why the need to change existing characters.
What TV producers should be doing is creating high quality new shows with female leads, or strong new female characters in existing Universes.
It's not like it's even that hard to create new shows or characters like that, there's Janeway as I already mentioned, Rey in Star Wars, Dutch in Kill Joys, Two In Dark Matter and so many others.
""Native Americans" are not native either. They migrated from Russia/China through Alaska."
They were however the first humans to settle there, which short of evolving there in the first place is about as native as it gets.
I didn't actually downvote you for disagreeing with my argument, however I would point out that it doesn't really work. You can do considerable damage to other people with a car/van with no risk to yourself, as unfortunately recent terrorist attacks have shown.
I'm with Chris on this one, DJI aren't (and shouldn't be) under any obligation to put these restrictions in in the first place, let alone continually patch them when people find ways to hack/mod them. It's more impressive that they bother in the first place, given the vast number of other manufacturers who won't be.
Responsibility for complying with the law lies with the operator of the drone, both legally and morally, not with the manufacturer.
Requiring manufacturers to make sure drone operators can't fly beyond visual range, or over certain altitudes is akin to saying car manufacturers have to make sure people can't drive cars with their eyes shut or break any speed limits.
"this is an ongoing cost that could switch from ISP to ISP as the customer does, n'cest pas?"
No, because that makes the assumptions that the property will be continuously occupied for the lifetime of the loan and that all the occupants in that period of time will be willing to fork out for fibre.
If the current occupants moves out/dies/whatever and the property is empty for an extended period, nothing gets paid. If the new occupant says "15Mbps is more than enough, no fibre for me thanks" they won't be paying either.
It looks like another poster has assumed I work for BT, I don't and never have. But I do work in IT and have first hand understanding of the difficulty of old cabling infrastructure and ducting, and the massive cost of getting new fibre put in. Businesses pay these costs, generally up front, separately to the ongoing service cost, but for some reason residential consumers seem to expect Openreach or ISPs to absorb this massive cost with no guarantee, or even decent probability, of recouping it.
"a senior BT executive told our community that we would never get anything better than FTTC as there was no profit to be made"
Given the cost of providing FTTP, especially in areas where the ducts are difficult to access, collapsed, or already at capacity, or you're too far from the nearest cabinet due to the bizarre route to your property, the man hours required to assess and deal with that not to mention the actual materials cost, I'd say that saying there's no profit to be made is a generous statement. The reality is more likely there's massive loss to be made.
If you were to fully fund an average to difficult FTTP installation yourself it would easily cost thousands of pounds. For Openreach/an ISP to fund that would be exceedingly difficult. To stand any realistic prospect of breaking even on the install you'd need to be tying the consumer into a 5-10 year contract which almost no residential user is likely to agree to.
Not to mention if you're in a rural area there may not be sufficient upstream capacity from your exchange to cope with any quantity of FTTP households.
@AC and steve 124 "Mexicans and Muslims (non-naturalized) have no 1st amendment rights as they are not American citizens."
Despite what Trump and the media may tell you "Muslim" is not a nationality, it is a religion just like Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and has nothing more to do with rights of citizenship than any of them do.
While you may be right about Mexicans (or citizens of any other country), there are plenty of Muslims in the USA whose families have been there for countless generations so no naturlisation involved.
@BillG "yes, you have the right to voice your opinion. You do NOT have the right to demand others listen to your opinion"
While that is generally true, this is a bit of grey area because it's social media (hence the legal case which will firm this up). If the @RealDonaldTrump account is to be consider an official public communications channel of the President, then blocking people from seeing what the President says there has serious legal implications since in practice it is akin to trying to the President trying to prevent that person seeing any other official public statement he makes, and making any kind of public response to that statement.
You'd think it ridiculous if the President tried to issue an Executive Order stating that Steven King wasn't allowed to read any newspaper articles with his statements in or watch any of his statements/interviews of TV, and wasn't allowed to publicly publish any criticism of them.
Fundamentally the problem here is that Trump is using 'Block' rather than 'Mute', one limits what the other person can do while the other just prevents you having to see what they have to say, for someone like the POTUS there is an important legal difference.
"Once they've wiped the egg off their faces.
Got their collective feet out of their mouths."
These 2 epithets don't make sense, the CPS was pursuing a prosecution under the law as is their purpose. They made no mistake in doing so and will likely drop the case if the law is no longer current. If there's egg on anybody's face it's Ofcom's for introducing the law in the first place.
"And got their thumbs out of their arses."
Harder to argue with that one.
Most people accused of murder did it, therefore I accuse you of murder. Off to prison with you.
It's my understanding that Google don't sell telemetry data either, not directly anyway.
They certainly use it to target advertising, but it's for their own advertising service, the clients of which don't get to see the data in question they just get sold an advertising target market i.e. 18-24 year old males living in this area with these interests, who have visited these websites.
Selling the actual personal data wouldn't be as profitable, since once they've sold it they can't continue to squeeze that particular client for money.
Andromeda gets far too little credit in these threads. It had it's flaws but it was very watchable in a lot of ways.
"the only people who currently use Bitcoin are criminal hackers, money launderers and drug dealers"
Uh no, so wrong it's impossible to imagine how you could be any more incorrect.
I use bitcoin fairly regularly, for the simple reason that using the graphics cards I already have for gaming to earn Bitcoin is incredibly easy. I use this Bitcoin to eithere buy things I wouldn't otherwise have the money for or reinvest it into more graphics cards to increase my BTC income.
I am not a hacker, money laundered or drug dealer.
There are thousands of people like me doing the same thing, as well as people who simply buy and sell bitcoin to make money from exchange rate variations the same as with any other currency.
While there may well be criminal elements using Bitcoin they are far from the majority. Trying to ban bitcoin because criminals might transfer their currency using it is little different than saying let's ban international currency exchanges to block criminal activity, or ban people from investing in business because money can be laundered that way.
In fact people use cash to buy drugs don't they? Let's ban physical currency altogether, used bank notes that you didn't withdraw from an ATM yourself are even less traceable than Bitcoin.
Bloody ages if the affected entities are not complying with obvious independently created security standards not just upsetting Google. Not to mention the the companies in question are not even remotely in the EU
No it doesn't make it MORE of an issue.
A good sysadmin will either have the system locked down and audit-able enough that making such a change would be traceable to him anyway, or they are sufficiently skilled to do whatever you're bunging them £20 for without being traced anyway.
While this clearly is a problem and there needs to be some way to mitigate it, there is a good argument for not doing so or at least not doing so by default.
What if there are environments where numeric users are being used intentionally (regardless of the fact they're invalid/unsupported) such as the idea of using employee numbers as another poster mentioned. Changing a fundamental behaviour of username handling that's been in place for years has a potentially huge impact, and when it's only exploitable by taking action as root in the first place we're really only a step or two away from saying "a root user being to give another user root access is a security flaw".
What this needs is an option flag that can be set in a config file to say "numeric usernames default access=" and the option to set root or user, and perhaps for now have it set to root by default, and in a few versions time switch to user by default.
Those that consider this a threat could then fix it now, those that don't have some time before they need to change any configuration.
More importantly I think you need to reassess the level of bribe you're offering, £20 is nowhere near enough to do anything that stands even the remotest chance of coming back on me.
Your point certainly has some merit morally, but equally it kind of rings of the childish excuse "but everyone else was doing it", just because no-one else is complying with the rules properly doesn't mean it's ok for you not to as well.
There's also an argument that if you're a small operation then you have fewer systems to maintain and therefore securing them, and testing that security should be much simpler.
Big corps have a lot more systems which can be a lot more complex and therefore harder to secure and security test. Not that that is any excuse of course, big corps should also have the resources to tackle such things, either internally or by outsourcing, but it is easier to understand how the odd thing could slip through the net where as in this case it's a small outfit who've failed to take even basic precautions.
"Microsoft, meanwhile, said that it is hoping the matter could be resolved outside of the court, preferably with legislation."
You mean that legislation that already exists in the form of existing international treaties with Ireland which provide a mechanism for getting the information with co-operation of Irish law enforcement agencies?
I presume the suggestion is that there should be new US legislation allowing them to retrieve things held overseas without bothering to consult with that nation's government/law enforcement. Putting aside whether such a thing would be legal under international law (it wouldn't), it's also completely unnecessary. You could maybe try and make a case it were needed if foreign governments regularly refused to co-operate, but that never happens.
The only reasoning I can see here is that the DOJ and other US agencies don't want to have to go to the time and effort or dealing with foreign governments, but it seems to me in equivalent the time and cost taken on this legal case they could have made the proper international requests for several dozen warrants at least.
Yes but it's a publicly run thing, so much like public sector IT even if the technical people suggest such a thing is absolutely essential those holding the purse strings will decide saving money is more important.
"The "recall" option only works for the recipients on the same Exchange tenant though."
Sadly even that isn't true, at least up to Exchange 2013, not used 2016 yet. Recall with Outlook/Exchange requires that the recipient of the recall be using the Outlook client as well, if they're using OWA or connecting via IMAP they'll simply get and email saying "User <insert name here> would like to recall this message", it's only a running Outlook client that which actually process this and remove the message from the inbox. Or at least that's what uses to happen last time I looked into it, maybe it's been patched since?
"they most likely use Windows 10."
Sounds like a new sales approach for MS, SaaS (Submarines as a Service)
I hate to tell you this but I think that milkman might be your real grandfather.....
"that his god would curse me."
Correct response to that : "Yeah but my god is bigger than your god and can beat your god up."
"Have you got a HD to DVA cable?"
Perhaps he was confused because neither of those are names of connectors on a cable? Perhaps you meant HDMI to DVI?
PCW staff can be useless but if you can't get your question right you can't expect to immediately get a proper answer.
"I remember how the trains, telecoms and power were when run by the government, not sure I'd like to go back to that."
This is precisely the reason NOT to vote Labour in the general election. Particularly when it comes to telecoms and power. Railways aren't quite such a big problem, and in fact in some ways lend themselves to being government run because there really isn't a competitive market force anyway, regional franchises are awarded to single companies so you don't get to pick who you use to get from Manchester to London, or whatever your journey may be, in any meaningful way. Unless you're going to allow rail companies to build their own separate lines to compete (which isn't practical obviously), rail is the sort of infrastructure where it needs to at least some degree be run by government.
But I'm not sure how going back to a world where gas and electricity are run by a single national authority (or even multiple regional authorities) is even remotely sensible.
Corbyn claims this is his plan to end "rip off Britain", to end the free market competition for gas and electricity which helps keeps prices down (or at least prevent them rising as fast as they otherwise might) and have it all run by government instead, where you pay what you're told the price is, and have no choice but to accept it or do without. Government decides the price of your gas and electric is going up, then it is, and you have to pay it if you don't want to live in a cold dark house.
The same backwards looking attitude applies towards University education. He claims to want to make University tuition free because fees are too high and people can't afford to go. In reality this is utter bollocks, on two fronts.
Firstly the increased University fees haven't increased the actual cost of going to University to any significant degree for those who don't earn huge salaries after graduation, due to the mechanism by which student loans are repaid. In actual operation student loans are really a graduate tax and the rate at which it's paid hasn't significantly changed, only the period of time you might pay it for before it ends. For those only just earning over the threshold for paying it back, they may never have paid it off before it was automatically wiped after the set period, and for most in the bracket that's still the case. The only change has been for those earning higher salaries, who will be paying a small percentage of their wage as an effective graduate tax for longer.
The second reason this manifesto pledge is utter bollocks, is that Corbyn doesn't want tuition to be free because he wants more people to go to University. He wants tuition to be free because then the government will be setting the amount they pay per student again entirely at their own whim, and not at the level the Universities actual need. This will result in Universities becoming underfunded, many will close and others will simply become awful, and the number of available places will drop. Then we're back to Higher Education landscape we were in 70's to 90's where most people couldn't go to University, and Further Education College was the highest most people could hope for.
This isn't a surprise coming from a man who went to a Polytechnic College rather than an actual University, and left after arguing with tutors because he didn't agree with syllabus (typical I know better than you student attitude no doubt).
N.B. There's nothing wrong with not going to University, or only having an FE College or old Polytechnic College education, but you probably aren't the right person to decide how Universities should be run or funded if you've never been, and it's dubious if you're the right person for that choice if you dropped out because of arguing with the people that ran the place.
Also most or all of the old Polytechnics are now quite respectable Universities, but that was only really possible because of the increased funding they began to get as a result of tuition fees coming into existence.
@Pierre "if he can prove that he was not at home at the time"
"Apparently, he's clearly visible on video at a food store at the time the posting was made"
Sorry but from a technical perspective those points don't prove it wasn't him.
He could have been away from home, but connected via VPN to home (or even by TOR and exiting through his own node) and posting from a laptop or mobile device.
Video of him doing something else at the time it was posted certainly rules out him doing it at that time, but with almost any blog/social media platform there are ways to schedule posts to be made automatically at a certain time whether it be built in functionality or third party.
We're not talking a physical crime that required him to be present here, we're talking about an electronic one that could have been done from anywhere at any time.
Not that these possibilities prove he did it either of course! But if you're going to be a social/political activist aiming to piss off a government with a reputation for dirty tricks, then hosting a service such as TOR which allows illegal acts to be potentially traced back to you is probably not the brightest idea, it leaves you open to blame for the acts of idiots or even government agents out to pin things on you.
"It's the same argument with stating that EU nationals can stay after we leave before we have secured the rights of people in the EU."
It is however this is politics and there's all kinds of ways and means of giving away what you're after in subtext without officially stating or agreeing to anything before you have to. The whole thing with the House of Lords recommending we guarantee EU citizens rights was quite likely just a pre-planned piece of political theater in my opinion. It was a subtle of way unofficially saying to the EU that we are very keen to do a straight trade of the continued rights of UK citizens in the EU for that of EU citizens in the UK, without having to officially state it before the negotiations.
I suspect the current Gibraltar noise is much the same, the Spanish don't even remotely expect us to change position on Gibraltar but they're making a public fuss over it now before the actual negotiations start to set the stage for something they actually want and think they can get.
The early stages of political negotiations happen as much in the media as they do in actual meetings of politicians.
Far out man
"if you just persuaded your org to migrate"
If you did the persuading in a company large enough to have multiple people who could be titled "exec" then you deserve to be taken outside and shot anyway. Either you're in IT and have no idea what you're talking about, or you're not in IT and shouldn't be trying to persuade the execs to make major IT changes anyway.
"Sounds like it's to gain access to devices to tamper/modify/image-backup laptops/computers while they aren't in your possession"
Nah, you might have a point if it weren't for the fact that US Customs have been allowed to inspect the data contents of devices for a while now, so I'm not sure this is really related to that.
To be honest I can kind of see the point in this measure, not saying I agree with it necessarily but I understand it.
Sure an iPad Air (and phones hence why they're allowed) may not have a lot of space inside to be rigged as an explosive or whatever, but digital cameras especially DSLRs with a substantial lens? Or a beefy external HDD?
It works better if you do the recovery while the drive is rested on top of the user's head, due to quantum entanglement between the electrons used to store the data and the electrons in their brain that originally created the work.
Although this does inconvenience the user a little by requiring them to sit perfectly still with a hard drive vibrating away on their head, it's worth while if it means they get their data back surely?
Almost as good as the users who want you to recover a document from backup, but don't actually know whether they saved it locally, to a network drive or to some other external media in the first place.
"They tend to have on hand this marvellous bit of wire, about 22 to 25 inches long that will slice through most metal bands"
If by "most" you mean gold or silver, which are relatively soft metals then yes a jeweler could help. But the majority of ordinary jewelers tools like a ring saw won't cut titanium, cobalt, carbon or stainless steel rings as they're simply too hard. In this case I believe the ring was titanium.
I'm not sure what exactly the fire brigade used but I imagine it was something pretty powerful, since time as a factor. Although there are Dremel cutting discs that will cut titanium and other hard metals, on anything a couple of millimeters thick or more it's going to use up a few cuttings discs and take quite a bit of time, which this chap didn't have.
Perhaps go for the ambiguous "Home Office Worker"
I dunno, Justin Trudeau seems to be doing pretty well on his own.
@Ian Michael Grumby
"In fact her profile was filled with a couple red flags."
From that statement either you're doing a very poor job at exaggerating or her profile was very small.
"These TLDs add very little."
That's the key isn't it really. From a technical and operational stand point the decision should be simple, if introducing a particular TLD has a higher than normal potential to cause problems because a variety of people have been using it internally for years then it shouldn't be introduced, end of story. There is no technical benefit to any of these particular TLDs.
The only argument for ignoring this risk is profit, be that from domain registrars who want to sell domains on that TLD or corporations who want fancy looking URLs. This is not a sufficient argument when there is an almost infinite number of other options available for new TLDs that wouldn't pose this risk.
"As for the BBC I would have to pay for it if I want to have a tv to watch videos... or would have to take steps to remove the antenna."
Nope. You can own as many TVs, or other live broadcast reception capable devices, as you like without paying for a TV licence or having to remove their tuners. The licence is only required if you use the licensed functionality. If Capita knock on the door you simply say "I do not watch live TV or use iPlayer" or even write to them in advance saying the same.
In the same way that you don't need a driving licence to own a car, only to drive it on public roads, and if you own a car you don't use on public roads you don't have to take the engine out of it to ensure you don't need a driving licence.
"Amazon, Netflix, Sky/Fox, so called Virgin (really UPS/Global Liberty) all of whom produce little content and content of a low common denominator"
I have to take issue with that. Amazon and Netflix (especially Netflix) produce quite a bit of quality content.
Not sure what any of your points 1-3 have to do with this?
The GSM gateway will generally be based in the country you're calling from not the country you're trying to call, if it weren't then there wouldn't really be a great deal of cost benefit to the caller in using one in the first place.
"You may not have a SIP exit route to the country in question" is a valid point, but then what you really need is a multimodal gateway which has SIP/GSM outgoing connections and uses whichever is cheapset/most appropriate for the destination country.
"So, he was only obeying orders? Just how much misbehaviour should that excuse?"
Pretty much anything that isn't illegal really, which I don't think this was? If it was he should be prosecuted, along with whoever told him to do it, but as far as I know it's not a criminal offence for a government employee to do this.
There probably should be some sort of internal HOIPU/government policy against it if there isn't already. But even if there is, was this guy aware of it? If he was and he was specifically told to do it anyway surely he didn't have a great deal of choice?
We're not talking war criminals who murdered civilians because they were ordered to here, it's not even a HOIPU employee being asked to take morally questionable investigative action against a citizen without a warrant. It's a guy being asked to send a letter by his boss which is frankly not the sort of thing to quit your job and endanger your future employment prospects for.
"after the autopilot was disconnected (by the camera pushing the left hand stick fully forward.)"
I'm not a pilot but it seems to me that if you've engaged the autopilot, it should require a specific action to turn it off again, not simply operating the manual controls
Perhaps at the time of the interview where he said that he genuinely didn't recall the camera being stuck there?
I imagine things become a little fuzzy when you're panicking because the plane you're piloting has suddenly gone into a 15000ft per minute dive and you've just had your head smacked into the ceiling.
"I wonder how long it will take until someone pokes the tool to find out what the deciding factors are and large swathes of contracts are updated accordingly.."
I'm pretty sure you can find that out without poking the tool. I'm sure we don't yet live in a world where an online anonymous multiple choice quiz is the only way of finding out which tax rules apply to you.
If that ever happens I'm moving to a world where my tax calculator says I owe "a suffusion of yellow".
Honestly I don't see the call center thing as huge problem, given that their call center is currently in Ireland rather than somewhere in India.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017