Re: It's not 3D
It's hanged in his home office
3335 posts • joined 19 May 2010
For me, in a rural area, it's not so much oncoming cars / suvs which are the problem, it's the oncoming nitwit cyclists using strobing white front lamps after dark which just remove all possibility of seeing anything other than their light, and a glowing after image where my retinas have begun to char.
"As part of our multi-billion pound investment in our network and services over the last few years to ensure that customers have access to cutting edge products and services, we have been replacing many of our legacy systems and reviewing the products and services delivered over them: as part of this review we will no longer be offering free email accounts with our broadband products."
It's a shame that part of the "multi-billion pound investment" couldn't be spent on maintaining a doman and an email server. They don't have to offer free email to new customers, but would it really hurt them to support their existing ones?
That's not what the Wiki says, nor is it correct.
The British government decreed that a flight to India, using petrol engines, was too hazardous for R100 to undertake, because of the "unknown" effect of the tropical heat on petrol. This was complete nonsense, and was purely done so that the government sponsored craft would get the kudos for the Indian flight.
I feel it's a little disingenuous to quote the R101 case as concrete proof that Airships don't work.
R101 was a victim of typical British bureaucratic interference in an engineering project, and the design was betrayed by cost cutting and ill-informed autocratic oversight.
The R100, which was built in parallel by private interests, performed admirably, matched or exceeded all of the goals set by the same requirement as for the R101, and was a complete success.
Unfortunately, to hide the bungling which caused the R101 incident, the British government declared that the civilian Airship was not a viable proposition, and the successes of the R100 were quietly buried.
I'm afraid your credibility has taken a severe beating with this article.
Not only does the whole spiel appear to be written in an attempt to justify your ownership of a smart-band, but you gratuitously admit to having purchased it in PC World.
Shame on you sir, I thought you knew better than that.
I'm no fig plucker's son but I'll pluck figs until the fig plucker's son comes.
Woah, where did fig plucker come from?
As I know it, the rhyme is:
"I'm not the pheasant plucker, I'm the pheasant plucker's son, and I'll keep on plucking pheasants 'til the pheasant plucker comes"
and there isn't a day goes by that I don't get to see and enjoy photos and videos of my young nephews, nieces and cousins as they learn to walk and talk, play in their gardens, start at their new schools, attend their proms, graduate from their Universities, and eventually post their own videos of themselves getting wasted in fancy dress.
Either you have an inordinate amount of relatives spread over a large age-range, or they live somewhere where time works differently to the rest of us!
I saw this on BBC News the other day, and at the time thought that an all-in-one banking app was a bad idea.
Their stated aim is to "promote transparency and clarity while providing an incentive for customers to switch providers" but I cannot see that one-app-to-rule-them-all is in any way likely to promote transparency and clarity.
Enforcing extra competition for the sake of it seems to be something this government have tried to do for a number of sectors, and it just doesn't work. I don't understand why they feel someone switching banks every six months is something to encourage?
As someone posted earlier, maybe people don't switch banking providers because they are generally happy with the service they get - or, more likely, there is not enough difference between the services provided by any single bank which would justify switching.
My old diesel 4x4 is of an age before computers were fitted to cars... The doors unlock with a key, the engine starts with a key
My old diesel 4x4 doesn't even require a key - a screwdriver, or blunt knife is quite sufficient to unlock the doors and operate the ignition :)
No prizes for guessing the manufacturer...
but instead of sending attractive women in modified F-104 Starfighters to shoot down Mysteron UFOs, it sends out drones to deliver £20.56 worth of cheap batteries, USB-powered desk lamps, lint-free cloths
Please, I'd like to propose a compromise, can I have attractive women in modified F-104 Starfighters to deliver £20.56 worth of cheap batteries, USB-powered desk lamps and lint-free cloths?
Without looking into it in any depth, I would guess it currently works by examining the response header returned by the server, to determine when to spring to life.
If there is no server response (i.e. the server isn't there) then it can't do that.
If they also built it to work when there was no server response received, you would be in danger of flooding the archive with requests for non-existent or incorrectly typed URLs.
A customer found a weakness in employee password use and protection, signaled it and was not immediately blamed and brought shrieking into a ridiculous lawsuit ?
It's because it didn't happen in the US.
If it had, a full SWAT team would have been on-scene in seconds, and the customer would have been arrested, or possibly shot.
I think you misunderstood my point, slightly. I'm not saying it's always the user who is at fault, what I meant was that there is no fundamental weakness that means you cannot write secure software.
It is humans who write the shoddy software which still allows SQL injection to be an issue, even though it is perfectly possible to write software without that vulnerability, or most others.
As you say, software is often designed without a clear understanding of it's use. But that too is not the software's fault, it is a human failing.
I was responding to the OP who said Security at the software level alone is obviously not working, and the point I was making is that it is eminently possible to write secure software, it's just people don't.
Security at the software level alone is obviously not working,
I would question whether that is the case. A large majority of cyber crime takes place because of human failings. The software is capable of being made secure, however shoddy implementation is often the cause of poor security.
Consider that a lot of leaks of personal information from the web are still being made possible by SQL injection attacks. This is (should be) a solved problem - but still people write software which allows it to happen.
The other major vector for poor security is passwords, people either use weak passwords, or use the same password in more than one place, Again, using passwords is not intrinsically insecure - done properly it can be very secure - but the way people do use passwords is seldom correct.
So It's not the software that is the problem, it's the wetware that uses it.
I'll be glad if this happens, as it will remove one the perpetual annoyances I have nearly every day.
We currently use SMS 2FA to allow people to log in to a secure site which we provide to a client.
We are forever getting rung up with complaints that they haven't received their SMS to let them log in, and no amount of explaining how SMS works makes any difference, they expect us to somehow make it work instantaneously.
SMS is a best effort service, exactly like email, and can be delayed for all sorts of reasons, and is therefore not a good fit for secure 2FA.
"Intrusion delivery platforms’ are defined as systems, equipment, components and software specifically designed for use in offensive intrusion and remote monitoring and that demonstrate elements of vulnerability exploitation, evasion, and enabling subversion or destruction."
I think the revised description above still runs the risk of outlawing the use and dissemination of the vast majority of security software used by Pen Testers, Sysadmins etc.
Think of NMap, Nessus, and even Fiddler, they could all be caught by broad interpretation of the passage above.
I don't believe this problem has anything to do with LINX. THN is a massive building and LINX have space there but the room currently affected by the power problems is not the LINX suite.
Well we're having big problems with latency and packet loss from a Plus-Net fibre link to some of our servers at Firehosts/Armor, and most of the issues seem to be the Telia nodes in London:
By comparison, we aren't seeing any issues with these hosts on the same routing:
So maybe this is a routing issue from BT onwards?
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, It's not BT's own infrastructure in Telehouse North, (despite the confusing name) it's part of the London Internet Exchange, which provides routing and connectivity to all the Tier2 providers, so BT are more in your position at the moment, of sitting waiting for their suppliers to sort their shit out.
If a person has a full / part time job in another business, but is prepared to pick up and drop off an Uber client as part of their journey, and reap the benefit, then that is equivalent to car sharing, and they are clearly not an employee in any meaningful sense.
However, if someone's main income is derived from driving around picking up and dropping off Uber clients, then they are acting as an employee.
In addition, in the latter case, they are clearly using their car "for the purposes of hire or reward", and therefore a normal car insurance policy won't cover them, and they should have a commercial insurance.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019