Donald Trump has been the focus of much interest, dominating all candidates with 75 per cent of presidential primary apps categorized under his name.
Yes, but doesn't that category include all the fart apps?
3425 posts • joined 19 May 2010
You'd think he was the messiah ffs.
Whilst I sort of agree with the sentiment - news channels and the internet have gone way overboard about this - you must acknowledge that he had a massive influence on popular music, not just the songs he performed himself, but all the work he did for other bands, and the industry as a whole.
One of the US Government's primary jobs is the protection of its citizens. Right to privacy isn't absolute, and it loses when it comes to security of the nation or protection of the people.
You just don't get it, do you. What the Government is asking for is NOT POSSIBLE.
It is not possible to create strong encryption with an easy way in "only for government use".
The two possible choices are:
1/ Strong Encryption for everybody which cannot be easily bypassed or broken.
2/ Weak Encryption for everybody, which can be bypassed or broken by governments and criminals alike.
The drawback with #2 is that strong encryption already exists, so even if law abiding citizens and companies do as the government asks, and only use weaker encryption, there's nothing to stop criminals and terrorists from using the existing strong encryption.
Accurate? Just wait for the lawsuit when the app tells people that Brand A is clucking unhappy, when, in fact, it's clucking cheerful.
The data the App uses is taken from a report produced by Choice, a consumer protection organisation similar to Which?.
This information is freely available here:
So it won't be the App developers who get sued no matter what.
I think they should prohibit the consumption of alchohol, it presents a far greater risk to "a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms".
They could make it an amendment of the Constitution, for greater impact, perhaps.
What do you mean "they tried that already"?
The problem has got so bad that I'm typing this while driving the number 38 bus through Piccadilly Circus.
Unless you're eating a sandwich and drinking coffee out of a thermos mug at the same time as driving the bus and texting, you're not doing it right...
The more I read about the Misco outage the more I wonder just what "Datacentre" means in their case.
Picture a standard bit-barn - usually a prefab building the size of a soccer field:
you walk in the front door , and (if it's any decent bit-barn) you have to go through various physical security checks.
Having passed them, you go through the security gate / airlock into the data-floor, which may be divided into separate halls, or for our purposes is just a single massive area.
Off in the distance, in the middle of an otherwise bare floor, stands a single 42U rack, and as we get closer, we can see that it's partially populated.
Close up, we see a firewall, a switch, a few ethernet cables and a 2U server with "Web1" written across the lid in marker pen, under the dust. On the floor of the rack is a box of floppies, marked "backup".
That's it ladies and gents, there's Misco's robust e-commerce front-end...
“Moving forward we’ll be moving our infrastructure to a cloud platform so we have continuity of service and are not relying on a back-up fail over failing”.
Typical management knee-jerk reaction. What they should do is look at what they spent on DR (clearly very little) and then work out a revised plan which actually works.
If they want to transfer it all to public cloud offerings, fair enough, but it won't magically give them "continuity of service" unless they put the work in.
They still need the same sort of planning - "cloud" is not magically robust, if you lose a server, and don't have any form of DR, then you're stuffed, no matter where it's hosted.
Train them in-house! Just like big companies used to do.
Umm, TFA says:
"To meet the growing global demand for cybersecurity services and address the skills shortage in the sector, BT expects to take-on and train 170 graduates and apprentices, as part of its 900 recruitment intake in the next 12 months," said the company.
Laser powered spaceflight has been mooted, and even demonstrated experimentally, but the idea that they can aim the laser accurately enough through the atmosphere to propel something the size of a postage stamp is surely piling on more complexity than they needed to?
It would of course also be quite useful as a ground based weapon...
Johnson County eh?
You couldn't make it up...
Johnson: [Noticing Dr. Evil's spaceship on radar] Colonel, you better have a look at this radar.
Colonel: What is it, son?
Johnson: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant--
Jet Pilot: Dick.
Jet Pilot: Take a look out of starboard.
Dick: Oh my God, it looks like a huge--
Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker.
Bird-Watching Man: [raising binoculars] Ooh, Where?
Bird-Watching Woman: Wait, that's not a woodpecker, it looks like someone's--
Army Sergeant: Privates! We have reports of an unidentified flying object. It has a long, smooth shaft, complete with--
Baseball Umpire: Two balls.
[looking up from game]
Baseball Umpire: What is that. It looks just like an enormous--
Chinese Teacher: Wang, pay attention!
Wang: I was distracted by that giant flying--
Willie Nelson: Yeah?
Musician: What's that?
Willie Nelson: [squints] Well, that looks like a giant--
Johnson: Yes, sir?
Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this.
I love this bit:
A spokesman from Intelliagg explained: “The dark web is renowned for illicit and illegal trade, unmonitored and anonymous. Not any more. We have successfully penetrated into the darkest parts using specialist software and our expertise.
Yeah, so they know how to use a TOR browser and a port scanner... whoop-de-doo...
It depends what you call the "dark web".
Do they just mean .onion sites, or do they include sites that don't have a DNS lookup, or which serve on non-standard ports?
There must be thousands, if not millions of the latter.
Lots of companies, ours included, have web sites and services accessible on the internet which are for company use, and don't appear in DNS or use standard ports, or only accept connections from certain IP ranges. Are these all counted as the dark web?
EDIT: JimC got in before me :)
Not sure why you are making such a big thing about this, various countries already require proof from companies before allowing them to register a domain.
Note that this is FOR COMPANIES, not for individuals.
I recently had reason to have to register a .fr domain for a company. The requirements for this were very strict indeed.
I don't recall there being a big story about France's domain registration policies?
Amazon seem to be going to great lengths with this drone delivery idea - but do they really not recognise what a stupid idea it is?
Apart from the lack of range of the drones, they are going to be shot at, or hijacked, or otherwise interfered with.
And if that isn't the case, how do they deliver to anyone who doesn't live in an idealised American home with a white picket fence and front yard?
Let's see a drone delivering to an apartment block in the middle of a city!
obligated is a perfectly valid word (cromulent, even!), not made up as you claim.
Its use in the sentence you fail to quote is correct.
The board is also obligated to explain its reasoning if it does reject that advice
Obligated and obliged both mean "to be morally required to do something", however in normal use obligated is used where the subject has no choice in the matter, whereas obliged is more like being indebted to someone.
Brussels, with its airport now becoming famous for not doing even basic security checks.
What? Which security checks would you expect to see, and where?
At check-in? At the front door? At the unloading point? In the car park?
It doesn't matter where you start the security, you will always have a point before it which is vulnerable.
They should be concentrating on dealing more effectively with the data they already have, not trying to add to it.
The haystack is big enough already, they need more people with magnets to sift through and find the needles.
And then, they need to use that information appropriately, not keep it secret. Once again, it appears, the security services were aware of at least one of the Brussels attackers, but they didn't release that information to the people that mattered.
I wonder whether (whatever the actual outcome) the FBI will triumphantly announce their finding of (unspecified) incriminating data on the phone, just to justify their law suit.
I really can't see them going "ah, well actually there wasn't anything worth having on there, sorry to have bothered you..."
What we need is production databases that require 2FA or 2 user auth to run DELETE and DROP commands :p
Or possibly Sysadmins who stop and check, and then check again, before deleting anything, ever.
My thought is that he restored a duff backup over the top of the live database, instead of creating a copy.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019