No doubt TV Licence enforcement are watching with interest, as a potential mechanism for their latest optimistic "iPlayer over wi-fi detection" claims is revealed.
858 posts • joined 19 Jun 2007
No doubt TV Licence enforcement are watching with interest, as a potential mechanism for their latest optimistic "iPlayer over wi-fi detection" claims is revealed.
I thought BSODs were supposed to have been consigned to history in Windows <insert some previous version here>...
Best euphemism yet?
Nothing seems to be able to bring a browser to its knees as effectively as badly-configured Bootstrap and a bunch of advertising plug-ins, so agreed, perhaps this isn't such a bad thing. Less intrusive in every way.
How about they work on the known insta-crash bug in Edge? Especially since they're now touting a version of the operating system essentially locked down to using it.
Not when it keeps crashing on me before it's even done anything. I blamed the Creators Update, but applied the recommended fix*, which worked. For a day. But now it's broken again. Unbothered, only use it for compatibility testing.
* As advised by a web search I'd have been unable to carry out had I been using Windows S, essentially locked to using Edge!
Rather like the doorstep hawkers ignoring our clear police-issue sign, insisting that they are "not selling anything". So, how's that financially worthwhile for your double glazing company?
Plans to force ISPs to filter content branded 'disproportionate'
I genuinely wondered who was going to be the arbiter of what is deemed disproportionate. Were ISPs going to have to start blocking the BBC once they'd gone on about a dead celeb for more than 10 minutes?
This is pretty cool stuff, in a chilling way:
Images from a series of ~10 nanosecond snaps of an early nuclear blast.
I used to love my Nokia wellies. That division also was flogged off, but at least still seems to be operational, but a shame a new pair would cost more than this phone.
Oh my heart truly bleeds.
Will they also demote the indirect malware links some music searches lead to, which AFAIK are currently not flagged as such, by virtue of the indirection? Searching for a particular track leads to a hopeful looking result with a suitably large WAV download on an FTP server. Downloading the WAV it appears it's in an encrypted format, and requires the download of a proprietary decoder, which is of course pure malware. The downloaded "WAV" file itself is reportedly pure white noise to the appropriate length, probably served off a server that faked the size in the first place and just pipes from /dev/random to order. I hasten to add I've never got further than the initial download (for a legitimate purpose), but understand others have not been so lucky. It's a particularly nasty attack on those having to go to desperate lengths to find music not available by any other channel.
As initially understood then, a battery fault, unfortunately exacerbated by a different fault in the replacement. Having hardwired the battery as so many manufacturers have chosen to do, Samsung have massively paid the price by having to cancel the device altogether, for a mixture of perceptive and economic reasons. As one of the last manufacturers to stop using easily replaceable batteries, could they make a move that's positive for both the company and consumers by being one of the first to admit they were wrong and reverse that policy? Baked-in batteries (more literally than Samsung ever intended) are pure cynical marketing hype and a sustainability disaster, a technological "solution" to customers increasingly hanging on to handsets long after the mobile networks can fleece them for overpriced contracts. Yes, they enable slimmer handsets, but that's pure marketing guff when the upshot is more fragile devices (yay, more early upgrades and expensive contracts!) for the sake of a fraction of a millimetre. Let's have some sense back!
We only ever buy Mr Kipling things when they're on special offer, and I doubt those will change much. Took me years even to risk doing that, having spent some time working in one of their factories.
In other, plainer, words: the wing fell off?
I found it rather ironic that upon cancelling the account I never wanted, and probably never even directly asked for, in the first place, it informed me that the actual deletion would be delayed for 90 days "to discourage fraud". To my mind, that's more of a 90-day window of opportunity...
Oh, and it forced me to activate a Yahoo ID and webmail (yet another proven attack vector, if my spamtrap is anything to go by) just to do that!
.... like VTech maybe. Oh, yeah, right. Next?!
Flash - yes, this could be a problem although the churn on flash cells in a mobile device is currently somewhat less than that of an excessively write happy desktop OS such as Windows.
Agreed, though I blame it for the death of my Xperia M, which had a pathetically small amount of storage, so even a little write-happiness was bad for that churn. Lollipop was also probably the cause of death for our Nexus 7 tablet, with similar symptoms. Plenty more storage than the Xperia, but pretty widely known to write excessively as it ground to a halt.
.... until you realise that phone's been worked to death so the flash memory is worn out and the hard-wired battery holds no charge any more.
Must depend on which bank's accounts Santander historically acquired.
Our historically Alliance & Leicester login needs a numeric user ID then a five-digit PIN in full.
My business login (based on Abbey National systems) needs a numeric user ID, then a password and PIN, both in full.
Both also use the picture verification thingy, but that's pretty much entirely placebo. The user IDs are not guessable, but nor are considered secure information.
Both are now Santander branded but show their provenance in a few places. In both instances though, the password and/or PIN could be (and hopefully are) hashed.
Issue is battery replacement more than in use standby
Yup, have a prize. I've had highly varying battery stamina from the phones I've owned, but never sufficiently poor to require carrying a charged spare. Obviously some heavy users may need this, but I doubt they are numerous. Especially with lower capacity batteries, charging becomes more frequent, and inherently reduces the overall lifetime of the battery. In the olden days when everyone was on a contract, the manufacturers could rely on a 1 to 2 year upgrade cycle (which conveniently about matched the lifespan of a typical battery operating efficiently), but now the world has wised up to their scam via SIM-only deals, and is happy to use third-party firmware to circumvent deliberate dead-ending, they've had to physically engineer in the obsolescence at the hardware level.
I think having a removeable battery would mean that the phone cannot be waterproof
My S5 Mini has a removable battery and claims IP67 ingress protection, not that I've put the latter to the test. I've argued all along that the astronomical expense (in almost every regard) of this sorry episode could very easily have been avoided as suggested.
... and reliance on multiple-gigabyte updates pushed at people without asking, especially when they inexplicably fail first time and download all over again? My folks got billed for going over their monthly quota thanks to the bonkers-big Windows 10 anniversary update they reasonably described as "unsolicited".
I thought a large part of the Windows 10 "always updating" ethos was to avoid the need for such huge and mostly duplicative service packs, or do they have such little trust in the day-to-day updates not to be layering up a cumulative clusterf*ck?
News to me, but not that surprising. I was forever getting the two of them confused before remembering Avast was the better one, least likely to download dodgy content without asking as part of its browser plug-in.
And a full keyboard!
They were going to get shot of the hucksters, but nope, never happened. I will safely assume all email from BT accounts *may* be compromised (as, in fairness, I have come to assume of 75% of webmail).
Knowing BT, they'll be charging extra for the privilege though.
Yup, I came on here to update with that twist. Apparently the changeover from the download-throttled 80/20 to pukka 56/10 that was supposed to have happened on 1 August will actually be taking place over several weeks, depending on the thumb-twiddling rate of BT. In the meantime Plusnet have moved users to a download-and-upload-throttled 80/20 to simulate 56/10 and by all accounts made a royal balls-up of it by not increasing the download for many despite line capability. I'm OK (getting around 52/9.5 on average) but interestingly I haven't had a download throttle for several months anyway for whatever reason, and that's probably why I'm not now stuck on 40/10 like so many are, despite still being on a throttled 80/20 according to BT. Worryingly for those who opted to pay extra to get pukka 80/20 after the infamous announcement, Plusnet can't be certain they won't be downgraded to 56/10 when BT eventually get round to "upgrading" their connection. Mindbending? Yup, even for Plusnet support staff it seems, who are even more in the dark than the customers by all accounts.
This seems to be part of a shift towards lowest common denominator easy customers, rather than being the savvy choice for more demanding users as in the pre-BT past. Plusnet know there's probably no-one offering a 40/20 service now, so the offered contract termination without penalty is pointless. They are shifting the responsibility of selling products they probably never should have offered on to the customers to pick up the pieces. Many customers on the borderline for 40/20 in the first place will see no benefit whatsoever from the change to 55/10. For those seeing the marginal increase, it may or may not be that useful in practice; we'd have gone for 80/20 if download speed was of prime importance, so I would say there are two main categories of affected users: those who know they've been screwed over by this, and those who don't yet but will all too soon. The only silver lining is that at least we're not on 40/2 which they're selling to new mugs right now, though what happens at end of contract is rather vague.
Hmm, certainly possible. Although the issue occurred with even trivially small attachments, I'm not sure I tested it with anything so small as to be under the MTU.
Curiously hot on the heels of a recent mysteriously kept-under-wraps issue at Plusnet, where despite their insistence they don't intercept or anything of the ilk, connections to third-party SMTP servers were timing out – but only when messages had an attachment, no matter how tiny. Very, very odd, indeed pretty much inexplicable without foul play involved, especially with supposedly encrypted connections. They tried to blame it on some other ongoing DNS issues, but DNS doesn't care whether email has attachments or not...
Looks like something not entirely dissimilar this morning. Same vague "we're looking into it" type announcements from Plusnet, as multiple key sites respond slowly or not at all.
Posted: Thu, Jul 21 2016 at 09:04:19
Subject: Broadband issues - NEW
Sorry if you're unable to access some websites this morning, we're investigating the cause and will post an update shortly.
I would love to see permissions in apps etc justified in descriptions more frequently. Some do it, but by no means all. Most are probably innocuous, and although a description doesn't prove a thing, it's a step in the right direction before full code analysis is feasible. In the meantime it means idiots will still accuse apps of wrongdoing - e.g. the fool reviewer who thought a completely reasonably-permissioned (not even any ads) flashlight app was taking photos on the sly, rather than because, duh, the LED is part of the camera module. On the other hand, suspicion is not surprising given the number of apps demanding e.g. location in order to do something completely unconnected.
Banks could go a fair way to stopping phishing by refusing to serve branding images without proper referrer URLs. Phishing scams invariably link to the official web-based images, and stopping that, or (even better) replacing them with ones saying "SCAM WARNING!" would help. A little. Which is better than nothing. Of course, many people disable images in emails anyway, and the scammers may move towards embedding rather than linking images (or linking to copies elsewhere, which won't go unnoticed), but the latter will dramatically increase their data load, and in the meantime a few million gullible souls may become better educated.
Yep, about my deduction. Even wondering what the --no-preserve-root option (rather giving the game away about the hoax SF article) might have been about?
I believe the idea is that any risks from the radioactive debris shower will affect several generations down the line rather than us, when it next comes round. Someone else's problem, in other words.
Does sound rather like the security services' wet dream though, potentially.
... having almost had our son fall off the list because half of them can't be arsed even to read emails.
And still they junk-mail us trying to persuade us to sign up, despite them being below even BT on our list of likely providers in the event of hell freezing over.
... about what I remember paying for a Pentium III desktop with only a few modest bells and whistles!
Indeed, hence the BBC hype mention.
Presumably multiplied by the 300 machines they say were infected*. I doubt these scammers are nice and offer multi-seat site licensing etc.
* And then a bit of BBC hype for good measure, worth an order of magnitude.
... because at least two out of three wouldn't have a clue how to allow third-party apps on in the first place, and of those who do, a good many only allow it as a temporary measure for a specific app and lock the door firmly afterwards.
Hijacked Yahoo spam seems ten-a-penny these days, and it (along with other webmails) has always been significant. In trying to find advice for afflicted users, there seems to be precious little detail around as to what's happening. I suspect some have been phished, but doubt that's the whole story.
Yep, to me there are two categories of bricking: soft and hard. Soft can be resolved by fiddling with bootloaders, firmwares and whatnot. Hard can be resolved by buying a new one. Anything less serious and/or with a solution in the get-you-started guide (including what is described in this article) is what in less sensationalist quarters we always used to call a crash.
> If they closed off the airspace, why are there so many other lights in the sky on the Vimeo take?
Military observation planes, perhaps? Strictly, I understand the airspace wasn't closed, more of an advisory "keep clear if you don't want a rocket up your ass". I think you can be pretty sure there wasn't anything civilian in the vicinity, ultimately.
So the incident in Egypt back in August when a Thomson jet had to take evasive action to avoid a missile of some kind was explained away as a routine military exercise. Alarming though this Californian incident may have been to distant onlookers, at least the military thought to close off the relevant civil airspace. On the basis that I can't really believe even the Egyptians would have been that reckless, I call diplomatic bullshit* on the official explanation. Sorry to be topical.
* Or more likely, our so-called investigation ran to asking the Egyptian authorities what happened, and they replied, "Oh no, we have absolutely no terrorists able to bring down an aeroplane by missile (let alone a cargo hold bomb) and destroy our tourist trade overnight, it was just our boys with their toys. Nothing to see..."
"Look, a f***ing sunrise doesn't automatically make it inspirational"
"David Avocado Wolfe level woo"
"Not more bl**dy privacy/conspiracy bulls***"
"Am I supposed to take you seriously with spelling/grammar/capitalisation like that?"
"I tried to report this s*** but Facebook conveniently removed the relevant option, thus avoiding accountability for the borderline criminal content published"
How do you put a "market value" on a resource inherent to the universe we live in, again?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017