It probably did, and it wasn't accidental.
Just ask Facebook for the transcript/video that they didn't record, and don't have a copy of.
20 posts • joined 12 Sep 2012
Informed consent only applies before their personal data is collected, so that doesn't rule out GDPR compliance.
Doesn't matter though, GDPR compliance is a red herring. The problem is that "trust me" isn't a valid approach to any network security issue.
The main problem is that Ubiquiti management doesn't see (or is being paid/told not to see) how wrong this is.
Great News, Users...
Actually, this is really great news, because now Slack have a great motivation to push ahead with their Catalyst build. That means it will have a differently weird UI, but at least it won't slug the machine.
And some m$ stuff won't work, years ago I would have said yippee, but nowadays it is more of a meh.
The real story here is the press parroting a twitter dev blaming his problems on Apple, when no-one else has the problem.
1. twitter, multi-billion dollar company has for a long time claimed they couldn't afford to make a Mac App, so they probably don't have much of a Mac dev department.
2. No-one else reporting these problems.
3. UIKeyCommand documentation explicitly says it is for key combos, not single letters. (Quoted at the end of the comment), so this is explicitly not a bug.
4. Oh, UIKeyCommand, so this is a Catalyst App, which is new in Catalina, so when they say regression, they mean Apple did a bug fix from an early Beta. Bet they didn't enable those single key shortcuts in the iOS App.
Supporting quote from UIKeyCommand documentation :-
"Hardware keyboards allow a user to hold down the Control, Option, Command, or other modifier key and press another key in combination to initiate commands such as Cut, Copy, or Paste. You can use instances of this class to define custom command sequences that your app recognizes and then provide an appropriate response."
Always interesting to see the app stores compared as if they do the same thing.
One does meaningful human audits of every app uploaded ( sometimes to the chagrin of us developers), spending a ton of money on checking there aren't a sea of trojans and other malware infecting the platform. The other does pretty much nothing for the same markup.
I'm sure that both Apple and Google make a ton of money from their app stores, but only one has a plausible security justification for it's monopoly.
Also a bit disgusting to see the proposal that successful businesses should get a discount. The cost of entry and failure rate among mobile apps punish the small players, so further rewarding the most successful players might seem a natural consequence of a competitive app store market place, but the effect on the general app development market place would be extremely pro-monopolistic.
Full Disclosure: I am not an Economist :)
After reading Alain's post, I clicked on his list and yes, it is a nice friendly code of conduct, but that did raise a one big question.
What would have happened if Linux had this code of practise?
I'm sorry Linus, you can't come to the conference, because you are rude to people.
Open source technical projects, and especially stupidly complex projects are probably not the best place to fight gender equality battles. Judge people on the basis of the diffs they submit. Anyone suitably competent will have a solid reputation before anyone actually knows their racial background, gender preferences etc. This is true equality.
There is a lot of confusion here. Tether is not Bitcoin. Lots of journalists are putting 'Bitcoin' into their headlines to get ratings, but they are not the same, or even strongly linked.
Tether is a crypto-currency, using similar technology to Bitcoin, but they are not the same, and this is obvious since one tether is worth 1/8000 the value of a bitcoin at the time of writing.
There are Bitcoin ATMs around the world, but last time I checked, most exchanges need a validated account before they will even let you trade Tether. Not very anonymous at all.
M$ reliably locks me out of IMAP/SMTP about 30 days after I reset the password. Still works through the cloud, so I'm pretty sure it is their stupidity, not mine. Best guess is they think anyone using public VPNs are terrorists or even worse, spammers.
After this stupidity recurred a few times, I did the sensible thing and forwarded my incoming mail to an actually reliable email provider. Not sure why my employer is paying for this sorry PoS.
As an aside, five nines is supposed to be a reasonable uptime target; at least M$ limited their goals to the two nines they were likely to achieve.
Problem with M-x tabify is that it blows out version control, especially when I revert it on next commit (mwahahahaha).
tabs vs spaces and new line endings are great feuds, and since they can be handled by any decent version control system on checkout and commit, they're refreshingly pointless.
A proper feud like ICantReadThis vs sensible_naming resists machine sabotage, although there are worrying signs that the poor handling of CamelCase by speech synthesis might result in sanity being restored by the accessibility red card route.
For anyone who can't try this, at first sight, there are a few visible clues.
Firstly, the correct URL is show before the spoofed one. Quite obvious when loaded direction, but probably not noticeable if loaded in background or background tab.
Secondly, there is no icon. I don't know if this is an intrinsic issue with the spoof.
Thirdly, there is a consistent flicker at the left of the address field where the icon would go, looks like maybe there is some script constantly overwriting the icon.
It would be interesting to know if this worked with HTTPS sites.
I'm also unimpressed by the lack of detail on who CyLance are, both here and on Ars. Both stories seem little more than an uncritical precise of CyLance's allegations.
We're supposed to believe that this white hat organisation can follow everything that these hackers are doing, including acquiring the source they use at their home base. I can see backtracking an individual intrusion is possible with cooperation from the targeted organisation, but to trace all these intrusions they would need either global network access or to have owned 'Cleaver's network.
Similarly, how can CyLance by manipulating DNS on third party networks unless they're pretty black themselves, or did all these hacked organisations around the world happen to pick the same obscure company to investigate these intrusions they didn't know about.
The only organisations I would suspect of being able to do this level of monitoring, are exactly the ones mostly likely to be doing a false flag operation with Iran as the target.
This kind of privacy invasion is like a disease.
To take the analogy a little further, the best solution is to not go near the source of infection ( quit Verizon).
If you have to expose yourself, for whatever reason, a VPN is the Sanyo biohazard suit; protects against pretty much all injection attacks of this kind; pretty good against related diseases like NSA, FBI, etc.
There are other defences, an anonymising proxy for example might help; some are like general spectrum antibiotics, they strip out all unknown evil headers and maybe even some evil cookies; others are disease specific so they only provide protection once the disease has been recognised. SSL proxies are almost as good as a VPN in this context.
TOR, while of great value generally, is pretty much useless in this context.
It seems you're being a little hard on David.
You've made a good case that the way to increase happiness is to reduce choice, and DC has just stated that the tories are going to prioritise happiness.
Surely the story here is 'Politician tells truth about fascist dictatorship manifesto'?
The moment that the damages + costs exceeded Jammie's net worth, She has nothing to lose by appealing. She will be bankrupt anyway, and fighting on is good for her, and for the rest of us.
IANAL ( thank god), but this is a civil case, so I don't believe imprisonment is an option. By fighting to the top, she maximises the cost to the music cartel. She is bound to find pro-bono lawyers eager for name recognition, and I don't believe there is a risk of setting really bad case law, since there is the amicus curae option for big names to add arguments as required.
This action is basically the music cartels trying to scare the little people by hanging a random victim, but since she is already set to hang, she should at least make it expensive for her persecutors.
On doing some background reading on US bankruptcy law, I am a bit scared for her. It seems that 2005 changes allow the victim to be tortured for a while before being executed, but my non-legal reading suggests that this shouldn't be so in Jammie's case should she be forced into bankruptcy.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020