Posts by Vimes 1319 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Dec 2012
Now the same thing is happening with the large NetApp storage advert appearing at the top of the page.
So far both large adverts that have appeared at the top of the page have caused issues. The code to move adverts around is buggy. IMO you need to accept this and either stop doing it or limit the size of the adverts so that this isn't an issue.
If you can't properly control the adverts then perhaps you shouldn't be moving them in the first place?
I realise that you're not directly responsible for such badly behaving adverts, but you are nevertheless responsible for how you choose to display them. And the way you have chosen seems to create issues on occasion.
...or Linux?
Of course this wouldn't be a problem to start with if the people running this site didn't play silly buggers with the adverts by moving them back into view despite being moved off the screen by the user scrolling.
If the people at the register are so worried about the advert not being seen then why place it above the banner in the first place?
Getting ads to metaphorically jump up and down & scream 'LOOK AT US, LOOK AT US, LOOK AT US!!!' even more obnoxiously than they did until recently is unlikely to increase the number of clicks. If anything else it's probably more likely to just increase the number of people using ad blockers.
There seems to be a bug with the positioning of some of the ads when they're placed above the banner. The ads seem to move downwards as the user scrolls down until it covers the register logo at which point it remains static (so if the user scrolls any further than that the ad doesn't move any further).
The problem is that the positioning seems to be aligned to the top of both images and doesn't take into account the height of the advert being moved (or at any rate I assume this is what's happening).
Some of the ads are much taller than most and there have been a few occasions now where the advert - always one for Microsoft for some reason - not only covers the top banner but also the forums links for 'My posts', 'User topics' and the others located in the right hand column.
This isn't her first role outside the commission.
http://corporateeurope.org/revolvingdoorwatch/cases/neelie-kroes
It's not just video that an issue. Try buying an e-book from Amazon's French store for example: very often you'll be blocked there too, and although I've only seen it so far with books only available in the US I would not be surprised in the least to see this apply to audio books too.
It seems impossible for example to buy an audio book recording that was recorded at least 5 years ago for the US market for a book written over 30 years ago just because I happen to be in the UK. Don't believe me? Try seeing if Asimov's Foundation's Edge, Foundation & Earth, Prelude to Foundation or Forward the Foundation are available in the UK and then check Audible's US catalogue (funnily enough these days Audible also belongs to Amazon too).
Even if you don't agree with it, at least those making and selling the TV programs do have exclusive deals with certain national operators that they need to support in order to get people to pay for them. What though could possibly justify blocking audio books and e-book sales? Especially when it involves older novels that have been around for literally decades?
Starmer explained that his, and the Labour party's, position was that the bill was "absolutely needed."
Then vote for it.
They're not passing the bill at this stage, they're just voting whether or not to allow it to proceed to the next stage. What justification therefore could they possibly have to abstain?
Anything other than a yes/no vote is an outright abdication of the responsibility to the constituents that they chose to represent when they stood for election. It also brings their suitability for public office into question in my opinion.
And in case anybody here has forgotten: Keir Starmer completely failed to address illegal mass interception of private communications when it was being undertaken by BT and Phorm when he was at the CPS. Why should we be any more confident he will be any more effective as a counterbalance to government demands for more mass surveillance?
The MI5 boss recently said they are planning another terrorist attack on the scale of 7/7 shortly
They were telling MPs literally the day before 7/7 that things were all quiet on the western front. They don't have a good track record as far as prediction is concerned.
Perhaps the real problem is the illusion of absolute security that the government seek to create in the first place? They've created a rod for their own back with this. They're being fundamentally dishonest with the general public much of the time, and presumably with good reason from their point of view. After all, if people realise that the likes of GCHQ can't monitor everything effectively then they might start to wonder why we're allowing them to waste so much money be pissing £1 *BILLION* up the wall. And a further £1.9 billion over the next 5 years too.
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/e-regulation/gchq-failed-cybersecurity-187406
I realise that this is a loop that's very difficult to escape and the words 'death spiral' come to mind to describe it, but maybe, just maybe, better results could have been spent if this money was directed to something that actually produced results?
Like the NHS? Education? Maybe more police officers? A better fire service perhaps?
"and said it needed "extensive amendments" before the SNP could support it."
Then why abstain? Why allow something to proceed to the next level if it's so clearly broken? Surely you either think it's close enough to being OK so you vote for it, or you don't and you vote against it?
Anything else is moral cowardice of the worst sort in my opinion, is a both a dereliction of their duty as MPs and a gross breach in trust put in them by the public that expect them to DO THEIR JOB.
Getting an 11% pay rise for not actually making any effort. Must be nice work if you can get it...
The LibDems used their veto to stop the Tories introducing this crap five years ago
isn't the only reason this is being introduced now the 2016 cutoff date for DRIPA? The date that the lib dems themselves voted for when they rejected the earlier date of the end of 2014 when they also voted *FOR* DRIPA?
As for stopping the Tories, they ended up enabling them most of the time. Remember the bedroom tax or higher tuition fees?
There are something like 650 MPs aren't there? Isn't calling the lib dems a 'main party' a bit of a stretch when they only have 8 MPs? A little over 1% of the total?
Even in the house of lords they still have something like a third less than the group of cross bench peers (108 as opposed to 178 out of a total of 816).
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
Remember also that Andy Burnham supported ID cards whilst at the Home Office. He supported greater controls over internet content whilst at the DCMS. More recently he floated the idea of screwing us all over and sacrificing our privacy for his short term gain if the government would only release files held over the Shrewsbury 24.
He's not to be trusted. Under any circumstances.
Nicking a Red Dwarf quote for a moment IMO Burnham is a cheating, weasley, low-life scumbucket with all the charm and social grace of a pubic louse.
Except for the fact that the company doing this could be sued before the national and European Courts for sending data to the USA
Except that you'd have to know about the data transfer to be able to even consider taking action, much less get any useful outcome. A lot of the data collection that goes on does so in situations where gagging clauses are often attached to the demands.
Good luck even finding about any abuse of your data in that sort of situation, much less do anything about it.
The point is that virtually every serious obstacle to May's "total surveillance society" comes from "Europe" in some form or another.
Even Theresa May has come out in support of staying within the EU, which says a lot in itself IMO.
As I think I previously mentioned one way to get rid of most - but not all - obstacles to keeping the IP bill *and* data sharing with the rest of the EU would be to drag the EU down to our level. Remember that that the Schrems ruling made no mention of specific levels of protection, but that it had to be equivalent to the protection found in Europe.
Minimise those standards and you minimise many of the obstacles standing in the way of the deployment of the IP bill (possibly even eradicate them if taken far enough). Now look at how the older Data Retention Directive was drawn up: it came into being during the UK's presidency of the EU and was drafted with help from our own Home Office. Some countries - notably France - are already moving in the same direction as the UK without any real prompting from the UK or any other country.
The only way we have of keeping both the IP bill *and* any semblance of data sharing with the rest of the EU is if the UK keeps some form of influence in Europe so it can shape how it develops. That won't happen if we leave the EU (not that I'm in favour of the IP bill of course, but it does help potentially explain why May has changed her mind on Europe).
In general terms I think the UK is better off inside the EU. Whether the EU is better off with us as a member state is a different matter entirely given the poisonous influence we seem to have as a country on proceedings at the European level.
The ECHR isn't part of the EU (neither the court nor the convention). Even if we leave the EU we will still be subject to it.
For example Russia is in theory subject to the ECHR and they are supposed to abide by it (until they passed laws saying 'only when we want to') but I'm fairly sure that they never joined the EU.
If memory serves the government won't be able to do anything about the ECHR without tearing up the Good Friday Agreement amongst other things, which seems unlikely even for the current bunch in power. It would seem that some of those in the civil service have recognised this: witness for example how proposed laws regarding a British Bill of Rights seem to have died a quiet death.
...which we trust will swiftly vote out of the UK and back in to the EU.
I seem to recall various EU representatives were saying prior to the independence referendum that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership from scratch and that their application would not be fast tracked.
I wonder how many years would pass between any theoretical Brexit and Scotland not only gaining independence but also being allowed to join the EU?
When the ECJ abolished Safe Harbour, large (US) cloud providers quickly began offering guaranteed hosting in the EU, long before Privacy Shield was agreed.
Which is a nice diversion from the reality that geographic location seems to be irrelevant where US law is concerned. Take Amazon AWS for example: their servers might be in the EU but they're still a US company and locating the servers in the EU in reality does little to protect them.
Just be thankful that the former chief constable of Avon and Somerset police is no longer around. He doesn't just reject claims if you're unwise enough to make them, he'll laugh in your face too it seems.
https://nodpi.org/2013/11/27/one-last-protest-avon-and-somerset-pcc-police-public-forum/
Note how he apparently claimed that intercepting communications was 'not a crime'. My own inquiries into it lead to a letter from the home office telling me that any allegations ought to be taken to the police (which appears to directly contradict what Nick Gargan was saying). Although to me this is a complete waste of time and an exercise in futility since they seem to ignore such complaints as a matter of course.
And the less said about BT/Phorm, Vodafone/Bluecoat and Three/Bluecoat the better. Thames Valley Police aren't much better either it seems.
As always, people here - assuming they're in the UK - can write to their MP by going to writetothem.com and entering their postcode. The website will do the rest and find your MP for you, and in most cases will allow you to email them directly.
https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/704716608212770816
Most of those that are won't result in any arrest and no prosecution.
Making sure this happens would be the responsibility of those same police officers surely?
almost all Police misconduct is prosecuted
*very* debatable. One name for you for example: Daniel Morgan.
It's also not difficult to see the government appeal lenient sentences at the drop of the hat when it involves members of the general public, yet I can't think of a single instance of this happening when it involves police officers.
its improper access at best.
Which begs the question as to how access is controlled in the first place.
This is especially the case when you consider the draft IP bill that would give the police amongst others access to far much more.
In any case the precise term is irrelevant IMO: in both cases he would have been doing something he should have known was wrong.
Secondly there is no suggestion he did anything with it.
Because they've withheld everything and we can't possibly know one way or the other? From the article: 'No information is available as to why he made these searches'
Besides which could anybody possibly prove this, especially if it was originally meant for his own use as opposed to a 3rd party so would never have been handed on?
Thirdly let the nerds who can say hand on heart that they haven't seen/found more that they should have been entitled to via DB/SA access...
If the database held information that some people shouldn't be seeing or only seeing in very well defined situations then what the hell were they doing with SA access in the first place?
Speaking of airspace: this is off topic perhaps, but does anybody here remember Mark Thomas and the TV show he used to have? (on channel 4 I think, but my memory may be playing tricks on me).
He seemed to get great satisfaction winding people up or generally pushing his luck in order to make a point. One such occasion involved Menwith Hill and the land there used by the NSA for their listening station.
Apparently it's standard practice to seriously limit the flights in and around such bases in the US, but because the land was owned by the RAF and just leased to the US government the same limits did not apply. He ended up running a hot air balloon trip over the base, and even wrote a website for the occasion
(a copy of that site can still be found here: http://www.setec.org/~izaac/www.menwithhill.com/)
It's a pity he still doesn't do his show. I wonder what he makes of everything that has happened since?
Because one single regulator is easier to lobby, influence and bend to their way of thinking than having to go from state to state, repeating the same process ad nauseam.
is going to be good for the economy
Why should we pay any attention whatsoever to what they have to say on what's good for the economy when they put so much effort into avoiding taxes?
Amusingly May is keen to leave the EU.
No longer true apparently, at least for the time being.
Thus limiting the US's back door into EU data flows and letting the EU upgrade its data protection regime (IIRC the UK's was one of the weakest in Europe) and giving an incentive to locate any EU companies data centre anyplace but the UK.
Which might also explain why she is now supporting the UK staying in the EU.
IIRC the Schrems ruling didn't actually say anything about the specific level of protection given to information, just that it had to be 'equivalent' to the level given to it within the EU itself. One way to allow spying without creating issues would be to drag the rest of Europe down to our level so that 'equivalent' matches what's proposed by May.
Doing that would be far easier to accomplish inside Europe as opposed to outside, and in reality the rest of Europe is probably closer to this than they realise anyway (just look at France where they propose to make elements of the state of emergency permanent and made part of their constitution).
As an aside the original Data Retention Directive put in place by the EU was done during the UK's presidency and was drafted by the Home Office. That's the sort of influence May will need if she wants to stand even a remote chance of getting her IP bill into place without creating havoc for everybody else in the process.
Slightly off topic can someone please explain to me why the EU would given the UK preferential treatment when it has effectively been stabbed in the back?
Because we're special apparently.
Didn't Andy Burnham also make the offer of supporting the bill if the government released data on Orgreave? Selling our privacy for their own personal political gain doesn't sound like the actions of a party anybody should be trusting, especially when you take everything else that has happened in the past that Labour have been directly involved with.
Andy Burnham: supported ID cards. Keir Starmer: involved in that whole situation involving Phorm whilst at the CPS.
And these are the people we have up against the tories in this case?
They - and IPB - are Political-With-A-Capital-Pee through and through.
So all the precursors to the IPB, including IMP and Mastering the Internet - both of which happened on Labours watch - are just figments of our imagination? That the spying revealed by Snowden also started on Labour's watch is also not true? (Prism in particular started back in 2007, and GCHQ reportedly in 2008)
By 2010, two years after the project was first trialled, it was able to boast it had the "biggest internet access" of any member of the Five Eyes electronic eavesdropping alliance, comprising the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
they wrote the bill
You really believe that? Seriously? Theresa May can't even answer basic questions on this bill, is forced to come back at a later date with written answers - presumably composed by a civil servant somewhere - and you still think that the Tories are the ones pushing for this?
It's civil servants that are in control. Look at Charles Farr: previously head of the Office of Security and Counter Terrorism at the Home Office during the last Labour government and now chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee during the present Tory government, and also happens to be a big supporter of not just the IP bill but also IMP, Mastering the Internet, CCDP and everything else that came before.
Of course it's interesting to note that when public rows occur over whistleblowing it's not him that pays the price...
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/dominic-raab/4007
It gives a link to his personal site too.
Don't forget the tories aren't the only ones involved here: the lib dems connived with them to vote against an earlier sunset clause in DRIPA and labour are well known for their inquisitive nature (think IMP,"mastering the internet" or ID cards).
For that matter labour aren't exactly innocent either when it comes to rushing through legislation. Remember the Digital Economy Act?
That's not to say that this isn't a big problem, but the tories are only part of it considering that they would have problems getting this through on their own.
Let your MPs know your objection to this. Now.
You don't even need to know who they are, just your own postcode by using the following site to contact them:
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
