Posts by bigtimehustler 639 posts • joined 19 Jun 2013
Is it really hard to stop this? In the case of contacts when the device is locked return an empty list of contacts to the app, in the case of photos, apply the same logic and the same to everything else. That's the easiest immediate solution, done properly, throw an exception and let the app deal with advising the user the device is not unlocked. Done even better, ask the user to unlock when the request to access these resources is requested by the app.
Even if it was the original suggestion of 23 pound, who cares? The vast amount of the population will not notice that over a year. I mean, it might buy you one bit of pick n mix a day. Remember also, thst most people make no savings as they continue to use energy the same as pre smart meter rates, some don't even have batteries in the display. So given the extra cost on their bill for the rollout they are actually worse off.
You have a point about admin access, however, when your company is involved in developing software, that is hard even for large scale organisations to avoid. Most installs of software in such a closed down environment are done on a white list basis using signatures. If you are developing desktop software and need to create an installer or test an installer or run any other software that is unexpected as far as signatures are concerned because you wrote it yourself, then result is usually they give you admin access, anything else prevents you being productive.
To be honest, I don't agree with the point that it's OK to look up resources because people do in the real world. If you examining a basic skillset, which a gcse is, then you want them to know all of that ideally without consulting other resources. Experienced programmers look up resources for complicated things, for day to day basics, they know it. I can't believe a GCSE is even covering all the basics, let along going beyond them.
I agree passwords are the most secure, but most face recognition, modern ones anyway, analyse your iris too and so require your eyes to be open. I really doubt they are going to pin your eyelids back while they scan your face so in reality thst particularly biometric is probably mostky safe too, unless you've done some diabolical crime.
Isn't your reasoning a little off here? I would say the model pirate radio stations used actually worked, it forced the authorities to open up the airwaves to non government controlled entities to broadcast. So the example you used actually shows a very worthwhile breaking of the law to achieve a better situation.
To be honest, PETA are a terrorist organisation with little care about anything but their own aims, which, in many cases are not actually in a creatures best interests. It would also be better if PETA actually accepted evolution and realised we are actually part of the planet and not invading aliens.
Whether or not you agree with hiding personal details from random whois searches or not. This does highlight an unresolved issue, if one country or group of countries creates legislation making something illegal and yet following that law would be illegal in a particular companies home country, what on earth is going to happen? It will happen one day, and no one has a solution. Every country can not have it's own way over every company in the world, it just won't work.
You say it's not required, but if game developers are relying on P2P I'd say it is required if that is what you want to do, play the game. You may also be using torrent software for any number of download/upload reasons, I wouldn't say using torrent software should require you to understand networking.
Life isn't as clear cut as, it's not required, turn it off, when in fact people are using it making it required for them.
You mean like a mobile phone software update? Where there is precisely one hardware configuration to test against, they do tests then release and have to stop the rollout due to unexpected issues. Happens all the time, why would you think a car any different? When in fact cars do have customisations, both manufacturer installed and otherwise.
How is this enforceable on someone running a website outside of the EU who does not have an office in the EU. They can say it applies all they like, but ultimately their only recourse is to block the website and that can only be done at individual national country level. Otherwise they can carry on collecting and selling an EU citizens data forever.
To be honest i find someone having to put their own details of who runs it publicly available as a barrier to every idiot putting up a site that they wouldn't want to be known as them. Lets face it, what is wrong with it? If you are a company, it will be your company address anyway, only in the case of personal users is it their home address (if they have again, not hidden it on a domain they can hide it).
To be honest, why should the rest of the world comply with a law Europe has developed. Why should the US, Asia anyone else? They should just tell Europe, go ahead, take every internet company who doesn't comply to court, lets see how long that takes you. I think this again comes down to the problem, one countries laws can not change and force other countries to comply, yet on the internet, it often does. Thats a problem that has no easy solution.
This article is actually an example of what is currently wrong with this movement. Not every employment issue transgression is a sexual one, no matter how salacious an article you want to write, neither is every hint or suggestion something has happened actually true, unless i see them in court.
You think? Money will always buy a petrol car if you have 100 grand to splash on one. There will always be enough petrol because most people won't be using it and the government won't be too bothered as it won't include too many people.
It will only be the poor that are forced to do a certain thing, as always.
I don't blame them personally, as a company developing software when the software crashes it is you who gets blamed, not some side loaded code interfering that caused the crash. Why on earth would any company want to allow their software to crash more than it should because corporate IT departments install AV that is shit.
It will one day know, much as it knows which roads are busy all over the country in real time. Monitor how fast people are moving by their phones and tell the people behind them that this way is a no go due to a sudden slow down in the movement of those people over the norm for that area. Take that into account with historic data and this evolving AI research and you have something that will pretty accurately tell you which way will be the quickest route through the network, or in fact, even a walk on the pavement.
This one kind of catches me in the middle really, on the one hand they don't have to develop an app for apple products, on the other apple have a large market share. The thing is though, they have a large market share because the apps customers want are available on the devices, if they stopped being, apples market share would plummet over a 2 year phone buying cycle. It is actually app developers as a collective that hold the power, if only they could unite...
Are they not entirely missing the intentions of the flying object here? It is often the case a drone, operated by a human is actively seeking out being close to planes. Birds however, are randomly just around in the area and may hit a plane or a plane hit them by chance. The two things are not comparable in the way they have compared them.
This is like suggesting that because there are far less missiles flying around in the air than birds, birds will hit planes far more often than missiles.
It is an impossible to solve task, if we develop something beyond our own intelligence, then it will think of a way around these controls in a way we couldn't possibly think of in a million years. It will be able to do a million years worth of thinking in a few minutes. How on earth could we hope to develop any sort of controls that it can not outsmart, when we ourselves claim it is more intelligent than us.
I kind of agree on this one, if Google comes up with a good feature that people like should be stopped from using it because it is to the detriment of other competitors? That would mean only small companies are allowed to come up with innovation that steals market share which would obviously be a nonsense situation and in itself anti-competitive to larger companies and make the market leader unable to defend itself.
Well they have, whether OEM's choose to use the google code to patch their own devices is entirely up to them. They have provided the code and patched their own phones. So they have squashed the bug, whether OEM's choose to squash the bug on their phones is their choice.
It is up to customers to vote with their feet and just walk away if they don't like an OEM's patching policy.
Much like you have no choice about what other crap software a company chooses to use, you have no choice. It is a companies prerogative to decide what you use to do your job and your free to find another one. The same as any other software. They are not enforcing you use facebook socially yourself, just for sharing withing the organisation.
Makes sense to me, if your serving your pages using https, it isn't rocket science to make sure you serve static content over https as well. To be honest, neither myself nor any company I have worked for has ever served mixed content as its clearly going to make users think the page might not be secure.
I think that is entirely the problem, scientists 'involved with global warming' by definition have a vested interest that the research never be put to bed and to defend their original position. Where as, a world renowned scientist who has the ability to understand the research, but no vested interest in it, says the models are getting worse. I wouldn't dismiss his point of view out of hand.
You do realize right that chrome is just the chromium open source project? Google add their own stuff onto certain cuts of the chromium project's work. There is nothing stopping you downloading chromium directly if you don't like the google additions. FF has become dog slow over the years, even with no plugins activated it starts up slower than chrome with plugins.
What surprises me the most is that these developers, once having compiled the apps for distribution, then never ran them again themselves? If they had, they would have seen the iCloud login popups added to their apps immediately. I'll tell you what, if I compile an app for distribution, I damn well install it myself through the normal user route to make sure it works as expected when compiled and installed that way.
I think he accused Cameron today of being a poverty denier right? Problem is, good! Because poverty doesn't exist in this country, it exists in many countries around the world, the ones you see video footage of with starving, malnourished children in. Unless your starving and becoming so thin it's not healthy, your not in poverty.
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Join our daily or weekly newsletters, subscribe to a specific section or set News alerts
Subscribe
