Posts by KingStephen 29 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Nov 2014
That's just not the way this works. The delisting would be a specific url / news article when the search term was NT2's name. .
1. The article is not generally delisted and is indexed as before for all other relevant search terms
2. There is no general suppression of results about NT2 or anyone who has the same or a similar name
So those issues you're worrying about are not created by this.
..... is that the researchers and the journalists rarely give any info that will be useful to me, to help me avoid having my cc details stolen.
OK, so there are lots of sites that are vulnerable - how can I tell when I'm shopping online if that applies to the one I'm currently looking at?
Without that information, this article is useless to me.
This article is largely nonsense.
- Updates are not automatic with 8.1 if you don't want them to be
- Updates can be rolled back via the recovery tool, from Microsoft's servers, if desired
- I have been running W10M preview on a Lumia 1020 where it's stable and battery is no different to 8.1 - still the finest camera phone ever
- I have a new 950xl and not had any problems with it, set up was easy, performance is good, no crashing, free Continuum dock, free year of Office 365, another good camera, amazing screen, and future updates assured. I previously had iPhones, and no way would I now go back now.
- OneDrive integration, Office 365, Mail etc all just works as it should, even with the old iPad2. Login by iris recognition works about 19 times out of 20.
- The app gap? Aw, there's no Snapchat, and fewer state of the art internet of things apps, how sad, can't send disappearing photos from my combined kettle/doorbell/thermostat
Seriously El Reg, this just feels like "hey it's Friday, we're going to miss our quota of anti-windows 10 stuff, get Andrew on the phone"
I'm sure this won't change anyone's mind about anything, just wanted to respond to what seems to me to be more silly Windows 10 knocking to fit the current Reg agenda. Keep it up......
Sent from my Lumia 950xl.
Since Thursday, your apps on Windows Phone, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 are not getting any content updates. Any chance of a fix?
Whilst on the subject, trying to access article contents on the PC app causes it to crash, 100% of the time, would be nice if that could be fixed too.
Thanks.
"I dunno why – it just feels good". That would be the same good feeling experienced by the people responsible for our shitty routers, the babycams with hard-coded passwords and the iPhones that could be crashed with a text message.
In a speech that tells us how security won't be a problem because of other amazing software capabilities.
Yeah, right.
I have installed the W10 preview on an old Dell laptop that previously ran Vista, and it flies along. And everything seems to work just as it should, even the printing. That machine was bought in the pre-W7 days so it's quite old, and 32 bit. Performance is much better than it ever was on Vista.
All the apps that I had on it work after being reinstalled.
It was a clean install and not an upgrade, so that probably is the best way with W10, but it does make me think this article is more scaremongering than is justified.
As far as I can tell, sharing any network via wifi sense is off by default.
I have wifi sense enabled, and my W10 PC knows two networks - both are "Not Shared". Ditto on my phone. So unless your friends are maliciously sharing your network to their friends, then no, you don't have to "_optout".
But please feel free to ignore this information.
I hate to spoil a good story and headline, and to puncture the indignation and imaginations of so many commenters, but it seems bogus:
"You share with your contacts, but not their contacts. The networks you share aren't shared with your contacts' contacts. If your contacts want to share one of your networks with their contacts, they'd need to know your actual password and type it in to share the network.".
As the point of it is that you no longer need to tell your visitors that your wifi password is ilovejustinbieber, they're not in a position to share that with anyone else - whereas without wifi sense they would have been.
Wifi sense is opt-in, as is adding Facebook friends to the permissions.
Carry on now as if I hadn't mentioned this.
True Drew. However, the point I was trying to make, clumsily I admit, is that without knowing which search any article is delisted from, you can't make a judgment about the validity of otherwise of the delisting. Your article and other similar ones never seem to mention this.
I don't think your article tells the whole story here, and omits probably the most important point.
Let's assume there is a newspaper article about serial rapist John X, and the article also references victim Jane Y. It seems reasonable that Jane might at some point ask Google to delist that article in searches about her, and reasonable that they might comply. This will have no impact on searches about the offender.
However, the newspaper, afaik, just gets told "this article is now delisted" and of course gets all outraged about it, and publishes its "rapists being protected by Google" article, which then gets picked up and repeated across other media outlets.
The law is doing what it's meant to do, but the media don't like it, and so the readers of El Reg and elsewhere get misled, just as they do by Jimmy Wales.
It's very surprising to see how many people talk about this in terms of "websites being blocked" or websites "disappearing from the search engines" or similar. This ignores the fact that all that's removed from anywhere is a specific link from a specific personal search.
For example, there's a report on a prominent mafia trial where a contemporary news report wrongly associates an innocent person to the crimes. That person has successfully applied to Google and now if you search on that person's name, reference to the trial will not be shown. Search any of the other people involved and it still will be. Search for info on the trial and it still will be.
The website is not being blocked and nor is anyone's access to the information. The search results for the innocent person are no longer being tainted by wrong information, and I think that's the point of the ruling.
We should not believe all the outraged yelling about censorship from Google or their acolytes, and should try and understand the application of this ruling properly.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
