Posts by edge_e 393 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Aug 2007
Doubt the robot comes with Marmite either. On a serious note though, Unilever trying to hike prices by 10% when a significant number of their products are made in the UK, from materials sourced here, should be treated with outrage. For once I agree with Tesco.
Whilst I'll admit I'm not that familiar with US law, it seems to me that the complaint was that Yahoo were scanning email contents without permission and the result is that yahoo paid a bunch of lawyers and are continuing to scan email content without permission.
Could you explain how this is a success?
"The Proxy header is undefined by the IETF, and isn’t listed on the IANA’s registry of message headers. This means there is no standard use for the header at all; not even a provisional use-case.
Standards-compliant HTTP clients and servers will never read or send this header."
So why isn't it blocked in the default configuration ?
so what you're saying is a ~3% fall is almost identical to a ~13% fall ?
maybe you should refer to this
Edit: note to self, read the replies before posting
I suspect that given the gullability of the general public (the word ins't in the dictionary), they would follow instructions to take a kitchen knife and slice open some biological thing to eradicate toxins from the body that blood has.
Given that there are those that stop taking medication because they're now giving all their money to someone who's going to pray they get better, I'm sure you're right
but the rewrite means you can't look at it.
There's no re-write, all there is is a removal of a link from a popular search engine or two.
Look at it like the hiding of pirate bay, you can still find that if you try hard enough.
By taking away the easy access, you don't re-write history, you just stop it from being so easy to find the entire history of someone that most people stop bothering to try.
It's not an attempt to rewrite history, the history is still there. It'll still be in the newspaper archive or the court documents.
It's an attempt to redress the balance that existed before the internet. Being able to find out a person's entire life just by searching their name is, among other things, incompatible with the rehabilitation of offenders act.
so you understand the EULA before you click "Accept" on the Google or other manufacturers services you decided to use but were in such a hurry that you did not bother to read the contract and clicked "Accept". YOU gave up your anonymity, not anyone else!
No, I didn't
Advertisers must track users online as it is the only metric they have available.
No, they need to track that click, so that they can pay the site that lead to the click, they do not need to track the individual across the entire internet
You clicked on the damn banner that said "this site uses cookies" didn't you? YOU gave up your anonymity, not anyone else!
You can't use the internet without agreeing to such shit. I delete all cookies when my browser closes.
I understand that sites that provide content without direct extraction of funds from end users need to pay for stuff and therefore need to get money from somewhere, so does my local free paper.
Yet my local free paper manages to contain ads that don't seem to care that I've looked at a similar ad in a different newspaper.
It's actually worse than that online because even sites that are directly funded by users paying for stuff, ie shops, are loaded with advertising malware trying to track your every move.
ISP's have to log activities because YOU voted for the idiots who made that a law that they collect the info.
I did not. Nor did i vote for the last lot who tried to implement a near identical bill while this lot said it was totally unacceptable.
In short, with all that you now know, you still clicked on "accept" and gave away your "private" info. It's the same thing as a written contract.
No i did not, yet they still think they have the right to track me everywhere just because somebody else got paid to allow them to place their tracking gif everywhere.
When the vulnerable get separated from their money because they don't understand what's going on, we call it fraud and the perpetrators go to jail.
I postulate that the vulnerable are getting separated from their privacy because they don't understand what's going on!
as well as admitting that "there have also been some recorded instances of dates of birth being accessed."
This has to stop. The DPA is pretty damn clear on this.
Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed
Why are they asking for, let alone storing, dates of birth?
Throughout TalkTalk's statement, the company reiterated its claim that the "financial information" pilfered during the security breach "cannot on its own lead to financial loss".
The budget ISP said that bank account numbers and sort codes of 15,656 of its subscribers had been swiped in the attack.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
