Re: Proves nothing really
Well be a sweet and watch the C4 News item. It's included in the article.
16878 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jun 2009
Another Facebook employee whose job it was to investigate data breaches also left. He went to somewhere where he could work with a clear conscience... Uber.
If Facebook is worse than Uber God knows what they get up to in there. No wonder they all walked, their job is completely pointless.
Because Google slurp anything and everything, in all their apps, because it's in their nature.
And that is probably why Google Play Services has no location permission toggle, you have to go to location in settings instead. Notice that that screen says nothing about Google Play Services' location permissions.
Having more than one universe however, makes perfect sense to me. We're always blabbing about how unfathomably huge our universe is, but huge is such a subjective word, as our universe is only big from our perspective. In the grand scheme of existence, our universe may in fact be very, very small and in that context it's no great leap to imagine that if one universe could spawn, why not more?
Men in Black already has the answer to that.
I guess the dock is a powered USB hub so you can plug in a mouse and keyboard and charge the phone, but by making the dock obligatory it's just an excuse to sell more hardware.
The N8 allowed HDMI to TV, you could plug a keyboard or mouse in with USB OTG (never tried a hub with both but I guess it worked), and you could power it with a charger while you worked as it used the Nokia charger port to charge.
The "only" thing that was missing was a desktop GUI, but it shows how little we've progressed in eight years.
Facebook's got the data, they should make sure that anyone who uses their API has the right to get at that data.
If Facebook were so clever, they would have managed to make a big matrix of from-to countries by now so they can automatically deny data to people who shouldn't have it, unless they've previously applied to Facebook showing they've got Privacy Shield or something.
I'm head of infrastructure for a FTSE 250 financial and apparently the only one of us that knows what he is talking about
Indeed.
https://support.google.com/a/answer/40057?hl=en
There you go, bulk add/edit with a CSV file and you can mangle that any which way you want with any language you want. Even with PowerShell for Linux if you're feeling masochistic.
Seeing as they wasted ~ €100 million on that project its of public interest.
It's not wasted, it works, it saved licence fees. Now they're wasting money switching to back completely to MS. There's some kind of cosy relationship between MS, Accenture, and the mayor. That's in the public interest.
With the company's smart IQ technology, it may even be able to tell you "Dave is at the door" thanks to facial-recognition.
What should happen - you'll have to check if your in idIoT doorbell is compliant with GDPR in case Dave doesn't want to be slurped and stored in a Silly Valley data centre.
What will happen instead - idIoT doorbells will connect to your Facebook photo feed to automatically find out who's there.
I don't think Kieren is the right reviewer for this kind of tech. They are nice toys but the reviews need someone who will only dole out grudging praise if the security aspect is done right so readers can protect themselves from the oncoming privacy apocalypse. As far as I know, only Ikea does that (it works on a LAN without a connection to the outside world).
Which is solved by either a soft border (a lie) or a trade agreement (requires the EU to agree).
This is the crux of it. The EU and Canada and the EU and Korea have a trade agreement but you've forgotten there's a hard border between them. So no, it's not solved by a trade agreement as a trade agreement would allow different tariffs and rules between the UK and EU but having no border makes a mockery of the trade agreement.
I don't know what "a soft border (a lie)" means but in any case there cannot be any otherwise that's a contravention of the GFA.
So the solution is the same regulatory environment in NI as there is in Ireland. That means either a special agreement for NI (or the whole of the UK) to mirror SM and CU rules or it means NI (or the whole of the UK) staying in the EEA/EFTA.
Hope you now understand.
Then the problem is solved, they can remove their demand for a hard border (it is their demand) and either a soft border (a lie) can be agreed on or a trade agreement just for Ireland to deal with the unique situation. The EU demanding a border while the UK and both halves of Ireland dont want a border puts a dent in your statement the EU dont want one.
Of course Ireland doesn't want a border, a border means dead people. The UK says it doesn't want a border and says it doesn't want dead people either, but if that were really true it wouldn't insist at the same time on the right to set different tariffs and standards on the island of Ireland which implies a border.
No no no and no. To assume this is the UKs issue is to be wrong. Not just possibly wrong but outright wrong. It is the EU demanding a border, it is the EU's problem. Otherwise it is solved.
The British government has decided it wanted the impossible and you agree with it. You, like the British government, completely fail to address the tariff/standards divergence issue which means a border is necessary. Pretending the border is not there while there is tariff and standards divergence creates a opportunity for illegal activity and contravenes WTO rules. Neither you nor the UK government have the option of thinking happy thoughts to make a squadron of flying unicorns come and take the problem away.
You and the British government have to decide what you like more:
a) trading in the same regulatory environment on the island of Ireland (or the entire UK) or
b) a return of the troubles
That's the choice. Why don't you tell us here what you want?
I never said it required some fancy IT. Actually what I clearly stated was it requires only the EU (as the only party to want a border) to change its mind.
The government says it requires fancy IT.
The EU don't want a border, the fact is there must be a border otherwise goods could be imported to the UK then go over the NI border without paying the difference in tariffs or lower standard goods could be imported into the UK then go over the border and be illegal inside the EU. If you argue against that then you're arguing against logic.
This is why the EU and the UK agreed in December that the GFA must be upheld in all circumstances, deal or no deal. If the GFA is not upheld then that would imply a border. So, the ball is in the UK's court, they have to come up with a solution which respects the GFA and means no border will have to be implemented.
Most people believe that means no divergence from the other side of the border on the island of Ireland, and believe it doesn't mean a magic IT system as the government propose.
You can't leave a customs union because you want to diverge on tariffs and standards yet say you want free access to the same customs union (i.e. no border controls) which means you have to follow its tariffs and standards. Nobody has done it in the world yet because it can't be done and some magic unspecified IT system won't change the fact that it is fundamentally impossible.
Also, you don't see any other country in the world leaving their trading bloc because they claim it prevents them from trading with countries the other side of the world.
Don't you just love these multinationals that pocket billions and behind the scenes on every project it's two or three overworked staff barely keeping the thing going, while marketing just sold the cure to cancer which will be ready in six months and suddenly staff need to be taken off other projects to come up with that too.
It wouldn't be so bad if the formats were mutually exclusive but some American dates work with some rest of the damn world dates and vice versa which causes no end of problems.
Excel oh how I hate thee. It's half aware that countries outside the US exist, but only aware enough to screw up dates even more. If it said, "no, everything's MM/DD/YYY" then at least you'd know where you stand, but the "let me guess the date format only I'm not telling you I'm doing that" thing is useless.
Websites cannot be treated as similar to signed apps from registered developers made available from one source after being verified. There's too much scope for XSS, malvertising, DNS hijacking, the website being exploited, or a third party website which supplies fonts, JS or CSS being DNS hijacked or exploited.
Removing them is basically admitting that the browser vendor has no idea how to offer these features in a way that allows safe usage and/or user consent.
Permission-based systems for native apps rely on a lot of filtering beforehand by Apple and Google and it still doesn't really work. If Apple have a galleon of slaves to vet app store uploads and Google can't properly vet everything in the Play Store, why offer these options to every website in the world?
I doubt any politician really needs a Twitter or Facebook account. If it were just the London Assembly posting dry and faceless policy messages, it'd hugely cut back on personal attacks. Repeat that for every organisation or business.
They didn't invest, they took it over. It's a key sector as any you could name and ARM is corporation responsible for the CPUs in most of the devices on the planet. The UK should have blocked the takeover.
Note, not nationalise it or whatever some people here think that means.
He dared to suggest that there could be another way to keep servers up other than advertising (that bit wasn't mentioned in El Reg). There's got to be merit to that.