Re: aggressive intrusions by malign actors
We have better choices here in the UK.
But they still voted for Doris. So what's the point ?
1754 posts • joined 18 Jul 2009
Nobody NEEDs the always-on availability. A lot might find it convenient but that's negotiable as the discussion about secure working above shows.
The only people who might be considered to NEED both (ie their job requires both communication and protection from the consequences of communication) are authority-sponsored types such as military. In that case, the essential communication is done using appropriate equipment : and a lot of money goes into providing that equipment.
Seconds don't count any more than they used to. Yes, you might get someone with a heart attack who can be saved by fast action. A few years ago that person would have died regardless. Requiring that everyone who might benefit from such action is able to, is an edge case and a trade off.
Currently, emergency services aren't protected from the consequences of leaking the location information. Perhaps some day that will be necessary, but at the moment the people who deliberately attack them don't appear to be organised to obtain location information - they're usually one-offs.
While I'm not a big fan of lawyers, it's really only lawyers and doctors - rather than *every* professional - that has the status of being considered above reproach in the matter of seeing and preserving someone's secrets.
I don't think it would be easy to extend this status. It's pretty hard to justify keeping for them, given the number of cases where it's seen to be broken.
You're probably better off getting yourself uniquely qualified as a pentesting lawyer rather than declaring all pentesters guilt-free..
I grew up on TECO. I was happy to move to a screen-based editor once they were common, but I do think that background makes me a bit more accepting of line-based one, even though they're mostly crap compared with TECO.
I don't recall the commands for edlin now. But MS-DOS's general model was to take some tool built for Unix or RSX-11, dumb it down until it was nearly, but not completely unusable, change some things (like the directory separator character) so your muscle-memory constantly misled you, and then make it essential.
Colourised text on a light background is also useless. Many common colours in the typical ls -c setup leave you with unreadable filenames.
I always assumed this was because 1334 distro releasers liked dark screens to go with their hoodies, so it's interesting that you find them rubbish on dark, too.
Where do these idiot colour choices come from and why are they default ? GUI applications don't seem to have this problem (ignoring 'cool' websites) but consoles can't seem to get it right.
Is the problem that it's configurable, and therefore MUST be configured - even if it doesn't help ?
OMG I just agreed with bb. Igmc..
That's a bizarre argument.
The cheap ones commonly sold at places liker Amazon or Aldi clearly aren't meant for industrial or eductional uses. So if they're not meant for homes, what are they meant for ?
I'll grant you that not every home - by a long way - will have one. But that's purely a function of the homeowners interests, as with any device. You could say the same about home computers, sewing machines, or footballs. To some people they're essential. To others, not so much.
So why did they do this ?
The only reason I can think of is that they want to use stereotypes in one form (email addresses etc) to estimate how to use stereotypes in another (the types of advert that is intended to appeal to stereotypical men and women). Seems like it's truncating precision as far as it can by reducing to binary gender, then extrapolating from that to choose an advertising strand.
It difficult to think of a less useful thing to do.
A more useful thing that doesn't pre-assume the results might be to attempt to link the input data with the desired outcome : If firstname.lastname@example.org actually BUYS dresses, that's a useful result that doesn't just throw data away,
Nice idea. I frankly don't care much about whether I use 'master' and 'slave'. If it truly hurts someone I'm happy to stop. If it's just being offended on behalf of someone who isn't offended I'm less impressed.
The problem is, 'master' and 'slave' describe an architecture. If those aren't acceptable any more, we need a new euphemism for 'entity that gives orders' and 'entity that obeys orders'. It's the nature of euphemisms to propagate offensiveness downstream, so I don't see that they help much.
But on the offchance that a change of words rather than concept makes everybody happy, I really like the idea of calling workers drones. And by extension, the supervisor should be called Queen. There's a certain amount of karma in the replacement for master being female.
Given that Boris & Dom's (or Doris', given the liking for portmanteau couple names) idea seems to have been to do a Trump and deny there's any sort of problem (for fear of hurting the economy) until forced to do otherwise by events, then yes, I think someone without a banker's hand up their arse might well have done better.
They could, after all, have hardly done worse.
We'll leave it to our readers to debate the pros and cons of writing a script that depends on the format of a copyright string in order to keep a production line ticking over.
But that would require a spec for the string, stating which parts are guaranteed to unchangable and which might vary in different editions.
Supply me that spec and I'll ensure I parse it safely.
And that spec is where ?
The problem lies not with the programmer but with the vendor.
Lots of downvotes but sabroni is right.
If you're part of google's ecosystem, you're there because it benefits you commercially. If google says jump and you don't ask how high, tough.
It may be difficult to exist outside the dominant culture but plenty of people have been pointing out the problems with monocultures forever. If you want to make use of google, facebook or microsoft, play by their rules or play somewhere else.
Better yet, do your best to bring down monocultures. In the end, they only benefit themselves.
The business case warns the new system would potentially "reduce back-office staff costs" and "reduce the number of business support staff required to support a SaaS-based technology".
'potentially' is the key. This is standard boilerplate for proposals and means nothing. When did you ever see a government system that required less civil servants than the one that preceded it ? In fact it will take three times as many staff for the 5-year transition and twice as many thereafter.
"The problem comes when Red Hat want to pin the version the system uses at say 3.5 but the user wants 3.8 for applications and both versions are known as "python3". This change lets two versions of 3.x coexist without conflicts."
And so it continues ...
You know something is broken when the fix for it is 'give it it's own private environment with all its dependencies packaged in so it doesn't break everything else'
Like we need more plastic music.
I often wonder, when passing a TV playing 'drama' what it must be like to have a job where you compose or play those meaningless, content-free sequences of notes that fill in the gaps in the dialogue. Soul-destroying, I would think. If they even had a soul in the first place.
Didn't Julia in '1984' work on the novel-writing machines ? Orwell saw a lot further into the future than mere politics.
That's what I was told by a developer. I would love to get a definitive answer.
As I understand it, the argument goes like this :
If you want to search for and connect to your bluetooth device, you can search for arbitrary bluetooth devices.
If you can search for arbitrary bluetooth devices then you can see beacons.
Beacons provide location information.
Therefore if you want to search for bluetooth devices you must have been given permission to obtain location.
It may be that if you only use generic bluetooth services negotiated by the OS (such as bluetooth audio connections) or use a connection that has been paired through the OS's settings, there is no need for the location permission.
So it may be that the problem occurs because developers like to connect in-app rather than push users to the pairing setting. That's a reasonable requirement given the knowledge of the typical user, and google could support it in a useful way, which is why I blame google rather than the developers.
Actual explanation from a knowledgable developer welcome.
Google trashed the early Nexus 7 tablets (2011 ? 2012?) with a software update that ruined performance and battery life.
As far as I'm aware they never apologised or fixed it. They just completley ignored it and supported only the later version until everyone got fed up complaining.
A big problem with using consumer protection law is that it will usually have expired for the hardware purchase and isn't relevant for the 'free' software update. So it's probably better to tackle it as theft of service or wanton damage.
As does el reg.
Perhaps they meant 'It won't cost us out business if we lose this data because we don't actually HAVE a business, and fines for government departments, if they exist at all, are just a paper exercise'.
Losing your civil service pension, on the other hand, might be seen as a reasonable deterrent.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020