Re: What a stupid thing to do ...
Disappointingly, I jumped straight to the last minute or two of the video in the hope of seeing just that.
3483 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Nov 2009
"Kickstarter doesn't collect the money until the end of the funding period. If it doesn't succeed in reaching it's goals or is pulled before the period ends, no money needs to be returned as none was collected."
Indiegogo has the option of 'flexible funding' - whereby the money is collected and handed over to the people waving the collecting tin, even if they don't reach their target. (Though, obviously, that still only happens at the end of the funding period). It wouldn't surprise me if Kickstarter had a similar option.
(And I've just looked: The Skarp Razor is set as flexible funding on Indiegogo.)
As far as I'm concerned, you just have to look at it.
Start with the assumption that the perfect keyboard would get five out of five, and a very good one would get four out of five, and accept the latter as a starting point. No numerical keypad? Deduct one - so now it's three out of five. Ridiculously flat? Deduct another one - so now it's two out of five. Problems getting it working correctly/requiring a baseline OS for a keyboard? Deduct another one - one out of five.
It has to score at least one because you can (albeit uncomfortably and/or painfully) type with it.
The problem is that while you and many others would be happy with that set up, there are people who would want to access their new security toy over the internet - so for those people the ports that need to be opened are the very ones that will leave them vulnerable.
"Deal with it, idiots. You are the ones who released it due to your own ignorance."
A comment that strongly suggests you believe the problem is only about sites that give people something worthless "for free" in return for all that lovely personal information. It's not, though. Sometimes handing over accurate information is vital for a transaction to proceed.
"fining companies who break the law could be a significant revenue stream."
And would also - if the fines are sufficient - become something of a deterrent. As it stands, companies who play fast and loose with the rules probably see the ICO much as we do, and know that the worst they'll get is to be told that they've been naughty and not to do it again.
"Who the fuck is going to vet all the reviews to see which are actually positive? Oh, I know! They are going to implement an easily-defeated algorithm,"
Quite literally, yes.
The Washington Post article mentions that the "reviews" will be accompanied by a five star rating - and I can't see it now in that article, so I may have read it in the early hours elsewhere (El Reg's own Chris Williams tweeted some links about it), but the fools behind it said something along the lines of one or two star reviews would be considered negative (three presumably being neutral and four/five stars being positive).
If so, to get a negative review about someone instantly published, accompany your review with three stars.
As I said, the idiocy is strong with this one.
I'd also like to know what happens when a victim changes their mobile phone number. (One member of my family seems to do this on a regular basis.) Will it end up with multiple profiles for one person if that person doesn't actually create an account so it can track their number changes?
I note from the Washington Post article that if someone doesn't sign up for Peeple, only positive reviews will appear for them - which sounds like the developers have tried (and failed) to address the obvious objection.
The reason they've failed to address the problem is because like everybody that is publishing personal details online, they are undoubtedly 100% confident that their servers are entirely secure and will never be prised open and the contents spewed out for everyone to see, including those negative reviews that haven't appeared on the system - and they will continue to be 100% confident of that... until it happens. (At which point, it will only have "affected a small number of people")
Another problem: They're using people's mobile phone numbers as a means to ensure a "reviewer" knows the person they're talking about (and presumably the same for anyone checking out the reviews - else how does someone distinguish between John Smith, John Smith, John Smith, and John Smith?)
Which is great... unless it's bloody easy for random people to get your mobile number, which for some of us it (necessarily) is.
The idiocy is strong in this one.
Well it's not actually sending an automated SMS - merely setting up an SMS for the user to send.
I'd guess there is a mechanism to do this from within web pages for mobile phones - a kind of SMS equivalent to a mailto.
And a very quick search comes up with:
Making phone calls and sending SMS with HTML
That shows how to set up a link that has to be clicked (or tapped) - and seems quite a reasonable thing to want to [be able to] do.
So presumably what's happened in this case is that the bastard hard done by but generally very trustworthy advertiser has managed to find a way to make the phone think the link has been clicked, with a bit of Javascript or something.
I've just logged in. My browsing history appears to be non-existent.
* Only log-in when you need to - and log-out when you've finished.
* Adopt a sensible cookie-management policy.
* Adopt a sensible policy for limiting Javascript
* Use unique addresses for different sites/organisations
I can understand Joe Public not being able to do these things - but the type of people reading this site should be more than capable.
"How do they test four-wheel drive vehicles?"
Can't say I've ever taken any notice when I've dropped mine in for its MOT test, but I would have thought that if the test rigs don't have linked front and rear rollers, they'll at least have independent rollers for front and rear wheels - that would cover all scenarios: Front or rear two wheel drives, four wheel drives normally driven on the road as two wheel drives (like most of the 4WDs I've owned) or permanent four wheel drive vehicles (like my current vehicle if a previous owner hadn't converted it to two wheel drive).
"Finally, people need to get over the invite system."
Personally, no, I don't. If I have to be 'invited' to be able to buy something, then I don't want it. There's nothing to get over because it's a personal selection process, just like if I was to say "if it only comes in red, then I don't want it."
Also, if I received an "invite" that would be a second reason not to buy it, because I never accept invites, only invitations. True fact: If someone hands me an envelope and says "Here's your invite to <whatever>" I bin it and tell them I don't accept invites, only invitations.
It might be pedantic, and you might say it's pointless - but it's my choice. Mine, damn it, and if anybody tells me I need to 'get over it', they're invited to engage in coitus and then cease living.
"For instance, when it comes to books, I buy the majority of them electronically now, but there are still authors for whom I'll buy a new title in physical form – and often in hardback – since I have their other titles in print."
Ditto, and
"This autumn, I'm really looking forward to The Martian. And if it's half as good as the book was, it is very likely I shall want to watch it at home, too."
Ditto.
There's no way the film's going to be a patch on the book - but I've only just read the book, and the film's due out here RSN I think, so I've probably made it a whole lot worse for myself.
"Plurals don't get one, dudes. Regulator's - argh Register, I thought you knew better."
Looking at the sentence in question, I think it's valid - the sentence being:
"The regulator's set the rhetoric-rheostat to “high”"
I think that use of "regulator's" is short for "regulator has" (though, TBH, I'd have preferred the expansion used in this case).
"When I ran into people who didn't want to or couldn't pay for antivirus I always used to recommend AVG"
Ditto. I raised this question on Twitter at the weekend - but I only got one reply: Avast.
This might be an opportune time for El Reg to do a round-up of AV products - free and premium.
"So the impression is low quality rushed software with too much effort into appearance"
But don't you get it? It's from Apple.
Apple.
That means it's wonderful, and perfect. Even if it has flaws, it's perfect. It's from Apple.
You don't understand*.
* And nor do I.