Turn the headline around.
Despite lots of free stuff and what would usually be described as about the best office environment you can get, 20% of googlers would still rather not have to turn up in person.
452 posts • joined 11 Jul 2007
You haven't changed the motivation to attack computers and you haven't changed the motivation to protect them. All your proposal achieves is to give a minister the power to take someone off line. As for the idea that extending such powers is fantasy, I suggest you read up on RIPA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000#Agencies_with_investigative_powers
No the issue is that you want to give authorities a mechanism of taking someone offline. This week it is malware, next week it will be something else, and you still haven't done anything that addresses the problem which is that it is 1) a profitable and low risk form of crime and 2) leaving servers unpatched is cost effective. Change that balance and the problem goes away.
If some scumbag breaks into your home to fund their next fix, they are not prosecuted for the £25 they got for your stuff, they are prosecuted for the £1000+ damage they caused to you. And if you don't have locks on your door or don't bother using them, then you don't expect the insurance company to pay out. Apply the same to computer systems. Make the punishment slightly more sever then the current slap on the wrist and make the consequences of maintaining vulnerable systems not worth the savings.
I thought there was something that meant you couldn't patent the patently obvious. If I want to use something that uses variable voltage, then I need access to the minimum voltage I can use. a) How is this patentable, and b) how is it worth one point three billion dollars?
The author of this article and a few of the commentards appear seems to be under the mistaken belief that they are customers of Facebook or Google.
The service that both companies sell is their ability to put relevant ads in front of people. You are not their customer, you are their product. You are what they sell!
5G is no more functional than 4G for consumers. There is only one thing you can do with 5G as a consumer that you can't do with 4G, and that is brag that you have 5G. Telecoms operators can do more with 5G kit for the same money so that is why they are interested. Phone makers have another box they can tick on the feature list encouraging upgrades which is why they are interested. You, as a consumer, just don't have an opportunity to use URLL.
"It's worth pointing out the "little smaller" part, but the "little faster" part is almost always dead wrong."
You have that backwards. Yes doing 64bit stuff on a 64 bit computer (with a 64bit OS) is faster then then doing 64bit stuff on a thirty two bit computer, but doing 32 bit stuff is always faster then doing 64 bit stuff on the same computer, simply because you are moving half the data.
Oracle are claiming that they can prove advertisers were charged for impressions that did not appear, but they can not say who did the charging? That does not add up.
Either Oracle are making stuff up (lying) to advertise their analytics engines, which comes under the heading of false advertising, or they are saying that advertisers are doing business with unregistered entities and paying bills without verifying that contracted services were delivered, which is financial malfeasance.
I guess you don't know much about telecoms. Neither a failed base station, a broken switch nor unpatched software interrupt service delivery. The call still gets through.
People die when railway signals are wrong.
People die when air traffic controllers are confused.
People do not die when a call is routed less than optimally. So I ask again, why is this draconian legislation necessary?
What a dumb thing to say on so many levels.
Why do you get profound joy from frustrating an inanimate object?
Why did you pay extra for a telly that connects to the internet that you didn't want to connect to the internet?
Why do you sound proud of yourself? You might as well have said that you bought a toaster that you refuse to put bread in.
The UK *has* a Monarchy, that is not the same as saying it *is* a Monarchy.
The UK does have a constitution, it is just uncodified (it isn't written down as one document in one place).
In the UK, Executive Authority lies with the reigning monarch, however, execution of that authority lies exclusively with the Prime Minister and the privy council.
The last time a king had the sort of powers you think they have was King John in 1215, and those powers were stripped from him by the Magna Carta.
Sorry, but you are fundamentally mistaken in a number of areas.
Privacy is not paramount in any society on Earth.
In most countries, you have extremely limited rights to privacy, which can be overridden by multiple organisations almost at will, without informing you and for reasons they do not even need to share with you. What limited protections you have in the UK will become practically non-existent in the event of a no deal Brexit as you will no longer have recourse to any court higher then the house of Lords whose views on privacy are well known and can be para-phrased as "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear".
In all societies, your rights to privacy comes below societies right to security and in the UK, that security includes ensuring you are not trying to sneak your child into a better school that is on the wrong side of an arbitrary line on a bureaucrats map. Where did the government get these rights? From you, the voting public.
Government absolutely does have the right to control the means of private communications and guards those rights jealously. Your knowledge of democracy appears a little weak and you clearly have no knowledge of what a fascist dictatorship looks like if you think the controls normal to almost all democratic governments counts as abuse. I hope you never find out what real abuse of power looks like.
Why the f*ck would they do that? If they are paying tax that they can avoid then they are just increasing their costs unnecessarily and wasting shareholder value. The Government and the HRMC set the rules that companies must obey. If the can't be bothered to close the loopholes that companies take advantage of, then it is a bit stupid to blame the companies for following the rules that they set.
Is this not the one, and perhaps only, justification for the existence of the Starlink constellation? Regimes can get away with extreme behaviour by controlling access to information, remove that control and you remove the ability of a regime to be extreme. Instead, it is being used as a private beta program to measure profit potential in north America. Sad, very sad.
Nobody is stealing, self-harming, being stupid or taking things that don't belong to them.
The pre-existing rules stated quite clearly who can and who can not hold a .eu domain name. If you are no longer entitled to hold one, no matter what the reason, then in line with the agreement that you signed when you registered it in the first place, it will be withdrawn. The only thing the EU or the relevant TLD can be accused of is in dithering about when that will happen. I suspect they are being deliberately lenient to give people affected time to make alternate arrangements but it is equally possible that they are just incompetent.
The remaining members of the EU are the ones that brought in the charter of human rights that the UK refused to sign up to. The remaining members of the EU are the ones that brought in the European Court of Justice that among other things allows any EU citizen the right to challenge any EU government on anything. A court that the UK has a poor history with and has been trying to get out from under for years. The remaining members of the EU are the ones that brought in GDPR that guarantees the data privacy rights of all EU citizens, rights which the snoopers charter completely ignores. I lived in the UK for many years and loved it there, but it is not the same country any more. People used to fight for their rights.
There are not 4000 satellites in orbit, there were 4000 thousand launched, but only about 2000 are still in orbit, and if you take the time to learn, you should rarely have to wait more then about fifteen minutes to see one. Musk alone wants to add 30,000 more. Just to help with your maths, that is 15 times then the total already there, so you should be able to see one *every* *single* *minute!*. If you use any sort of light magnification, for example a telescope or a long exposure, then everywhere you look in the sky there will be a lump of Elon Musks junk. And exactly who is this going to benefit?
How about 800,000 distinct phones in the time period that were not there every day so can be counted as visitors (as opposed to residents or students), with an average of 20,000 distinct (non-local) phones each day. The difference between 800,000 and 62x20,000 suggests that some people might have stayed for more then one day. Coincidentally, If 5800 phones (people) were day trippers and 14200 stayed one night, then you would have 800,000 unique visitors over the two months with an average of 20,000 visitors a day.
Mines the one with "Beginners guide to data analysis" in the pocket.
Tosh and nonsense! (Did I get the accent right?)
These companies and high net worth individuals that you think don't pay enough tax? Every one of them pays every penny of the tax that UK law demands of them. And who makes the law in the UK? Your elected politicians, so please stop blaming other people for your problems.
"It is unlikely that the drafters of that guidance had in mind a game which allows the player to murder prostitutes when formulating the cultural test."
Oh, I don't know. Didn't his holiness JC, that god of all motoring knowledge (and former Top Gear presenter), once say that murdering prostitutes was the preferred proclivity for long distance lorry drivers?
"Your best bet is to use an accountant"... Oh no it isn't. When my accountant wanted to charge me double what we had agreed at the start of the year, refused to confirm or deny third party advice that would have saved me significant amounts, and then when HMRC voluntarily gave me a significant tax rebate that I hadn't asked for, I decided to try and do my accounts myself. The first year was a little scary, but after that, no dodgy third party with dubious fees and I pay less tax.
And that is the sort of conclusion that kills people. We do not know that this was an MCAS incident, and it is both stupid and dangerous to think that was based on the current evidence because that might make you think that an MCAS patch would fix or prevent it. Nothing has been officially released but given that the FAA has access to the actual Flight Recorder and that they have issued a Continued Airworthiness Notification (PDF) to the International Community (CANIC) related to the Boeing 737-8 and Boeing 737-9 (737 MAX) fleet, it would be safe to say that the flight recorder did not show trim against the limits or faulty AoA data.
There have been 2 incidents. Not twenty or two hundred, but two. As somebody mentioned initial analysis of the FDR did *not* reveal anything obvious, so it is reasonable to assume that it did *not* reveal the trim against the stops or that it did *not* reveal faulty AoA sensor data, so basically, it did not reveal any connection between the two accidents. In other words, shit happened and people died, but jumping to conclusions will not stop more shit happening.
Today, a baker in Armagh can buy flour from a miller in Armagh or a miller in Dundalk and sell the bread he makes in Dublin or Belfast. No duties, no tariffs, no paperwork. By the end of next month, in a no-deal Brexit, or any deal not involving custom-union membership, the same baker will have to go through the same paperwork to import flour from Dundalk as he would to import it from Brazil. And exporting bread to Dublin would require more paper work then exporting it to China (and probably take longer!) because the EU would have to be satisfied that it (and everything in it, and every stage of its handling and processing) met all EU standards and conditions, *and* that it could not be obtained elsewhere within the EU.
I really do not see how a social media app is going to help with that.
"Cops, IMO, are just arseholes who don't want to find the truth..."
I am pretty sure that if your daughter was in trouble, you would want the cops to pay more attention to trying to catch the sleaze ball that hurt her then to ensuring they were careful with the lid of his laptop.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021