Posts by Christoph 3317 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Dec 2007
If he hadn't cleared it with his boss to do a burn up^W^Wtest drive, surely he's liable for taking and driving away? On top of the reckless driving etc.
Taking a fast car in for repair and expecting them not to thrash it looks about as safe as taking a computer in for repair and expecting them not to search the disk for JPEGs
Guys, the reason is that you *can't afford it*.
In the 60s your economy was doing well, the top communist country was deeply in debt to you, and you were stamping on the head of one small country. Oh, and you had good science and engineering education. You could only just afford the moon shots.
Now, the world economy is in the pits, you are gigantically in debt to the top communist country, and you are stamping on the heads of two different small countries. And you have crappy science and engineering education and have to import your skilled workers.
You simply cannot afford a big space programme any more.
There is no possible reason for multiple copies of that file to exist.
Nobody can handle that many individual names or details - only a summary could be useful. If they need details on an individual they can go to the *single* master copy for it. (And possibly their access gets logged.)
Making multiple copies is ludicrous - all it does is take the data out of any control. And it can never be properly updated or deleted, because you can't be sure how many copies there are or where they are.
It's completely wrong headed for any information, let alone confidential stuff.
And this was found by chance. Which makes it almost certain that it was not an isolated instance, but probably standard practice.
If I've got this right: he can remove a comment if someone else objects to it, but he cannot remove a comment if he himself objects to it (even if his grounds for objection are identical)?
And suppose he remarks to someone else that he doesn't like a particular post, and that person then agrees and asks him to remove it? Does that count as him editing?
If he's made that remark where anyone else could read his comment, would that mean he could *never* remove the post because the person objecting might have first seen his comment?
Field day for lawyers there.
I usually do a nice line in sarky comments for this kind of idiocy. But this is just beyond belief. How can they be so *stupid*? Did not one single one of the people involved stop for an instant and think about what they were doing?
"as when trialled it did allow us to successfully communicate the availability of Desktop Help to a large number of customers"
Well, yes. It could also "communicate the availability" of Viagra and penis enlargers. BT have just proudly and publicly announced that they have placed themselves in the same category as all the other spammers. But actually hijacked their paying customers to do it.
I see a need for El Reg to introduce a 'Batshit Insane' icon.
All that's needed now is to fool you into visiting a page, and google will then kindly serve you up that spammer's ads on all the other pages you visit. So there will be a lot more junk designed to trick you.
Well, not 'you' as in El Reg readers - see comments above re AdBlock and NoScript.
"Café owners are asked to use their own judgement as to what amounts to extremist material."
What could possibly go wrong?
Will all the ones that spy have the posters? Because obviously no business user should go near them as their commercial confidential material will be spied on.
The big companies had better issue warnings to all their staff straight away that these places must not be used under any circumstances..
In four years they haven't been able to fix a major bug in their system, and have now given up and kludged round it? Their computer system is Not Fit For Purpose. If it's so complex that they can't track that fault down, it must be riddled with other bugs. People are going to die because of faults in that system.
And in fifty events, not one of the police has learnt that there's a problem with that address and they should check before raiding it, so they have to use a computer kludge to do it for them?
By the way, were the alarms completely bogus, or were fifty other people left wondering why the police were ignoring their emergency call?
One good thing about it though. They're lucky they're in New York. If they were in London the Met would have shot them the first time.
They decided it was their job to peer over everyone's shoulder and read their private notes just in case they could pick out something to give them an 'excuse' to get their rocks off harassing someone?
I would suggest that every rail passenger carry a piece of paper saying clearly "BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE ARE NOSY LITTLE SHITS"
High power amplifiers are very portable these days. The kids could just carry them round playing their favourite music and set to the maximum possible volume to drown out the mosquito.
After all, they find that music pleasant so there's no grounds for other people to complain just because some people don't like the noise and are driven away from that area. Selective sonic weapons are selective sonic weapons - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I had the letter. Pages of bumf telling me how wonderful it was, no warnings at all. A multi-page booklet on all the wonderful things it could do. A form to send off for more information.
And if you want to opt out? Well, it did get mentioned. But there's no form for that, and it's not one of the options you can send off for. To opt out you have to go to a web page or phone a number.
So I download the pdf from the web page. A three page document. Two and a half pages of telling me how wonderful the system is and how I shouldn't opt out, and a half-page opt-out form to send to my doctor.
And all that was on that form were standard identification details, and a signature and date.
It would have been no problem whatsoever to include that form with all the pages of other stuff. But then of course people might have seen it and used it - they might actually have made their own choice instead of being bulldozed by our 'democratic' masters.
Even if I hadn't previously intended to opt out, that form would have made up my mind for me. It makes it perfectly clear that their claims and promises are nothing more than standard NuLab lying in their teeth.
"The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever."
How do they know?
What access controls did they have in place? Who knew the access codes, and how were those secured?
How often was this facility used and for what purpose? What is shown in their detailed usage logs of this?
They did of course keep such logs? After all, nobody with the slightest sense would set up such an intrusive system without proper controls, would they?
How many times was this spyware used on the children before they happened to find a picture that they wanted to take action about? They didn't just chance on it the first time, it must have been a *lot*.
Which makes complete nonsense of their claim that they only use it if the laptop is reported missing.
And what the hell right have the school got to decide that what a student does at home in his own bedroom is "improper behavior"? It is none of their damn business. They didn't cite 'criminal' behaviour, or anything else they might have stretched to a justification, just 'improper'.
Gods help a country where a child may never ever experiment with anything that some arrogant adult busy-body might find 'improper'. What, they might even discover what bits of their own body look like? How terrible! They ought to be kept in utter ignorance right up until the complete disaster of their wedding night!
SMITH, WINSTON! WHY AREN'T YOU DOING YOUR HOMEWORK?
His primary interest is big tits. He has made it publicly and officially clear that he is obsessed with big tits to the point of trying to ban small ones on the grounds that such women are not real women. He is unashamedly telling the whole world about this overwhelming obsession.
When the Australian government increases the scope of this law (as governments always do) to make sex with small-breasted women the equivalent of child rape, will there be a grace period for such women to get a boob job before their husbands are dragged off to jail?
Will the government pay for these boob jobs? If not, what if a woman can't afford it?
What happens if a woman refuses to comply so as to get her husband jailed?
How is the minimum legally permissible breast size defined? When the average breast size goes up due to all those compulsory boob jobs, will the legal minimum also increase, resulting not in an arms race but a breasts race until Australian women are physically unable to stand up?
And if they really meant it, it would mean that US sites could be prosecuted for material that was obscene in other countries.
Pictures of unveiled women drinking alcohol, driving cars and talking to men they are not related to?
Of course being the US the obvious reciprocal will somehow not apply.
How many people have been killed because security relied on these devices and a bomb got through?
How many have been killed because the device 'reacted' and security shot them?
How many have been killed by security who knew perfectly well that the device is garbage but used it as an excuse?
"we are living in a world where a bloke can shove a coathanger in his cock. Compared to that, nothing should be a surprise."
I invite you to consider a quote from the forum that Adrian Jooste mentions further down-thread.
This is an actual, genuine quote about an actual genuine case.
"self-administered hydrofluoric acid enema"
"(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else"
How long before a woman is convicted for nipping into a public toilet to change a Tampax without first abandoning her infant child? Or for using a suppository to control the piles she got due to the next pregnancy?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
