Posts by Dan 55

Re: FALSE

And now it is not available or supported. None are apart from the last one, which is an pre-alpha Rust copy of UNIX.

Re: FALSE

Only one of those might have a chance of being usable for doing work on sometime in the next decade, and that's because they copied UNIX's homework.

Re: Programme in C, think in C -- sad but true (for any language, actually)

And yet whither Pascal?

By the way, the calling conventions that were lost to the mists of time were Pascal-based and those didn't allow for function overloading either. In fact they didn't even allow for variable arguments, unlike C-based calling conventions.

LLP64 is because MS wanted 32-bit ints with 64 bit addresses. That was yet another MS "backwards compatibility above all else" choice, not a C choice, and it's unfair to blame C for that.

So in other words C is getting the blame for being the successful language. If Rust ends up beating C a decade from now then its calling convention and linker method will become the standard. Or perhaps in some future utopia C++ and Rust compiler and language gurus will sit down and work together to come up a standard way to mangle names that works for all languages. However complaining right at the start that everyone else is wrong when Rust hasn't even proved itself yet is a bit too much.

Re: C int

Then again, if you're dealing with code which used time_t you got a 64-bit upgrade for free whereas if for some reason dealing with code which used int32_t you're screwed.

I say "for some reason" but it's always because the genius that originally programmed it didn't separate types for data external to the software from types for internal variables, so instead of just changing the bit which deals with file or network format you have to go through the whole lot.

Re: Not a Language?

No worse than French. And we all like French don't we?

Re: "typically seems to involve being sent an SMS"

I was comparing the cost of SMS to the cost of getting a batch of physical card readers made and sent them out to customers. If a physical card reader is a "TAN letter" than that's an impressive piece of nomenclatural obfuscation, but it doesn't sound like it.

Secondly, I was referring to the time of day that regular card payments are put through. If each regular payment is not subject to SCA then they are inherently less secure, however if it is subject to SCA then regular payments become impossible to use.

The national financial regulatory authority of each country is a talking shop for the banks who will try to get away with as little as possible without disturbing the customers. If banks were really interested in online payment security then only online payments validated with a physical card reader would do, anything else is security theatre.

Re: "typically seems to involve being sent an SMS"

It's frowned upon because SMS is cheaper for the bank, nothing more.

And of course SCA fails miserably with regular payments. Nobody is around at two in the morning to authenticate each regular payment when it happens, if banks were really implementing SCA properly instead of handwaving it away then everybody's regular payments would have failed.

On the point of onward movement, when you are a third country national with residency in an EU member state, you are based in that member state but are allowed to visit others following the Shengen 90/180 day rule.

This is EU residency 101. I am unsure why you understand that means they do not have asylum rights.

According to EU law, you must apply for international protection (asylum) in the first safe country.

Nice that you're quoting the Dublin Regulation back at me, but I mentioned in this case EU countries agreed to accept Ukrainian refugees under the temporary protection directive 2001. What law or directive are you quoting that overrides that? (Hint: whatever law or directive you think it is, it doesn't.)

Asylum seekers are being met in train stations and airports and transferred away from Poland, Romania, and Hungary to other EU countries like France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland because they specifically chose asylum in these countries. This is all perfectly legal.

You missed that every other country is taking in refugees apart from the UK which is doing its best not to and government is slowly being pushed into action by public opinion, but whatever the end result is it'll be late and with caveats.

Ukrainians already had the right to visit any EU country in the Schengen area for 90 days and claim asylum. However Ireland required a visa and I imagine a visa wouldn't have been necessary for the Eastern European EU countries which aren't in Shengen.

However all EU countries voted to use the temporary protection directive of 2001 to give Ukrainians three years residency with the right to study or work across the whole of the EU.

Your posts raise a lot of questions that have already been thought of and answered.

So imagine I'm evil.

So what's your point, that vetting works or doesn't work?

There's also the tricky political stuff. Refugees & asylum seekers have pretty much the same rights as nationals, once their status is recognised.

Their status would be the same as other legal foreign residents during their period of residency. This is how they're not exploited.

Especially for the border states, because strictly, migrants or refugees are supposed to claim it in the first safe state they enter.

Full face: Do refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach?

This is not true, it's some kipper nonsense that just won't die. As part of the EU the UK was a signatory to the Dublin Regulation and could return refugees to the first safe EU country, but that ended with Brexit.

Also, given the numbers involved, EU countries specifically agreed to not return Ukrainians fleeing the war back to the first safe country. Sending everyone back to Poland would be absurd.

And she should know that refugees have legal status and protections. So opening the flood gates would be great for people looking to exploit refugees, not so great for the refugees. Especially as many are female, and rather vulnerable.

I don't understand, if refugees have legal status and protections, why would they be vulnerable? They wouldn't be forced to work in any of the sketchy under-the-table jobs that undocumented immigrants are.

Re: “gender-neutral voice”

This. Make of that what you will.

S mode is just a cynical way to make you use a Microsoft account.

If you didn't want to do anything useful with your PC then you need an MS account to download apps from the store.

If you did then you also need an MS account to download the "can I have a normal computer please" app from the store.

Re: Just wondering if any of this is true?....or reliable?

Quote: "WhatsApp offers end-to-end encryption that protects the user messages from being read by network intermediaries."

Is this a true statement? Has it been independently verified that a hack on the E2EE process does not exist? You know....absence of proof is not proof of absence!!!!

WhatsApp now allows multi-device pairing and doesn't need the mobile to be on with WhatsApp forwarding the messages, so I'm unconvinced there's now E2EE in WhatsApp, or if there is E2EE then it's fake E2EE with Facebook having one of the endpoint keys.

To convince me otherwise, someone will have to cite a huge security white paper full of technobabble that I don't understand anyway.

Re: subsidies/tax-breaks

It's the only economic model which will work under these conditions (for small values of work) so they're going to have to go back to it, but they still haven't worked out yet that their vast amount of hoarded oligarchical wealth won't have any value, hence this intermediary step.