Re: Seriously?
Icon says it all. Brilliant. :)
3483 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Nov 2009
"Somebody needs to give W3C a slap, then the browsers that actually implemented this."
Those responsible at W3C and on the browser development teams should be slapped with the browsers.
The browsers themselves being installed on the chunkiest laptop available (a laptop being the most practical for the purpose, I think).
"If a biometric behavioral profile is either shared or stolen, it can't be changed like a password."
I beg to differ. Firstly, as Mark 85 says above, both accidents or alcohol can change the way you type. And secondly, the device/keyboard you are using - or even the way you are using it - can affect things. Keyboards differ - I'm typing this on a decent, raised keyboard that is quite the opposite of annoying pancake keyboards that you get in most modern laptops, and I type differently on this one than I do if I'm using the laptop keyboard.
And as for the laptop keyboard itself, I type differently on it when it's sat on a desk compared with when it's sat on my lap.
This whole idea is just nonsense when it comes to the proffered use - IDs and security - which only really leaves the invasion of privacy.
"You'd think after the success of the first phone they'd drop this crap and be in a position to supply on a larger scale by now."
Indeed. The whole "invitation" nonsense just puts me off. I see it as nothing more than a marketing ploy, to make people who get an invitation and are able to buy one somehow feel as though they are part of an exclusive/select group.
The phone looks like it could be a reasonable replacement for my current one, which is becoming increasingly battered, and for a reasonable price - but I won't be buying one while it's on this silly "invitation" basis (even if someone sends me an invitation). If and when they make it generally available, I'll consider it - IF I still have my current phone and IF their phone still looks reasonable for the price compared with other phones on the market at that point.
More likely, it's a first step in creating a list of people who look at porn. Start by making sites authenticate users' ages using credit card verification - then later, insist on having that information fed back to the newly formed Porno Commissioner's Office*.
* Actual name may - and probably will - vary.
"And long may it continue, otherwise we might be facing another extinction event..."
I think that would be more like an extinction non-event.
Anyway, just tweeted this:
I gather @Number10gov wants to stop people looking at tits on t'internet. Soon, you'll no longer be able to look at https://duckduckgo.com/?q=uk+politicians&t=ffnt&ia=images
""wtf do you do with all the icons!"
Scroll through very fast and yell "WEEEE!"
Better still, emulate three wheels, displayed edge-on with the icons on the outside. Have a launch button which, when clicked, spins all three at slightly different (random) speeds. Only launch an app if all three wheels stop with that app's icon displayed.
"APM doesn't recognise you as a Prime subscriber if you have both a .co.uk and a .com account with Prime only on the .co.uk (as i suspect a lot of people have)."
That describes me - and prompted me to try it. I'm now listening to one of the their stock playlists via the web browser.
Could it be a cookie issue (Amazon's don't live beyond the session here)?
My reading of it suggested the point was "I've bought into iOUT* lighting... and now I've realised that not only was there no problem for it to solve, but it's actually more of a problem to use."
I didn't pick up on that opening sentence - or I'd forgotten it by the time I'd reached the end, until reading the comments!
* iOUT: Internet of Useless (or Unwanted) Things.
" I also had every single issue of Amiga Action, complete with cover discs, till my dear mama decided they were junk, and chucked 'em without even ASKING. No sense of nostalgia, my mother. She could've ASKED FIRST!"
I feel your pain. I have - repeated - first hand experience of a similar problem. With the first two I know what happened:
The first time: When I was a nipper, I bought comics - just things like Beano, Dandy, Whizzer and Chips, etc - and I didn't throw them out. I built up a nice little collection. We moved. On packing day, I brought all my comics down into the living room, intending to take them with us, then went out with my friends. When I came home, the comics were gone - and I discovered that mother dear had used them to wrap her ornaments. :(
I'd also built up a nice collection of toy cars. On this occasion, those did go with us, and the collection continued to grow over the next few years. I had some nice ones - and I'm sure some of them are now worth a nice few squids. At some point, however, I no longer had them, and it's only in recent years that mother dear told me what happened. She said that because I didn't play with them - I merely got them out of their boxes, looked them over, then put them back again - she decided to give the lot to my cousin (or was it cousins - I forget!).
Unexplained disappearances - which probably amount to things in the loft being thrown out with no notice taken of what they were - include Star Wars, Marvel and 2000AD comics.
'when I called the number it just said "Incoming calls not supported"'
Next time, bung the number into your search engine of choice. It might find the number listed on the relevant company's website, or maybe the search will lead you to one of the various sites dedicated to identifying the companies hiding behind non-geographic numbers (most especially those that make annoying sales calls).
Either way, there's a chance you'll be able to identify the company that owns the number, and from that work out how they got it. As gerdesj says, it might not be what you initially suspect.
Password managers don't have to be run 'in the cloud' - they can be standalone applications running on your computer, and which should therefore continue running long after the developers have gone.
(I wouldn't touch a cloudy one with someone else's highly secured bargepole.)
Something nobody has commented on. Am I the only one who spotted it - or who didn't already know this information was stored on the card?
"With an easily obtainable reader and free software to decode data, they were able to read the card number and expiry date from all 10 cards. Limited details of the last 10 transactions were also exposed."
The Which? article merely says "We were also able to read limited details of the last 10 transactions" - so no more information there.
I'm a bit late reading this, and have yet to read about the discovery itself, but I'm just a touch confused.
They were saying that "astronomers are on the cusp of finding..." and set the time of the media call for 5PM.
I want to know how they were so damned sure they were going to find what they were on the cusp of finding by that time? What if they didn't find it until 5:07PM. Or even didn't find it at all?
They would've had egg on their faces then!
Quite.
The other day, one of my brothers was proudly telling me about his new smart thermostat - I forget which brand, only that it wasn't Nest and was one I hadn't heard of (he described it as the "next one up from Nest"). It learns their behaviour patterns, learns how much time it takes to bring the house up to the right temperature, tracks where they are via GPS on their phones, and works out when they're heading home, etc.
I pointed out that because it's connecting to a remote server, there will always be a doubt about security (and that I would try to steer clear because of that). He just laughed and said "Who'd want to hack my thermostat?"
Way to miss the point - and the bigger picture - Bro. But I suppose it's new and shiny and you can show it off to people who aren't as cynical (and paranoid) as me in order to impress them.
To the person who didn't like my suggestion - don't you realise that the next one again could have been the iPad Do-do-dodo-do?
(Hey, El Reg, as well as a 'joke alert' icon, can we have a 'really, really bad joke alert' icon?)
"Seriously, whats the point?"
Well, if I make a correction to this sentence from the article:
"Many companies have decided to give the expansion of internet endings a wide berth – leading to very disappointing sales figures for the companies that were hoping to cash in on the expansion brand protection racket."
Does that help make the point of the new gTLDs clear?
It has seen some renovation work. I don't think the Banksy (as pictured) is still there, though. ISTR reading that it was too deteriorated to preserve in situ. I think it's in one of Bristol's museums now, but I don't know which. I could ask our creepy friend Google, but I can't be arsed.
"Then there are all the idiots who send me a RE: mail. You fail automatically because I always put a subject in my mail. The ones with RE: and a word are not better off because the word they choose is never one I would choose"
Usefully, these can be defeated by a very easy filter, provided you know your message-ID format. Your filter checks if the subject begins "re:" (or variations) and if there is a References or In-Reply-To header that ends with a message-ID that matches your format. If you're worried about the possibility of false positives, drop the results in a spam folder for the occasional once over.
"Nb. So, what, he uses Gmail because it's free?? My superior provider charges me ~£5 a year."
Gmail may not necessarily be free, depending on how Torvalds and/or the Foundation use it - for UK pricing, I'll they'll see your £5 per year and raise it to £3.30 or £6.60 per user per month.
I haven't checked those prices for myself - I've no intention of farming the email for any of my domains out to Google - but because of clients who seem to think Google's arse is the source of our sunshine.
"puppy.love - So many things you could put behind that"
Ewwwwww.... that's probably illegal in most parts of the world! ;)
hate.love - for those who like to tattoo their knuckles. (Though I think it should really be the other way around, like your Richard Curtis one).
"So not really the best example that generic TLDs are gaining acceptance after all then?"
I think Kieren's put two and two together to make five with the hooli.sucks reference. The adverts lack a dot, so they aren't pointing at a domain. It's just designed to look like a Hooli sign, vandalised by someone adding the word 'sucks' - and it therefore probably has nothing to do with the .sucks TLD.
Similarly, I'm not sure why tubi.tv is mentioned (although it would be a logical one for the company to acquire if possible) - the adverts specifically show a link to a page on tubitv.com