Re: In the folder
"A spoken word has fled like a bird and cannot be caught again",
Unless its caught on camera or a microphone, in which casse you're just as screwed!
Posts by lglethal
3902 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jun 2007
Page:
That Telegram feature that let you delete your private messages on recipients' phones? It didn't work properly
What a bunch of DoSers: Wikipedia says it was walloped by 'bad faith' actors over weekend
Now on Amazon Prime: The Amazing Shrinking UK Tax Burden
Monday 9th September 2019 14:39 GMT 
<i<Of course, there is more to the story: Amazon UK noted the tax bill for 2018 was actually a hair under £14m, but was able to drop £13m of that into a bucket marked "deferred tax". It did the same trick last year, tossing £3m into the same bucket.
...Not that it seemingly matters, but Amazon also noted that the UK rate of corporation tax will be dropping from 19 per cent to 17 per cent for the year beginning 1 April 2020, and that "any deferred tax assets and liabilities existing at 31 December 2018 reflect this rate change".
</i>
I'm aware of Depreciation and the like, but being able to defer 13 out of 14 million tax, as well as 3 million last year seems excessive for a retailer.
The additional statement that they are taking into account a reduced tax rate as part of this is what inspired my comment.
Monday 9th September 2019 13:40 GMT 
Wait. What? You can choose to not pay taxes this year (or last year) so that you can pay them a couple of years later when the tax rate reduces???
"Right, Gov, I would like to defer my tax to the year 2100. I will pay all of the tax I incur between now and then in one lump sum at that point. Unless of course taxes are due to go down in 2101. Then I'll pay you in 2101. Unless of course..."
Please at least tell me that there are interest rates (at above inflation!) incurred on the unpaid taxes. Please?
What's that? One rule for us and one rule for them? Oh right, yes well carry on then i guess...
Like a grotty data addict desperately jonesing for its next fix, Google just can't stop misbehaving
Monday 9th September 2019 12:28 GMT
I'm interested to know Mr Summers if you would be happy with the police and government having the ability to read your every email, track your web browsing habits, track your phones location at all times, etc.? Even if the reading/tracking was being done by some "algorithm" that worked for the government?
I can only assume your answer is yes, because you seem to be very trusting of a firm that has no external checks and balances to make sure its not abusing that data. At least the police and the government would have the external check of the Courts of Law and the various Ombudsman's to try and make sure that the government is obeying the laws as they are written.
The few times that things have leaked out of google, it has almost always been found to be breaking and abusing laws in its quest to suck up more data. Which I would argue makes it a firm which has proven it is untrustworthy. And yet you seem happy to trust it... hmmm...
Auditors bemoan time it takes for privatised RAF pilot training to produce combat-ready aviators
Thursday 5th September 2019 14:17 GMT
Re: "Auditors bemoan time it takes"
I guess you missed the point where it explains that they went from 219 training aircraft to 33!
(I'm not counting the Hawks because the article says that the MOD still provides them, but I somewhat doubt they provide all 100 of them, so the numbers are probably even worse!)
is it any wonder they cant get enough people trained...
Mozilla says Firefox won't defang ad blockers – unlike a certain ad-giant browser
Wednesday 4th September 2019 12:16 GMT
Re: Ads
Umm I wasnt arguing against Adblockers, I'm a big fan of them myself. i was merely pointing out unicornpiss's actions of boycotting a company who's ads he finds annoying wont have any effect.
And No, Advertisers WANT to show you Ads. They want their Product in front of your eyeballs. They may not like the Google/Facebook duopoly, but thats what they want, you seeing their Product, even for just 5 seconds. Why do you think companies pay a fortune for product placement in films? There's no specific ad in the film, but you see the Product, you become aware of it, and maybe then next time you think, oh I could use a new product, maybe i should get the Product that was in that film. Job done.
So No, its not just google/facebook who want to serve you ads, the advertisers do. Google and facebook probably are not that worried if you look at the ads or not. Just so long as they get paid, but these days they have to show that a person actually looked at the ad to get paid. Hence why they fight ad blockers so much...
Wednesday 4th September 2019 10:33 GMT
Re: Ads
It's a lovely idea, but it really wouldnt have any effect. There's a great quote attributed to John Wanamaker "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."
When a product starts selling amazingly, marketing are the first to say its because of us, but they have no idea if thats actually true.
If a product starts performing badly, the seller would have no idea why, and marketing would be the first to say its because they're not spending enough on advertising - "We need more ads!".
The only way the info would get through is through talking to customers/people put off buying their products, but a) the people asking the question are in marketing, so are hardly going to admit that advertising is causing the loss of sales (it might reduce their budget!), and b) it would require people like you answering questions from the company or contacting them in some way to tell them this info, and frankly, if you're so annoyed you wont buy their product, I doubt you'll go to the effort of trying to help them understand your decision...
Pompey boffin bags €1.3m off EU for dark matter research – shame a no-deal Brexit looks more and more likely
Wednesday 4th September 2019 11:07 GMT
Re: Great example.....
CERN's output goes far beyond just the particle smashing. I'm surprised you're overlooking that.
But on the topic of DLR and Fraunhofer, you are aware that they are designed for two seperate purposes? Fraunhofer is a dedicated Science institute. It hires top scientists and produce great results in very dedicated fields. DLR is a scientists and engineer training institute. That it produces amazing science at the same time is awesome, but it's primary responsibility (and its written into its manifest) is to train Germany's future engineers and scientists (if you ever work with DLR, you will find the average age there to be quite young).
So its not exactly a like for like comparison.
Wednesday 4th September 2019 06:41 GMT
Re: Great example.....
I agree with most of what you've writtenexcept for the last paragraph:
The Commission consistently picks very large projects to fund with huge admin and coordination overheads. That’s neither coincidence, nor malice, it just mirrors their own organisation. And it simply doesn’t produce either good science or useful output to society.
Large projects quite often produce very large results, CERN has produced amazing science AND useful outputs for society multiple times over the last few decades. ESA, DLR, CNES - all big organisations that suck up lots of the funding, but they produce lots of science as payout.
ITER currently sucks up huge amounts of funding, but its pushing the boundaries of engineering and if it works it will be a game changer for the energy industry across the planet.
Funding very large projects and/or very large organisations does not mean that good science/engineering/outputs for society are not produced. they need to be managed properly, so that they are not just reinventing the wheel, but managed properly they can produce things that are truly ground breaking....
AWS celebrates Labor Day weekend by roasting customer data in US-East-1 BBQ
I just love your accent – please, have a new password
Bloke who claimed he invented Bitcoin must hand over $5bn of e-dosh in court case. He can't. He's waiting for a time traveler to arrive
Army Watchkeeper drone flopped into tree because crew were gazing backwards
Dixons hits back at McAfee's £30m antivirus sueball: Your AV didn't work on Windows 10S
Thursday 29th August 2019 07:18 GMT
But was that actually enough time to get the product installed prior to shipping to stores? 2 months sounds fine, but lead times on shipping and purchasing are usually significantly longer than that. Changing things, or adding things after shipping is always an expensive and time consuming operation.
Wednesday 28th August 2019 11:42 GMT
Did I miss something in the article? My reading is that McAffee are suing Dixons for selling PC's without McAffee installed (I assume thats what the missed sales part is about), when McAffee didnt have a suitable product to put on the machines being sold?
How does that work?
I can only assume there is a contract between McAffee and Dixons that says something along the lines of McAffee get X % of sales for machines with their product on. But it also sounds like there must have been a contract to state that Dixons have to sell (or i guess try to sell) machines with McAffee on it. But how can McAffee try to enforce that when they didnt have a relevant product?
I feel like i must be missing something here...
Home Office told to stop telling EU visa porkies
Thursday 29th August 2019 07:16 GMT
There are very few countries that allow dual nationals to sit in parliament. I have no problem with this, the risk of shall we say foreign interference would be unacceptably high otherwise.
By the way BoJo dropped his US citizenship in 2016. So no he is not a dual national. I am surprised he didnt have to drop it when he entered parliament the first time, but then I am one of those Xenophobes you mention who thinks that a parliamentarian should only be beholden to the people who elected him and the country he's representing...
Wednesday 28th August 2019 12:32 GMT
IANAL, but a) you are supposed to leave a country on the same passport you entered on, and b) you are supposed to use your home passport when entering that country. So if you have a UK and a German passport, you should enter the UK on the UK passport, leave on the UK passport, and then enter Germany on the German passport.
Not sure how strictly this is enforced, but I was told by a colleague that you can get a fine for entering Australia on another countries passport if you're an Aussie citizen. And considering how many laws we steal from you Brits, I'd assume that rule also applies in the UK.
Behind time and way over budget, but the James Webb Space Telescope has finally been put together
Harvard freshman kicked out of US over OTHER people's posts on his social media
Wednesday 28th August 2019 10:01 GMT
Re: America is not a Democracy...
from the second paragraph of Wikipedia under the Republic definition:
In the context of American constitutional law, the definition of republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body[2][better source needed] and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic[4][5][6][7] or representative democracy.
The USA is supposed to according to it's consitution be a representative democracy, and uses the term "Republic" to represent that. So in the context of the US (at least according to the US constitution) the terms Republic and democracy are interchangable.
Nice try at trolling though, better luck next time.
Wednesday 28th August 2019 06:22 GMT
America is not a Democracy...
Please, America hasnt been a democracy for years. A 2 party state is really no different to a one party state. Bill Hicks had it right 20 years ago
"I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. Hey there's one guy holding up both pupppets! Shhh! Go back to bed America your government is in control!"
The Tell-Tale Heart! Boffins build an AI that can tell your sex using just your heartbeat
Audible hasn't even launched its AI-powered book subtitles and publishers have already fired off a sueball
Tuesday 27th August 2019 06:37 GMT
Am I understanding the objection here? it seems that the publishers are saying that by creating a transcription Audible are denying them the sale of a written version of the book. Although the owner of the book has already paid for the book once (via the audiobook purchase), so they have already got a sale. Are they upset they're not getting a second sale? Sounds a bit greedy.
Still as someone who uses audio books (as well as regular books), I cant really see why you would want a transcription of an audio book. I mean having an audio book is great if you're busy doing other stuff with your hands and eyes, but can still listen and concentrate on the story. It's also of great help for those with sight problems. If you have hearing problems then, you're not going to buy an audiobook in the first place. And if you're listening to an audio book and suddenly have the ability to sit down and read instead, well I find it unlikely you're going to want to sit down and pick up the text version of what you were listening to and start reading, as part of the joy of an audible book is in the narrators performance. It can really set the tone for a book. Switching back and forth would give me a very large cognitive dissonace.
So i really cant see for who's benefit this is. Still as another commentard above mentions this sounds very much like Audible never bothered to speak to the publishers in the first place, and hasnt really engaged with them throughout, so naturally the publishers are annoyed and so are fighting this. Rule number one of business, maintain good relationships with your suppliers, seems to be something that once a company gets past a certain size they seem to forget or simply choose to ignore...
Google bans politics, aka embarrassing stuff that gets leaked, from internal message boards
Monday 26th August 2019 06:53 GMT
Re: Wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for their corporate cult mentality
Look not to be too hard on you for falling into the situation but you need to sort it out. If you're really working 60+ hours a week, then you need to demand the budget to hire a deputy and cut back to 40. You're not only destroying your own life by working 60, but you're also destroying your underlings lives. Because if you as the boss are working stupid hours, your employess are likely to feel they have to work stupid hours or be considered lazy and then they'll be fired or denied promotions/pay rises.
The only people benefiting from your stupid hours are the rich douchebags who actually own your company. And I guarantee they are not working 60+ hour weeks.
And if you're worried that you'll get sacked for working less than 60 hours , well two things - 1) you cant get sacked for refusing to work overtime, especially overtime that exceeds 5 hours a week. Not even in the US. 2nd, even if you do get sacked, you sound like you have the experience to get another job pretty easily. Even if it means a paycut, wouldnt you prefer to have your life back? How much is that worth to you?
Disgruntled bug-hunter drops Steam zero-day to get back at Valve for refusing him a bounty
Thursday 22nd August 2019 07:13 GMT
Re: From my understanding...
Of course people are in it for the money. Thats not in question. But releasing the code into the Wild doesnt get you paid either, but it DOES put everyone else in danger. So I reiterate its a d&ck move.
It also seems pretty dodgy to me, that he found this bug in Steam AFTER he had already been banned from Steam's Bug Bounty Program. If you've already been told they wont pay you for anything you find, why would you spend time hunting for bugs in their program? the only reason I can come up with is malicious intent.
Thursday 22nd August 2019 06:17 GMT
From my understanding...
it takes a hell of a lot to get yourself banned from HackerOne. That implies there's more to this story then is being told. At the very least I have to assume he was extremely abusive to the staff there.
Bug Bounties are always hit and miss for payouts. What one person considers a critical flaw another considers unimportant. Getting abusive for having your claims denied is unacceptable either way. Releasing the code into the wild after having it denied is also a complete d&ck move. It just shows you dont actually care about the security of your fellow netizens, you're just there for the potential payout...
Sueball claims Tesla solar panels are so effective, they started fires at Walmart stores
Here's a top tip: Don't trust the new person – block web domains less than a month old. They are bound to be dodgy
Finally. Thanks so much, nerds. Google, Apple, Mozilla end government* internet spying for good
Welcome to Hollywood, Claranet-style: You've (not) got mail, or hosted sites for that matter
You monsters: Screen time murders your kid's imaginary friend – until they reach school age
Tuesday 20th August 2019 13:28 GMT
Legal and General Insurance
Parents protect your childrens fragile psyche! You too can protect your young childs fragile mind state by taking out our new "Imaginary friend insurance", we offer full coverage for all imaginary friends (extra charge for unicorns.). If your childs imaginary friend is ever injured we will cover all costs to bring them back to full health. Show you care by buying our Imaginary Friend Insurance today!
Breaker, breaker. Apple's iOS 12.4 update breaks jailbreak break, un-breaks the break. 10-4
Tuesday 20th August 2019 12:10 GMT
Re: "accidentally reopened a code-execution vulnerability that was previously patched"
Never attribute to Malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence...
(yes I'm paraphrasing, and no it probably it actually isnt down to incompetence, more then likely its down to a lack of budget for adequate testing, and a manager with a deadline that they just have to stick to, even thought they know they'll be shipping an incomplete, probably bug ridden, piece of crap code. There's always 12.5 to come after all...)
'Hey Google, remind Greg the locks have been changed, and he should find a new place to live. Maybe ask his mistress?'
Friday 16th August 2019 06:28 GMT
Re: Dystopia, one improvement at a time
Or just stop inventing things.
Google havent invented anything for at least a decade, probably 2. They've refined things, made some things easier, brought other things "on to a computer" (which for some reason makes them patentable, but thats a different rant for a different time). But they havent invented anything.
Invention is hard, risky and costs time and money. It's much easier to simply sell companies ads and come up with new ways to show those ads to the consumer. There's no invention involved.
Unfortunately, thats true of just about the whole current IT/tech sector. When was the last time any of them actually invented something new? Not simply improved on something already existing...
WeWork filed its IPO homework. So we had a look at its small print and... yowser. What has El Reg got itself into?
Thursday 15th August 2019 08:34 GMT
Re: The mind boggles
Just curious (and assuming there is someone more switched on on El Reg), as a private company I can see how they could get away with the above conflicts of interest and lack of contracts. But as soon as they IPO, and become a Public company, any group of investors could simply sue them for conflicts of interest and get the board/CEO sacked right? Or at least force them off the decision making commities and allow WeWork to get much better rental deals right?
You dont usually get away with having major conflicts of interest in a public company, right?
Thursday 15th August 2019 07:51 GMT
The mind boggles
How can you a) have no contract with your CEO/Founder? b) have (if im reading that correctly) no contractual basis with your board members, c) Use properties owned by the CEO/founder/board members (conflict of interest much?)?
a) I didnt think was possible, I mean how they paying him without a contract? petty cash?
b) ditto a
c) how can you possibly negotiate reasonable rental prices with someone who can at a word see you fired if you question the prices they demand. this seems like the absolute definition of a conflict of interest, and since it comprises the CEO and the board, there is zero way that they could recuse themselves from involvement.
No wonder there losing millions/billions a year...
World recoils in horror as smartphone maker accused of helping government snoops read encrypted texts, track device whereabouts
J'accuse! Amazon's Rekognition reckons 1 in 5 Californian lawmakers are crims in ACLU test
Wednesday 14th August 2019 13:22 GMT
Yes it is designed for that purpose. If you know you're always being recorded you'll likley act friendlier and not do dodgy stuff.
However, it doesnt work as the cameras just get turned off/damaged (woops!), when the police feel like being dicks/doing something dodgy. Which kind of defeats the purpose...
Yet another reminder: When a tech giant says its AI listens to you, it means humans listen to you. Right, Facebook?
Wednesday 14th August 2019 12:43 GMT
First test for all of these cases should be: Are the CEO's and Board members of said company getting their messages transcribed? If they (or some underling afraid of what the C-suite might think about them having their every word transcribed) refuse to have their own voice assistants transcribed first for a year before anyone else joins in, then the system should be banned.
Anyone willing to place bets whether Zucks or Bezos are getting transcribed right now?
Anatomy of an attack: How Coinbase was targeted with emails booby-trapped with Firefox zero-days
Monday 12th August 2019 18:57 GMT
Re: Just an idea
Ok I'm just going to summarise my answers here rather than answer your individual posts.
1) ICANN would need to be the one to mandate this, not any individual country, if ICANN mandated a 4 week delay from registration to go live than, the registrars would be responsible and would have to administer this at the risk of losing their registrar licence. No nation would need to get involved.
2) Where the site wants to be hosted is irrelevant. If it's on the registrar to police, then the page remains under registrar control until the 4 weeks has expired. Again at risk of losing their licence they will maintain this and it doesnt add any particular burden to anyone.
3) Zero days are found by security researchers as a rule, not by the company who created the software, this is often by watching the forums where these exploits are sold. A month of being able to watch and learn about a zero day before its able to be put into use, increases the likelihood of patching before the zero day can be exploited. This is not a guaranteed cure of course not, I never said it is, but the longer an exploit is out there, the more likely it is to be spotted and patched.
4) This would not be a solution against nation states or extremely well funded/skilled hackers, I said that in my previous post, but it WOULD go a long way to removing the less skilled hackers, the skiddies, etc, as it would raise the bar for what is needed to make a scheme like this work. Obtaining enough fake credentials to obtain a credit card in someone elses name is difficult (definitely not impossible for the skilled, but difficult). Obtaining a stolen credit card number is a piece of cake that any skiddie can do. By removing the low level attacks from the network, you allow your defenses to refocus on the really dangerous threats. This wouldnt remove those dangerous threats/effects, but it could remove the fog caused by lots of skiddie attacks and allow the more dangerous attacks to be spotted earlier.
5) Was there a 5? Anyway, I'll leave it there. It's been nice chatting with you Loyal. :)
Monday 12th August 2019 13:41 GMT
Re: Just an idea
A 4-6 week delay on a new website is going to have a brake on business? Really? I can maybe see that on a fly-by-nighter style business, but any actual business I'm pretty certain would take at least 4 weeks just to decide on the font of their website. I do not see it having any effect personally.
Domain registrars that accept Bitcoin does defeat this solution, although I would still suggest a 4 week delay puts a brake on the ability of the miscreants to utilise zero days and the like, since the firms have a month to spot and patch the flaws.
As for the identity theft you speak of, it's always a risk true, but I would suggest its a significantly harder and more time consuming (and riskier) task for the miscreants than using a stolen card number.
The solution I proposed may not solve all of the problems you mentioned, but it raises the bar on the level of skill the miscreants need, increases the time until a zero day can be effectively exploited (hopefully allowing time for patching), and increases the risk that the buggers might do something to expose themselves. It's not a catch all solution, but removing the low hanging fruit is always a good thing...
Monday 12th August 2019 08:13 GMT
Just an idea
I dont work in IT so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it says in the article that the attackers registered the website they used for the attack 2 days before the attack started. Since from my understanding, you need a credit card to register a website, and I can only imagine that they would have used a stolen credit card for that (I doubt anyone is stupid enough to use their actual credit card for that purpose!), then would it be a significant security increase if there was a 4-6 week wait from registering a website until allowing it to go live? 4-6 weeks allows someone enough time to check their credit card statement, see the fraudulent transaction and get it cancelled before the attackers have a chance to get the website live.
Anyone see a major flaw in this idea?
Cloudflare punts far-right hate-hole 8chan off the internet after 30 slayed in US mass shootings
Tuesday 6th August 2019 06:33 GMT
Re: inspired by 8chan
I answered both your and Chales's point in my 3rd paragraph. I didnt say there are no other ways to commit mass murder, but they are a) either easier to defend, b) have a high risk of killing the creator, c) require a significant amount of preparation work, and d) should bring you to the attention of the cops.
Someone cannot create explosives, poison gases, etc at a momentary whim. If someone has a gun, they can act in the heat of the moment, without thinking and without having the chance of having their temper cool down. If you need to go away and create some explosives, your temper will cool down in the meantime. Most people at that point will abandon plans of mass murder...
Monday 5th August 2019 19:18 GMT
Re: Guns or the people using them?
You start with buy backs, and amnesty's. People hand in their guns and get paid cash for them. Then the law banning the weapons comes in and people still holding guns are doing so illegally. You hold yearly amnesty's where people can hand in their weapons without fear of being charged for being in possession of illegal weapons.
And yes, when people's houses are being raided for some other reason, you search the house for weapons as well. And take any you find.
You strongly licence sellers of weapons so that they are not selling anything illegal, you go after the backyard sellers and crack down on them hard, you put the onus on the supply chain to know where there weapons are going, and punish them for letting weapons fall through the cracks. Any weapons that get confiscated get destroyed (after any legal action is finished of course), and under no circumstance dow weapons get resold into the commmunity (even legal ones).
That's how you start and you keep it up, year after year and the weapons will disappear from the supply chain. Attitudes will also begin to change. This is not something thats never been done before - Australia did it back in the 90's after Port Arthur. New Zealand have just started doing it after Auckland. And its been a resounding success in Australia, and looks like it will be in New Zealand as well.
By the way, you say you keep a gun for your personal protection. I assume that you're a responsible gun owner and the gun is always kept unloaded and locked away in a locked cabinet so that no one in your house (such as small children) can get a hold of it and hurt themselves or someone else? If the answer is No, then we have nothing further to discuss as i consider you a danger to your own community and family. If yes, do you really think that by the time you realise you have an intruder, you will have time to get to the cabinet, find your keys, open it, load the gun and then be ready for the person before they've had time to come at you? If you do i think your delusional. Your first thought upon hearing an intruder should be to call the police, get your family together in one room and barricade yourself in, then inform the intruder that the cops are on the way. Anything else is just wasting time and endangering your family...
Monday 5th August 2019 14:52 GMT
Re: Guns or the people using them?
Come on seriously? Yes the people make the decision to kill, and not the gun, but pretty much every moody teenager/young adult everywhere has at one point wished they had a gun and could shoot everyone. If they have a gun, they can act on those fantasties. If they dont have a gun, they cant. It is that simple.
It's a pretty easy formula, people without guns cant kill 20 people in 5 minutes. People with guns can.
Remove people's guns and you remove their ability to kill large numbers of people. They might still be able to kill one or two people if their so inclined with a knife, but in the meantime other people can run away or can fight back.
London is suffering from a massive murder problem at the moment, but every single time it's a single murder, thats all. Someone is stabbed, and either the attacker runs away or they get caught. But its still only a single victim. Tragic for that family, but it is not 20 families grieving. If the London criminal community had access to a ready supply of guns, the death count would rival a warzone, but they dont and so the numbers are still less than what can be done in 5 minutes in a Walmart.
Ready supply of guns IS as much the Problem as anything else in this situation...
Monday 5th August 2019 14:17 GMT
Re: inspired by 8chan
Not to be contrary, but access to guns, whilst it might be a low hanging fruit, IS one of the biggest problems in the US.
Or to put it another way, it is very difficult to murder 20 people and injure another 26 in the space of 5 minutes with anything other than a gun.
Knife crime is still a problem, but people can fight back or run away from a knife wielding assailant. Car and truck attacks can still kill many, but crowds can be protected to some degree with correct concrete placement. Explosives can kill lots of people, but obtaining the necessary ingredients and instructions has a habit of bringing people to the attention of the authorities, not to mention the risk of blowing themselves up. But someone walking into a store and unloading into random people is extremely difficult to stop and that comes down purely to the weapon.
Remove Guns and you will reduce the number of killings, significantly.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
