Posts by Jamie Jones 4302 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
Yeah, I agree. I had the same reaction as you when I read the article: "I've lost my job without warning, the building is still there, my card-key still works, yet the petty bastards won't even let me fetch back my belongings"
In fact, I more or less did that with one job - I had to give up work at the time due to illness, and one weekend, after I'd "left", I popped in, collected all my stuff, and left my card key and other company stuff in the boses drawer.
I'd left it unti the weekend specifically to avoid other people, and all the fuss from people saying they were sorry to see me go etc. (unsociable bastard at the time)
I never thought anything about it, and the company never mentioned it.
I suppose it was different because I wasn't sacked or made reduntant due to closures etc. but still, in hindsight I could have left that ICL building with booty... Just would never have crossed my mind!
Mind you, if I'd left under worse circumstances, it's more likely my cardkey would have been cancelled...
Don't you guys get charged for receiving calls? That's insane :-)
The "charged for receiving sms" thing is for specific services you can subscribe too, and is a way of paying for the service, that saves having to open some other account with your bank account/card etc.
I agree it's a horrible idea, but it's not like you can suddenly be randomly charged for any old sms.
"The "received" status would be something like "read" and be something you'd want to have opt in. I don't necessarily want any random person to be able to tell if my phone is currently connected to the network or not. What if I want to lie and tell them I'm in a place without cell connectivity? :)"
Delivery receipts (to device) have been part of standard SMS since the beginning. So, unless it's something that US carriers intentionally block. you can tell if a cellphone has signal through that mechanism.
Plain old SMS supports to-device delivery reports. Many years ago, a mate of mine who always switched his phone off at night, started to freak out when I kept telling what time he woke up that day.
He didn't realise the text I sent overnight would be reported as delivered just as he switched his phone on in the morning!
As for read reports? I agree. Kill them with fire!
The problem with that is that advertisers don't give a toss.
Either they arrogantly think that if they can get you to see an advert - even against your wishes - you'll be persuaded, or they are the sort of third party broker who doesn't care whether the adverts piss you off - they just get paid by the number of impressions.
What you describe would seemingly be in their best interests, but if you remember when spam-blocking started - it was originally something we did at a user-level not a server/corporation level, yet the spammers still tried to get around it.
Similarly with TPS - why phone someone who specifically says "NO UNSOLICITED PHONE CALLS"?
Arrogance and number counting.
The internet was generally more open and informative before ads came along.
With ads in the equation, you get more clickbait headings, salacious articles, stupip gossip, and even lies, just to hike up those ad hits. The actual infromational value of content is secondary.
Having said that, sure there are some good sites run professionally that need revenue, and I do have sympathy for them - El Reg being one. (I'd actually pay for an El Reg subscription as long as subscriptions *weren't* necessary [ forced subscriptions would stagnate the variety of commentards ])
But anyway, the adverisers, and many of the sites using them only have themselves to blame, displaying more and more ads, stuffing them with flashing images, and popup windows, and generally behaving obnoxiously - that's what started off the ad-blocking movement.
Now the ads are generally less annoying, they are instead full of tracking software that tracks far more than is necessary for fair analytics.
Of course, the reason for cookies to be restricted to the same domain was to avoid this sort of tracking - something the ad companies purposely get around by using a single domain for serving ads everywhere. Isn't that against Americas DCMA? Deliberately circumventing security software.
Anyway, for all their huff and puff, the browser vendors aren't helping.
One small change would make all the difference: Only allow cookies to be set in the same domain as the url of the main page) Any cookies from third-party sites (e.g. iframed, or inlined etc. should be ignored.)
I'd also allow restrictions on js running from any third party site loaded via iframes, and also seperate restrictions on javascript loaded from third party sites by the main pages javascript.
Don't give me all this "but it's faster for the user if they already have acme-whizzy-bling-thing cached" etc. crap... If the difference is that big, then the thing is too bloated anyway. As it stands, it's a magnet for hackers, and could also be affected by remote site downtime, and accidental code 'upgrades".
How on earth anyone thinks its good to load third-party modules into their web pages, live from the third-party site is beyond me...
Leave the fox bullshit at home please. This is the register, not 'youtube comments'.
If you disagree with the original poster, do so (but note his followup also implied it's the same deal in the UK - "well, most in the UK live here, and don't have a choice in leaving")
Now, if you have an issue with CCTV cameras, then talk about it rationally, don't use fox headlines. There are no CCTV cameras where I live - the only cameras are on some of the more major dual-carriageways.
Incidentally, we don't have death-panels, Sharia Law, or non-Muslim no-go areas. We also don't all have afternoon tea with the Queen every day (although admittedly, it's my turn next Friday!)
But if you want to turn this into a childish game of "whataboutism", I could mention how in your nanny state, you don't have the legal "freedom" to cross a road by using your own judgment.
In 5 US states, rain water is owned by the water company - if you collect rainwater, you can be charged with theft.
Protest against anything involving big-money, and expect the cops with the help of private armies to legally beat the shit out of you (Standing Rock)
Don't fall asleep in your car - a cop might shoot you dead (happened this month)
Realise that the most important thing USA 5 year old learn in school, is what to do if a shooter storms the building...
Pointless this, isn't it? I could go on, and no doubt could you , but if you want to do so, take it elsewhere.
Backwards..
You all seem to be saying "instead of using shared libraries on the system, you can package the required libraries with the application", as if it's some new feature.
Sure, there are times it's useful to do -- no argument there, but not using a feature of an OS is not a feature in itself!
They will be talking about root servers, the zone files. There isn't even a "copy" of all dns entries, it's a hierarchical lookup system.
It's possible they might have tried to lookup and cache some entries though - remember, a site in Russia doesn't have to be within the .ru domain
A 503 on non-existant addresses will require a wildcard dns entry, which in itself can cause other problems. It would also have to point to a bank of servers to serve all of the requests, which would be huge - it would also screw up non-web systems, as web services use the A/AAAA records, and not SRV records.. Much better to let dns request, or the connections themselves to fail..... as it was designed!
Removing those api's restricts the ways you can access their services.
For example, IMAP access is an "API that parses email content".
The answer is more granular control over what/who can access what, and clearer descriptions to the user to what the permissions they grant actually allow.
Less of this wishy washy vague stuff that facebook and google via android have been getting away with.
Any patch that offers some sort of upgrade, yeah, but if it's a patch to fix a bug, or even worse, a security patch, I struggle to see how they can claim that without the fix, the original is "fit for purpose". Or to quote the actual legalese:
From: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act
The rules also include digital content in this definition. So all products - whether physical or digital - must meet the following standards:Satisfactory quality Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. You should ask what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question. For example, bargain-bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods.
Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods.
As described The goods supplied must match any description given to you, or any models or samples shown to you at the time of purchase.
I'd say that if there is a bug or security fix, that would mean "good are faulty or damaged when you receive them". You'd probably be able to argue the software wasn't "as described" too, but IANAL etc.
65 million is less that 500 million.
As for tariffs, you neglect to mention the full picture:
From: https://fullfact.org/economy/post-brexit-trade-tariffs/:
It’s correct that the UK would be able to choose what tariffs it put on imports from other countries, after it left the EU customs union.The UK wouldn’t have a completely free hand to do this. It would have to apply the same rates to all other WTO members, except where it has a free trade agreement or is giving preferences to developing countries.
It would also have to keep those tariffs within limits agreed in the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
And we wouldn’t have a choice about what tariffs were put on our exports.
[ ... ]
The EU customs union removes tariff barriers between its members, negotiates Free Trade deals on behalf of all of them, and imposes a Common External Tariff on anyone it doesn't have a trade deal with.
The EU also tries to eliminate other barriers to free trade among its members, like non-tariff barriers, and there’s a question about whether the UK will have the same influence over these things once it leaves the customs union.
Non-tariff barriers include things like common safety standards and professional regulations. Businesses find it harder to sell goods and services in other countries if they aren’t the same.
And therein lies the crux of the problem. Brexiters are under this self-entitled delusion that they get exclusive rights to call the shots; Brexiters moronically hold the belief that they get to leave the EU, but paradoxically get to tell the EU that they will retail any said benefits they personally choose, regardless.
I agree 100%, but regarding this article, you are blaming the people who DIDN'T WANT to leave.
Bah, I wrote an even longer reply, but it got zapped (my end) because computers are crap, so I'll try and recap. In summary:
"But globalism is seemingly not in vogue at the moment, so the EU is forcing a geographic separation on something that doesn't have or need one. It's hard to imagine how someone owning a .eu domain that lives in the UK is a threat whatsoever to the registry. But then nothing about Brexit makes any sense, so why should domain names be any different?
It's the *UK* that currently doesn't believe in globalism; it's the *UK* that wants out of EU. Yet, somehow, the person leaving the consortium should be able to make the rules - that being, I wish my personal domain to remain associated with the EU's TLD, thereby retaining any benefit / glamour / cachet acquired, however direct or indirectly, by that connotation.
As usual, just like Trumpers, they want the cake and be able to eat it, too.
Firstly, I did not make that comment that you pasted.
Secondly, we are talking about *pre-existing* domains, not new registrations.
Thirdly, you appear to be of the view that everyone in the UK voted to leave.
I don't hear any brexitters complaining - the people who legitimately use .eu are pro-europe.
So, nothing like the trumpets. We never wanted this "cake".
".eu" on the label has a certain worldwide connotation of "Continental", which leaving the EU now breaks. Permanently. You want Brexit because you don't want Europe to "tell you want to do", but you want to retain .eu domains in order to benefit from any additional sheen that they may be able to grant themselves in the future. EU economy running well, but UK still suffering from Brexit-itits? My domain is .eu! Really, as a customer you'll get the benefits of our growing economic qualities!
Not.
If you think ".eu" means "continental", then you are wrong. Besides, whether you consider Britain part of Continental Europe or not, that matter doesn't change because of a brexit ruling.
And if you're going to repeat yourself, so will I.
No, WE DON'T WANT BREXIT.
THAT'S what the EU is protecting. You want any and all benefits? Then you must stay in. You want to go? That's fine, we can't hold you back...but you get NOTHING. There is NO reason to grant you ANY benefits out of your stubborn desire to be selfish because, then, what is the benefit to those who stay and make [any necessary] sacrifice for the greater good?
No benefit at all. It's the UK breaking off the engagement as they decide to play the field, then coming back years later and crashing the ex's wedding party for the buffet and open bar.
Big. Fat. NO.
Again, WE WANT TO STAY IN.
It's more like someone else breaking off the engagement (through no fault of the fiancee), and then the ex-partner taking revenge on the innocent guy.
Or, how about you have a business that's built around your domain name. You've build an address that is recognisable for email and it's website.
Then one day, someone tells you you are losing your domain name in 2 months because of some bureaucracy outside your control. Not only are they refusing to honour the time you've already paid for, they aren't even going to refund the cost of that time, yet alone any further expenses.
To make matters worse, when you complain, some guy in The Registers comment section tells you it's your own damn fault!
Listen, I'm glad you commented - too many Americans don't as they believe it's none of their business... Get right in there, like we do with American stories!
However, please realise more than 16 MILLION people voted to stay in the EU, and now, the vast majority don't want to leave.
You don't expect us to blame you personally for Trump: Don't blame me for brexit.
I've said this before, but whatever:
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
⏩⏩⏩ STUPID STUPID STUPID ⏪⏪⏪
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Sure, don't allow any *new* registrations from the UK, but taking away existing ones (and even refusing renewals) is stupid, petty, pointless, and self-defeating, and doing so before they naturally expire is even more anal.
Don't they understand that peopl can't simply change domain as easily as they change their underpants?
Don't they realise that 99.9999% of .eu registrations from the UK are from *pro* Europe citizens? (OK, I plucked that figure out of my arse, but it's obviously 100% accurate!)
This sort of bureaucratic bullshit is the sort of stuff the europhobe taboids pick up on to further their brexit cause.
Unlike those cowards, though, I want to stay -- for all the obvious reasons we all know -- but also to help improve the bits of the EU that need improving.
Leaving means we have no say, and this is just one example of many to come that will show how well that works out.
But Bob! He's such a nice guy!
After all, his momma said:
Lyn: Ross is a stellar human being. He is such a fine person -- friendly, compassionate, caring -- and has demonstrated that his whole life. In the prison he gave yoga classes, he gave physics classes. We had a guard take us aside and go, "I just want you to know how much I think of Ross. He's such a great person."
From video interview at https://money.cnn.com/2015/02/03/technology/silk-road-founder-parents-ulbricht/index.html, so verifyably not CNN fake news :-)
"lessee, WHO was president in 2011? Heh."
As soon as I read that line, I knew the post was from you. Why does Obama still annoy you so much? Did he give healthcare to someone you hate? Were you bessie-mates with Bin Laden?
Seriously, no-one cares.
"A probe into Google would be nice, too. We can start with "shadow bans" and search engine result tweeking..."
Obviously you aren't talking about price fixing, but some perceived pro-left, anti-right bias?
Sorry, spending even more money on Alex Jones delusions is a waste.
The conclusion has already been reached: Too many right wingers can't handle the truth. It's been show that the more mentally challenged - incapable of debating or challenging, simply shut down, chanting "safe phrases" such as "shadow ban", "fake news", or for the older generation, "commie pinko socialists". They behave just like a brainwashed cult member trying to resist deprogramming.
If you want some research done, I propose getting some clever people to try and determine why the majority of the right wing hate the people who would give them better living conditions, and love the ones who screw them out of all community services, sell Americas resources to the highest bidder, and then steal from the poor to give more to the billionaires via disproportionate tax cuts.. Are you all just a bunch of masochists?
HTH
HAND
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
