Re: A lot of money
Wot, no 4G? And prospect of 5G?
(I grant you Virgin is no alternative, so if Openreach reacheth not then there's a shortage of wired alternatives).
2841 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jan 2007
I wonder.
Could GCHQ potentially build some bridges if they were to head-hunt one or two respected privacy advocates, with a remit something like UN weapons inspectors? Someone with authority and not afraid to ruffle feathers.
Any big organisation will contain a certain mix of good and bad. If you have an image problem like GCHQ it may be hard to recruit People who Care, so you'd need to kick-start something. Microsoft have recruited some great folks in their turnaround: maybe GCHQ could learn from them, and create an Advocatus Diabolus role for someone who would be their natural critic?
p.s. is this Fleming any relation of the famous Ian?
Hopefully this just takes out political meddling, and leaves the decisions to the telcos who are actually deploying the networks - and whose expertise stands in contrast to POTUS.
The reactions of some of our government ministers tells us which of them regard Blighty as a satrapy of the US. Dammit, when I were a lad, it was socialists whose mad ideology wanted the state to interfere in productive industries; now it's so-called right-wing Tories and an off-scale Republican president.
I have always said that the main problem is not being identified as a miscreant, but being mis-identified as a miscreant.
It's happened to me a few times, including one occasion when five intimidating-sized cops turned up at the door. I don't even know what the accusation was on that occasion!
On an earlier occasion I got stopped because - apparently - I looked like someone who had been reported by several women as a sexual attacker. That was facial recognition by a human cop.
These experiences are slightly traumatic, but it never occurred to me to put myself through the far bigger trauma of inviting lawyers into my life.
The "hard border" may be a reference to it being a bit of a trek. If the link works, here's one I crossed some years ago. There does seem to be something that could be a border fence, but if it existed when I crossed, it was entirely under the snow (the statue was clearly visible, and indeed marked on my map, but I never saw she was mounted on a brick construction).
Damn, I'm getting old.
Last time I crossed the Swiss border over a mountain pass with no hint of a border post, there was no Schengen agreement. It never occurred to me as relevant.
[edit] Looking up the Schengen agreement, it's much older than I realised (1985!), and the above isn't quite true. Still, the point stands: there is no border post on Monte Rosa.
They can already scan your face and check for false passports when you enter the country, why would they need to do that when you leave it?
Because they want to match you against their list of terrorist suspects, regardless of whether you entered the country with a passport or with a midwife, and what may have changed in the meantime?
The one with the false passport might just be the one who really does have something to hide.
Can't you just walk across the border? As you can between many friendly European countries (yes, including non-EU Switzerland). Use the road and there'll be a border post where they might check you but will probably just wave you through. Avoid the road - as when hiking in the mountains - and there might be a low fence you can step over, or nothing at all.
<Trump>Build that wall!</Trump>
Vodafone has high street shops. What happens if you walk into one with a customer service issue (as in "it doesn't work"?) That's a genuine question: I've never had need of their customer service.
I had always thought this was an ultimate bottom-line solution if I needed it: O2 and EE staff in shops have always been helpful when asked. Then I tried it with Virgin Media when my cable broadband had failed, and found customer service inspired by Kafka.
A well-trained dog knows where not to go, and that includes anywhere a human might tread.
I've yet to meet the horse that was well-trained in that department. Their (much bigger) stinking piles routinely get left where they're a menace, up to and including literally on the doorstep of where I used to live. And the equine set couldn't give a ****.
Currently when they get stuck a human driver has to take over.
I don't know how true that is (isn't the human there for emergencies - like a driving instructor with dual-controls?), nor what value of "Currently" you're using. But taking that at face value, a human driver could presumably be in a control centre, enabling a pool of drivers to deal with "stuck" situations for a much larger pool of vehicles.
Human drivers don't get stuck.
Oh my. You've led a sheltered life!
(erm, for the record I'm not one of your downvotes. Nor your upvote).
pfft. I was thinking more in terms of what we've collectively learned about the dangers of working as root (and giving root to people). And of the fact that even windows now separates out different users and roles. And even of secondary nonsense like aliasing, overloading or renaming system commands to confuse users, or of nonstandard PATHs and LIBRARY_PATHs, etc.
I've been caught on that one. Can't remember the circumstances.
But I recollect my natural caution kicking in. This is an unfamiliar system. It's not impossible the machine the Client has given me access to (for dev/testing) hosts something that matters. And no firm clues like timestamps that would indicate something familiar like regular log rotation. So instead of "rm", I started with "mv", on the directory containing all those "LOG"s. Server won't restart - whoops, rename it back to what it used to be (server now restarts after anxious delay). Find something else to delete!
I doubt that the entire site managed to feature anyone as stupid as its owner.
Agreed. But you're missing the distinction between a monumentally stupid person and an otherwise-normal person doing stupid things in a moment of drunken exuberance. There might be strong competition in the latter category, and a university environment could offer fertile ground.
Erm, the article says she's reached the supreme court. Not that the case has been heard and they've reached a verdict.
On the face of it, nanny state gone mad. Could there be more to it than we've been told? For example, what if she was drunk and tottering in high heels, and had turned abusive when offered friendly advice? If that were the underlying story then it looks more finely balanced.
If your DNS gets hijacked, there goes your email. Even if everything sensitive is encrypted, it's another obstacle in the way of communicating with your service providers to sort things out. Especially if they have a process - like password reset - that relies on email, and the staff have been trained that anyone asking to bypass an email step is trying a scam.
With that level of "reasonable" precautions, who would work there? I would rapidly take offence at a system designed on the premise that I was guilty of criminal intent and needed to be stopped.
And who will implement such a system? What if they themselves turn rogue? It's people all the way down!
Even highly-classified military stuff is secured against employees only to the extent that they won't *accidentally* leak. An employee deliberately setting out to leak - from a spy to a whistleblower - will more-likely-than-not succeed if they make a serious effort.
Will that be worth more to shareholders than the article's $2/share extra earnings for Qualcomm?
And how will such a bunch of lawyers let loose affect the forthcoming US election? If they push the buttons and pull strings on all those candidates, they'll surely provoke a big lawsuit or two somewhere to fund their contributions to the candidate who'll support them the most!
They've been on t'wireless saying that this won't apply if the fraud is a conspiracy to which you are party - i.e. the obvious scenario that commentards have already pointed out.
That would appear to mean they're setting themselves up as arbiter of who is a genuine mug vs who is a conspirator. Meaning that a refusal to pay up becomes an accusation not of gullibility, but of outright fraud. The press will have a field day when they find a case of getting that wrong!
If I had been tempted either to bank with TSB or to invest in them, this would completely remove any such temptation.
Someone got locked up for merely possessing that as far back as May 2010. Perhaps someone should remind the powers-that-be that within living memory we were at total war with Nazi Germany, yet there were no restrictions on owning or reading Mein Kampf. Once upon a time, Britain stood for freedom.
Viewing once is *probably* OK even if you have a big beard and speak Urdu and Arabic. Just as you *probably* won't be arrested on your way home after buying that new kitchen knife to chop vegetables. Not to mention *probably* won't be run down by a car mounting the pavement, or attacked by some crazed junkie.
It's situations that are improbable but possible we should worry about. This is one of them, and since the state is directly responsible, it's one we can campaign against - at least in principle.
A well-planned act of terrorism might very well include travel plans. And back in the days when we had a real terrorist problem, the trains themselves were sometimes targets.
So yes, don't ever view an online train timetable. No matter how innocent your intention, it's material that could be of use to someone planning a terrorist attack.
The BOFH hadn't thought that one through. Gyms are useful resources for all kind of things that want an open space. Such as an impromptu rehearsal of any musical or thespian event, or just overspill from somewhere that got double-booked.
(Um, just for the record, I'm not your downvote. I can take issue with what you say without wanting to condemn you for saying it!)
Heard this story on t'wireless yesterday. The first commentator on attributed the changes to weightlessness. Whereupon my "shout at the radio" reaction was that other things are not equal, and surely being cooped up in a confined space is a very big effect. What happens physically to a body cooped up in a prison, an ocean-going ship, or - rather topically - an embassy?
Perhaps submariners would be a good control sample: like astronauts they're presumably selected for physical and mental robustness?
The mother-in-law joke comes from living under the same roof, with no privacy to enjoy your beloved's company.
Easy to forget where the archetype originated, when living as a couple under your in-laws' roof is at least unusual, and counts as official homelessness if you don't at least have your own room.
My link to his blog is now dead, but Eric Brechner (at the time, high up in Microsoft) said it nicely when he couldn't decipher his own patent. I saved this quote back in 2008:
When using existing libraries, services, tools, and methods from outside Microsoft, we must be respectful of licenses, copyrights, and patents. Generally, you want to carefully research licenses and copyrights (your contact in Legal and Corporate Affairs can help), and never search, view, or speculate about patents. I was confused by this guidance till I wrote and reviewed one of my own patents. The legal claims section — the only section that counts — was indecipherable by anyone but a patent attorney. Ignorance is bliss and strongly recommended when it comes to patents.