Comment Re:The UK Government Are Massively Out Of Touch (Score 1) 191
Our politicians are the only people I am aware of that are anti-Assange.
You lead a very sheltered life and rarely read slashdot. Am I right?
Our politicians are the only people I am aware of that are anti-Assange.
You lead a very sheltered life and rarely read slashdot. Am I right?
Did you read what the statement said?
It's nothing to do with him being "an alleged criminal", it's to do with him being currently a fugitive from justice. And they aren't "simply listening to them". They are attending a conference where he is addressing them.
I can't imagine any circumstances where it's ok for a wanted person to evade capture, while at the same time being given a platform to deliver a lecture to judges.
You are making the mistake of allowing them to dictate the direction of the conversation. The reply for any and all opening questions is "No thanks". Doesn't matter what the question is, doesn't matter if your reply on the surface makes no sense. Your reply is "No thanks (I do not wish to talk with you)" I don't count being this abrupt as rudeness. When you are replying to a devious and manipulative question, or a flat out lie, it's all good.
"Can I interest you in..." (Straight to the point.)
"No thanks."
"How has your day been?" (Hi, I want you to think I'm just being friendly.)
"No thanks."
"Do you want to save money?" (Particularly devious, who's going to say no to that?)
"No thanks."
"I'm doing a survey, I'm not selling.. " (Liar)
"No thanks."
You can add a "goodbye" at the end of any of the above, to suit the situation or taste.
This is about as bad as software development can get, never mind software that's supposed to have basic security. It all points really to a package written by rank amateurs who had no idea what they were doing designing software, far less having the beginnings of a clue about hardening their software to attack.
I mean, hard coded passwords? Really? Hard coded passwords that are this obvious? It's staggering incompetence. Was this written by a self-taught hobbyist over the course of a weekend?
You don't know which species had "human-like" intelligence 3.3 million years ago. There were a number of "human-like" species that aren't our ancestors.
Yeah. What do IT professionals need recruitment advice for? It's not like they work in a job market, or even need a job or a wage or anything.
It's different because it's like coding with ;
- a dozen smart-asses looking over your shoulder telling you you're doing it wrong.
- another dozen noobs asking dumb questions about the basics because they can't be bothered to RTFM.
Sounds like hell.
If modern technology, medicine, government and religion all "somehow interfere" then they simply become part of the evolutionary process. They don't put an end to it.
Evolution just doesn't pack its suitcase and go home because it's no longer applicable. It's always applicable as long as there's life.
How do you know they aren't US gov managed?
The cynic in me suspects this might just be Microsoft's next step. Implement OPF capability, but make it so awkward to use, with such poor results, that users avoid it.
Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of the work the NSA does is concerned with foreign intelligence and surveillance.
The rest of the world has no problem believing this. And they don't like it.
Isn't everyone missing the real issue here? It's not that someone mis-addressed an email. It's not that Outlook helped them mess up. It's not that it was leaders' information.
It's the fact that they were sending this kind of information about anyone in clear text, on an email, at all, to anyone.
No-one will "win", and it's not helpful to represent the issue as if it's "winnable" by either side.
Malware, viruses, trojans and other malicious behaviour of yet unheard methods will always be around, and we'll always be inventing new ways of counteracting them. Which will in turn be circumvented, and so it goes on.
Dear amaurea,
This is the BBC. Our hearts are warmed by your love for our broadcasts, and your wish to gift it to the rest of the world. You are both gracious and generous.
Now that we no longer sell it abroad, but provide it for free, you will have two options next year;
- Pay a 20% increase in your licence fee to replace this lost revenue.
- Not get another series.
Thanking you.
But technically you could argue that they are double dipping, since it should be payed though UK TV licenses.
Why should it?
If I produce something for a customer, and can then also sell it to another, does my second customer have an expectation that it should be free for them? Or would my first customer not expect that profit from subsequent sales be factored into the price they pay?
The BBC is public funded by UK residents. Those who fund it have every right to demand that the BBC squeeze every penny they can out of foreign sales. This money goes back into the BBC and supplements the public funding.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne