Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The opinion of an ignorant (Score 1) 491

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#47932221) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

The problem for Scotland is they get screwed by the government based in London on a regular basis. It's always worse with the current lot in power (Tories). The only way they can be sure that will never happen again is by becoming independent.

Why, are you not going to have anyone in power? Or do you believe that having Scottish people in power will prevent Scottish people getting screwed?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't want desire independence, and keeping the existing system is best, but I'm concerned that because you've used the words "Tories" and "London", that you may be letting your heart make decisions.

The words "Tories", "Thatcher", "London" and "Westminster" have been consistently used by the Yes campaign to rally support. I think it's worth being rational and accept that who ever is in power is probably a total c*nt! :D

Comment: Re:This isn't scaremongering. (Score 1) 491

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#47931317) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry
Totally agree. Just wanted to add how maddening it is hearing Salmond & co. demonising the "no"s, whilst essentially planning to rob the rUK of the ability to control our own currency.

I'm fucked if I'm going to have "a foreign country" having a say in our currency if they get independence... especially since I don't get a vote in this.

Anyone who isn't familiar with this debate might be entertained by this video; Andrew Neil grilling Nicola Sturgeon on currency earlier this year.

Comment: Re:ya no (Score 1) 475

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#47707157) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit
Possibly I am naive, but I do broadly think this is a good idea. What does concern me however is if everyone is driving cars that automatically stop when faced with an obstacle in the road, then it suddenly becomes very easy for anyone to hijack/rob any vehicle.... so driving somewhere quiet, on a dark night, becomes a very bad idea.

Daytime in a busy area and it's great though! There *will* be less deaths as a result and this part of it is a good thing.

Comment: Re:What's actually going on (Score 1) 579

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#47705585) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

It looks like mayor of Munich is the one complaining about Limux, while the entire city council is united and calls it "sachfremde Einzelmeinungen", which translates into 'a single opinion from someone who's talking out of his arse'.

And in other, completely unrelated news, MS has announced that it's moving it's German HQ to.... yes, you guessed it.... Munich!

I wonder... I wonder who contacted all these news outlets.... hmmmmmm.

Comment: Re:Bribery and corruption (Score 1) 579

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#47703001) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

Limux is a project which, up until 3 days ago, has been widely reported as successful. It's been going on for 10 years for god's sake. Now, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, it's a failure - according to one politician.

This is a single politician in the german government trying to derail the project for personal gain.

Indeed. My feeling is that more governments are starting to question IT costs/suppliers particularly in light of NSA / US spying allegations, so "funding" must have been allocated to sway decision making. And undermining a FOSS flagship like Munich and Limux would make sense.

MS staying classy as ever!

Comment: Re:MSIE11 can't into Windows Server 2012 (Score 1) 138

You'd have to imagine that the reason for MS dropping support for older IE versions is to save on bug fixes for IE, and compatibility fixes for HTTP based products.

So it would probably make better sense for them to work to enable newer IE versions on older OS versions. That said, what's logical, and what MS actually do often ain't the same!

Comment: Re:What should the rest of us do? (Score 1) 149

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#47615039) Attached to: Gmail Recognizes Addresses Containing Non-Latin Characters
Yeah, for the most part, I prefer validation that does as little as possible. I previously had a simple check for a single @ symbol. That worked, except someone used a comma which caused the mailer to think there was more than one email address. I should have anticipated that one. Not a biggie, but there was crap in the mail.log where it was trying to use an invalid address... I don't recall the exact issue, but I believe it though it might be a local address or something.

So as a result, I thought I should make the validation a bit more robust to protect the server and at that point, I blocked UTF-8 because it seemed unlikely to work and thus was just a _potential_ vector for attack.

Comment: What should the rest of us do? (Score 2) 149

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#47613473) Attached to: Gmail Recognizes Addresses Containing Non-Latin Characters
As a webdev who gets irritated at websites that fail badly with their email validation (e.g. not allowing + in the local part, or only allowing 2 or 3 char TLDs), I do try very hard to get this right. So I've got a solid(ish) email validation function. But, I'm a bit sketchy on what to do with UTF-8.

For the domain, I'd hope that the MTA (Postfix in my case) would allow UTF-8 and convert to punycode as required, but I'm not sure it does. So currently I don't allow for that. I _could_ convert to punycode myself, but I don't.

And as for the local-part, I'm fairly certain Postfix doesn't allow for UTF-8 at present.... at least, not the Postfix version supported on Debian 7.

So I'm just wondering what everyone else is doing? Should I improve my support, or should I just wait for support to be added to my MTA before I bother?

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. - Niels Bohr

Working...