User-agent: *
Disallow: /

Hmmm. Based on that, anyone using any kind of a web browser shouldn't be viewing their web pages.

Which kind of takes the point out of having a web page...

"I think most people can manage to see blood "

This isn't intended to be in favour of this gadget but most people can't see blood in their urine or feces but it's there and detectable in a lab.

Which is why you submit samples to the lab for such things as colorectal screening.

So I looked at cable tv yesterday.

I had access to a remote control and a tv with "all the channels" so, for the first time in several years, I started clicking around through the channel guide and selecting stuff more-or-less at random.

I selected a dozen or so different channels and there was only ONE that wasn't playing a commercial when I selected it. One. Single. Channel.

I even waited for a minute or two on some of the channels to see what the programming looked like, and I got to watch more ads and a few station promos. And that was it.

In only one single instance did I see any actual programming at all.

I was amazed. I'm certainly not missing anything by not watching cable tv.

I remember when cable tv was a new thing in the 70's and the selling point was "no advertising." Times certainly have changed.

"If they don't like it they're free to do as imgur did and make a token effort to block UK visitors."

Why should it be on them to make any effort, token or otherwise, to block UK visitors?

If I left my lawn mower in the front yard that doesn't mean the guy who stole it was in the right because I didn't make an effort to protect it from theft.

If they don't block their website and some schnook reads it who's not supposed to be there, that's on the schnook, not on the website.

"The judgment on the five lead defendants will also bind other manufacturers including Jaguar Land Rover, Vauxhall/Opel, Volkswagen/Porsche, BMW, FCA/Suzuki, Volvo, Hyundai-Kia, Toyota and Mazda, whose cases are not being heard to reduce the case time and costs."

Excuse me? Since when is that a legal procedure?

We're having a trial to find out if these guys are guilty. And then we'll consider these other guys guilty and penalize them too.

Aren't they entitled to a trial?

Your neighbour has been found guilty of assaulting the mailman. Since you live on the same street we're sending you to jail too.

> Do NOT use a loyalty card.
Pay more money for the stuff you need.

>Pay cash.
Don't collect any of the discounts from your credit card company either.

>Say nothing that doesn't NEED saying.
You do you, I suppose, but I can't see many people going for this arrangement.

That's what I said. You needed an extra board to keep the time between boots and most people didn't bother with one.

So every time you booted up your computer if you didn't enter the date and time (and a lot of people didn't bother) then your files were dated January 1, 1980.

If the Russians and North Koreans haven't started doing this yet I'm sure they'll be getting into it very shortly.

It's too effective as a weapon to leave it undeveloped.

A lot of the older DOS systems (XT and the like) didn't have a clock built in. If you wanted one you had to buy a separate card and run a little program as part of your autoexec.bat to set the current date and time.

Otherwise, unless you specifically entered the date and time when you booted up the system, your current date and time was midnight of January 1, 1980.

So a great many DOS files are dated January 1, 1980 regardless of when they were actually written.

I don't see where Salesforce is at fault here.

"The English-speaking callers would provide a pretense that necessitated the target connect an attacker-controlled app to their Salesforce portal. Amazingly -- but not surprisingly -- many of the people who received the calls complied."

Sounds like end-user stupidity.

If I am storing my data on your server and I send you commands to download that data, that's the normal course of what you do for me.

If you're dumb enough to let hackers into your system to download your data "in your name", then that's on you.

Based on what I read here, Salesforce is on the side of the angels here.

Which has nothing to do with repaying of the money they were paid to (not) write that report.

They got paid money in the past to write a report that was later found to have been written with AI.

They have agreed to repay or not collect the final payment for this report.

My point is that they were paid money in the past for this same (faulty) report that they have apparently not agreed to repay.

"The Big Four accountancy and consultancy firm will repay the final instalment of its government contract after conceding that some footnotes and references it contained were incorrect,"

Did you miss that? It's right there in the summary.

They will repay the final instalment.

What about the payments for the work (apparently) not done prior to the final instalment?

"Oops, you caught me. Here's a discount on the final payment."

Doesn't seem to be making the injured party whole.

Lying to your employer and taking active steps to create and sustain that lie isn't "actually expected" of anyone other than a sociopath or a criminal.

Certainly not someone in a position of trust like a police officer.

But this is dishonesty.

Police officers are supposed to be of good moral character and act in an honourable manner. (Whether this is actually the situation on the ground is a separate issue.)

These folks have shown themselves to be unfit to be police officers.