Posts by Stuart15 posts • joined Tuesday 8th May 2007 20:55 GMT
It's interestnig to see though how the public have been poisoned to think "hey what does it matter if a civil rights backing MP gets bugged - their all upto something anyway."
Err...civil rights backing MP? Public poisoned?
Over the last 10 years (some would argue longer) there has been no democracy, accountability, sincerity or honesty from this government. Add to that their incessant desire to control the masses through cctv, id cards, vacuous threats of terror and spite laws there is very little reason for the public to believe or trust them.
Added to that, this MP is not standing up for the common man. He is standing up and demanding that he is exempt from the very laws which he demands be forced upon everyone else for their own good !!
He proclaims all are equal, as long as he is more equal than others; he is a member of the 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' gang. So why his angst? Has he seen the error of his ways or is he now concerned because he said something which may land him in trouble...or Gitmo?
I certainly don't. The website was merely serving ads on it's front page - no problem there surely? if so, every website serving a MySpace advert better watch out.
The closeness of the domain names really is irrelevant. TWS were providing a service using a domain name which has NOTHING to do with MySpace.com or their army of lawyers AND predates it by the 6 years reported in the article.
And, of course, they are still providing part of the original service on that domain - namely the 18 email clients. So what if it isn't making heaps of money? Is profitability a pre requisite for keeping hold of your legally registered domains now?
A domain is, after all, more than just a web page...
but....if you open Windows on a submarine wouldn't it flood?
....is surely to test them before rolling them out?
Or, alternatively, you trust implicitly the software vendor (whomever that may be) not to completely hose your systems.......and then live, or have to deal, with the consequences.
Flaunting Urls Creating Kneejerk Effect Dishedoutby Uk Police.
Now if only there was an acronym for that........
So, are they defining a URL as a trademark?
Or is it the use of a logo which was acting as the link button?
Either way i really do see this as a complete nonsense to go after this particular website. As was commented after the original story, why didn't the authorities just use this site to track where the copyrighted material was actually hosted and take action agaist those sites?
Or is this an indication of the quality and knowledge of the law enforcement personnel?
..why haven't Norton stepped in? After all, as previous posters have pointed out (and a lot of us know from experience of encountering NAV) it is a failure of their product that has caused this (and many other) problem.
Or would that simply cost them too much money? After all, in my opinion, NAV is simply not fit for purpose. And there are so many people out there using it. Well, guess it makes us easy money cleaning their systems......!!
re :'but if you work in IT at a company that puts monitoring software on it's employee's computers... Will you now be a fellon?'
err...surely if you work in the IT Dept then the computers will be company computers, not those of the employee? And as such, the IT Dept is/should be the guardian/owner of those machines.
And if employees do bring their own personal machines into work (which i see an enormous amount of) then they will be subject to the guidelines, rules and procedures that a company SHOULD have in place for just this scenario.
Not that bad? An AV package that doesn't actually stop/delete/quarantine a virus, and you say it's not that bad? FFS, it may have spotted it but it did (according to the report) nothing about it.
Now, in a previous incarnation as a SysAdmin, we had an AV system forced upon us against our wishes and advice to senior management and that too 'did detect' (allegedly) but not clean or remove viruses. Bang went ten thousand documents.....but not a problem. After all, following a quick scan of the network, we knew what the virus was....shame the AV we were using and paying for couldn't stop it/quarantine it/get rid of it.
/rant
...unauthorised access to ebay accounts. Could it be Vladuz again....???
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/13/vlad_impales_ebay/
off the hard drive is one way to find out what the hell they are doing....or not as the case may be....
Kevin,
i feel that you are being a little unfair to IT staff, especially at large companies. Yes, having been both a contractor and a permie at several rather large organisations i agree that there are individuals who are quite frankly a waste of space. However, taking 5 weeks for a logon is not at all surprising to me. In fact, as a contractor i had to wait 3 months, and during that time (ironically, trying to enforce security ??!!) i was constantly confronted with new staff members who were, despite strict guidelines to the contrary, sharing logons. The problem that was faced on a day to day basis by the IT team was that the sysadmins who created the new user accounts were not even IT dept (a trend i have seen increasingly over the years to prevent circumvention of policy regarding network access and permissions) and they had no user interaction. And to compound issues further, departments would fail to inform the sysadmins that new staff were actually starting before they had arrived on site. After all, compliance does require a paper trail, so no auditable request equals no logon.
Hence, queue the inevitable 'IT are useless' comments when it really was nothing to do with them.
But that's one problem IT cannot easily overcome...it's an easy dog to kick.....
The ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 is hardly news. In fact it was dealt with several months back in the Channel4 program 'the great global warming swindle', as well as being mentioned all those years ago when i did 'o'-level geology.
Oceans absorb when cool, and shock horror, release CO2 when warm as part of the planets natural cycle. Hardly evidence for Global Warming here.
The only area of debate would be whether GW has caused the current temperature rise in the ocean.....but i sincerely doubt that as the temperature has been constantly changing for the best part of the 4.6 billion years (give or take) the planet has been around.
Not that we shouldn't all be sensible here and recycle, use our cars a little less and generally be more healthy by walking and even cycling (if you want to take the risk in a big city).
But the rash of taxes and demands for wholesale changes to lifestyle are not supported by reasoned scientific facts (queue arguments from GW converts); when those GW facts are questioned and disputed then all hell breaks loose and people are branded GW deniers as if they are too stupid to understand and how dare they question what is absolute and unquestionable fact; and add the fact that politicians are embracing GW so much just makes me even more sure that it is a con.....
i find that hard to swallow....err....maybe i should re-phrase that.....
never been in a board meeting with a psychologist, but i have been in meetings with a few psychopaths though...Not too sure which would be worst !!
