Just to be accurate they're not a governmental agency. From their about page linked to in my previous post:
...independent body set up by the advertising industry to police the rules laid down in the advertising codes.
Media owners agree not to show adverts deemed misleeding, offensive etc by this body which is how they enforce their decisions. You'll find this distinction metioned elsewhere amongst the comments but/. noise will make it harder to find soon enough.
Yes, but these companies can get hold of this information and use it regardless of it being available via the internet. Yes it might be a little harder but nothings stopping them - that's the whole point of the open court rule if I've understood it.
Stodddart could have said she wants to change the entire rule but instead she specifically targeted search engines as the problem. So if most search engines abide by the robots.txt then why isn't that sufficient? Now if it's about privacy in general that's a different matter but she should clarify that and not say it's all the fault of search engines.
Unusual? I don't know. Sensible? well you don't need me to answer:-).
I did know somebody that gave not only the password to their email but even the PIN for their bank card to their current partner. Yeah, I think they're stupid as well.
Am I missing something here? isn't the point of this file to stop search engines?
They clearly want the information public otherwise why have the open court rule at all? So if the problem is the effects of google (and others) are unwanted then ask them nicely not to traverse your site.
...or you can kick up a fuss and get yourself on slashdot while announcing the evils of google.
Ok, I will admit I don't know exactly the criteria for innovative applications in the US, but if in reality it is remarkably simple to many and even stupid to some then it doesn't deserve a patent.
My guess as to why somebody hasn't thought of this before? because I expect my cashier to be capable of asking a simple question and I don't see that it saves valuable time. IBM would be better off coming up with a more efficient way of reducing queues than this kind of crap.
Story after story here on/. we've discussed the US patent system, so of course I'm going to say nothing new as it's all been said before. The simple fact is that as long as any country has a system that allows this kind of rubbish through is going to suffer from a lack on innovation. How can a company get anything done when it's being sued because somebody has been granted a patent for the blindingly obvious or the completely pointless. The patent is stupid and will do nothing but waste peoples time and stifle change.
DHS officials said that the newly disclosed policies - which apply to anyone entering the country, including US citizens...
Leave the country on holiday and it applies to you when you come back by the looks of it.
You're right about your assumption though. Since they started all of this bullshit in the pretence of false security I've got no interest in visiting for pleasure, and I won't go on business either.
I think though it'd be a great way to hammer home the point to non-tech O2 customers though. Imagine the outrage of all those customers after they've recieved hundreds of sms or mms messages from people they've never heard of:-p
I know female coders as well and they don't do crap like that. I think your company needs to follow the same advice given elsewhere in this thread and hire better programmers.
I loved this quote from the debate
1326: Ms Smith says terrorism is "an assault" on civil liberties... and locking them up for 42 days without managing to find any evidence (otherwise you'd charge them right) isn't???
I'd have to agree. Of course agreement comes with the caveat that if you're now paying for the amount you use then it should not be tampered with in any way. No throttling or use of forged reset packets etc. The sceptical part in me wonders if they'll do so.
The idea of democracy taking a role in putting moral standards on powerful economic institutions, is not traditionally capitalist. What are you talking about?
We have all sorts of laws in place for consumer protection which place restrictions and obligations on companies. Surely by your definition there are no capitalist countries.
Forcing companies into full disclosure would merely be another level of consumer protection/empowerment regardless of if you agree with it or not.
So why would geeks, even those that never put on a tinfoil hat, demand full disclosure, especially in a market place where we have the option to simply not spend the money. In this case, if there are significant security issues with the iphone, don't buy one. Without disclosure how will you know if there are significant security issues? The author wants disclosure so consumers can say "hey, your product is insecure I'm taking my money elsewhere".
And giving a vendor time to fix an issue, even if everyone except the average consumer knows about it, is not unreasonable. If the vendor does nothing about it in a fairly short time frame, then the equation shifts. Why shouldn't the consumer be allowed the choice of continuing to use (or not) an insecure product while waiting for a patch? Take the recent Flash vulnerability. I'd much rather know straight away to not leave myself at risk while they work on a patch than to discover it after my machine has been compromised. Without disclosure how do we know this was a previously unknown vulnerability and not one they've been sitting on.
As long as you realise that'll need a monitoring system capable of handling (and storing) as much data as one wanting to monitor all P2P. After all there is an awful lot of corruption to catalogue...
Of course it won't. They flat out lied about everything else in their claims so why stop now. Hell even they have admitted certain numbers were fictional but that doesn't seem to stop them continuing to use them.
Slashdot Mirror
...independent body set up by the advertising industry to police the rules laid down in the advertising codes.
Media owners agree not to show adverts deemed misleeding, offensive etc by this body which is how they enforce their decisions. You'll find this distinction metioned elsewhere amongst the comments but /. noise will make it harder to find soon enough.
It's right there in the summary. We have the Advertising Standards Authority.
Stodddart could have said she wants to change the entire rule but instead she specifically targeted search engines as the problem. So if most search engines abide by the robots.txt then why isn't that sufficient? Now if it's about privacy in general that's a different matter but she should clarify that and not say it's all the fault of search engines.
I did know somebody that gave not only the password to their email but even the PIN for their bank card to their current partner. Yeah, I think they're stupid as well.
They clearly want the information public otherwise why have the open court rule at all? So if the problem is the effects of google (and others) are unwanted then ask them nicely not to traverse your site.
...or you can kick up a fuss and get yourself on slashdot while announcing the evils of google.
Patent clerk requried. Literacy preferred but not essential. Must be able to use rubber stamp.
My guess as to why somebody hasn't thought of this before? because I expect my cashier to be capable of asking a simple question and I don't see that it saves valuable time. IBM would be better off coming up with a more efficient way of reducing queues than this kind of crap.
Story after story here on /. we've discussed the US patent system, so of course I'm going to say nothing new as it's all been said before. The simple fact is that as long as any country has a system that allows this kind of rubbish through is going to suffer from a lack on innovation. How can a company get anything done when it's being sued because somebody has been granted a patent for the blindingly obvious or the completely pointless. The patent is stupid and will do nothing but waste peoples time and stifle change.
I can't decide who I think less of, the person that thought to file this or the person that actually granted it...
DHS officials said that the newly disclosed policies - which apply to anyone entering the country, including US citizens...
Leave the country on holiday and it applies to you when you come back by the looks of it.
You're right about your assumption though. Since they started all of this bullshit in the pretence of false security I've got no interest in visiting for pleasure, and I won't go on business either.
I think though it'd be a great way to hammer home the point to non-tech O2 customers though. Imagine the outrage of all those customers after they've recieved hundreds of sms or mms messages from people they've never heard of :-p
I know female coders as well and they don't do crap like that. I think your company needs to follow the same advice given elsewhere in this thread and hire better programmers.
Will that be my fellow citizens that voted for Labour in the last election? :-p
Time to find me a new country.
That is a terrible analogy and clearly the two situations are not remotely the same.
I'd have to agree. Of course agreement comes with the caveat that if you're now paying for the amount you use then it should not be tampered with in any way. No throttling or use of forged reset packets etc. The sceptical part in me wonders if they'll do so.
No it isn't (yet). You obviously didn't read the short article as it states this trial is only running with new subscribers and not existing ones.
We have all sorts of laws in place for consumer protection which place restrictions and obligations on companies. Surely by your definition there are no capitalist countries.
Forcing companies into full disclosure would merely be another level of consumer protection/empowerment regardless of if you agree with it or not.
As long as you realise that'll need a monitoring system capable of handling (and storing) as much data as one wanting to monitor all P2P. After all there is an awful lot of corruption to catalogue...
Of course it won't. They flat out lied about everything else in their claims so why stop now. Hell even they have admitted certain numbers were fictional but that doesn't seem to stop them continuing to use them.
You're assumption is correct. If freedom_india had bothered to do some research (s)he would have known that the KU990 runs off Flash Lite 2.1
yet I'm guessing those same people haven't read this particular report on surival statistics.