Agreed, it's been fixed now - and is fixed by default. Which it wasn't before.
Therefore I'd argue that they're now dealing with "clueless users" by activating the 'safety catch' as a default, instead of leaving it to be activated by the user.
Problem fixed - just about ten years later than it should've been... *grin*
Not really. The gun isn't meant to detect insanity, any more than the computer is going to detect a clueless user.
However, the way Outlook/Outlook Express *by default* allowed scripts etc. to be run is bad design. The gun has a safety catch which has to be disengaged before use. Using your analogy, OE has no safety unless the user decides to activate it. The way I see it, that's the wrong way round.
However, since you still have people who have nothing better to do than attack any possible security hole they can find, along with clueless users who open every attachment in e-mail, the issue is NOT, repeat, NOT in fact Microsoft's fault, let alone any software manufacturer's fault
With regard to opening the attachments etc., if MS hadn't made it so that attachments could run things like VB scripts, ActiveX etc., the viral attachments wouldn't have been written in the first place to take advantage of those flaws. So in some ways there is blame attributable to MS.
Not UK - which, as other commenters have said, has had Chip and PIN for a while now. (Although on a security front, the PIN is the same for the card transactions as it is for the ATM side - so in theory someone could stand behind a chip/pin user in a shop, then steal the card and have all relevant information already...)
How often do I check my balance? Well, for me this is where on-line banking is ideal, because I check the balance and what's going on at least every couple of days, normally daily.
Maybe that's a sign I'm disorganised, or maybe I just like to know what's going in and out of the account, but either way, I'm going to notice weird transactions pretty damn' quick.
I'm guessing that'd be because the Reg reviewed the phone when it was released in the UK, but that Nokia has only just released it in the US.
Of course, I may be wrong, but the answer makes sense... In many ways cell-phones are more advanced in Europe than in the US, primarily because GSM is common in Europe, and still only really coming in in the US. Hence the "need" for tri-band (and now Quad-band) phones so they work world-wide.
Fair enough, you don't have to use PHP, but SSIs in general work nicely instead of using a frameset.
Personally, I use either a PHP include file, or an ASP one, depending on the set-up of the webserver - but a simple SSI in a.shtml file will work just the same.
I found that Adblock works fine on my 0.9. However, I did also install the Show Old Extensions extension which has been a god-send for re-enabling stuff that 0.9 blocked.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than "Can't be bothered to Google" why not just use the acronym "CBATG" ?
Smooth, snappy, and sums it up perfectly.
Mine's been set to false for the last three weeks, including daily restarts, and has never yet reset to true.
But anyway, if it doesn't work for some then it's not an ideal fix, agreed.
You can also change it in FF1.0
type about:config into the address bar on FF, then search for network.enableIDN and set it to false.
Bingo, Job Done.
Agreed, it's been fixed now - and is fixed by default. Which it wasn't before.
Therefore I'd argue that they're now dealing with "clueless users" by activating the 'safety catch' as a default, instead of leaving it to be activated by the user.
Problem fixed - just about ten years later than it should've been... *grin*
Not really. The gun isn't meant to detect insanity, any more than the computer is going to detect a clueless user.
However, the way Outlook/Outlook Express *by default* allowed scripts etc. to be run is bad design. The gun has a safety catch which has to be disengaged before use. Using your analogy, OE has no safety unless the user decides to activate it. The way I see it, that's the wrong way round.
However, since you still have people who have nothing better to do than attack any possible security hole they can find, along with clueless users who open every attachment in e-mail, the issue is NOT, repeat, NOT in fact Microsoft's fault, let alone any software manufacturer's fault
With regard to opening the attachments etc., if MS hadn't made it so that attachments could run things like VB scripts, ActiveX etc., the viral attachments wouldn't have been written in the first place to take advantage of those flaws. So in some ways there is blame attributable to MS.
At risk of being pedantic, Sellafield is nowhere near London. It's in Cumbria ( North-West UK) approximately 250-300 miles from London.
In most media terminology a "sophisticated" hacker is just someone who doesn't only know how to run Windows and MS Office...
And if he'd hacked into Nokia and deleted "the Nokia ringtone", he'd have been awarded next year's Nobel Peace Prize. *grin*
GSI = Government Secure Internet. It's basically a big intranet with access through heavy duty firewalls to the outside world.
You'll normally see it being used in contact email addresses etc.,so you get (for example) defra@gsi.gov.uk
In fact, wasn't it America where the Dodgy credit card signatures prank was done?
Not UK - which, as other commenters have said, has had Chip and PIN for a while now. (Although on a security front, the PIN is the same for the card transactions as it is for the ATM side - so in theory someone could stand behind a chip/pin user in a shop, then steal the card and have all relevant information already...)
How often do I check my balance? Well, for me this is where on-line banking is ideal, because I check the balance and what's going on at least every couple of days, normally daily.
Maybe that's a sign I'm disorganised, or maybe I just like to know what's going in and out of the account, but either way, I'm going to notice weird transactions pretty damn' quick.
So long as it's "Calvinist" as in "and Hobbes"...
For once i really wish I had mod points - but it's Funny, not Interesting!
Yeah, in the UK it's distributed by Mercedes, and I think they had quite a lot to do with building/designing it too...
Oh, no, having checked the Smart site it's actually part of Daimler/Chrysler.
It'll be a pity to see this go.
Oh, and FP (to be sad)
Although a close second is the inaccurate use of "worst" in the subject text, where it should be "worse".
Relating to this, one UK blogger actually did do a speed comparison between Ceefax and BBCi. Ceefax won on just about every test sample used.
Ah, but he specified "watchable". Most of them are filled with utter shite.
So, for "watchable" channels, probably 10. At most. On a good day.
I'm guessing that'd be because the Reg reviewed the phone when it was released in the UK, but that Nokia has only just released it in the US.
Of course, I may be wrong, but the answer makes sense... In many ways cell-phones are more advanced in Europe than in the US, primarily because GSM is common in Europe, and still only really coming in in the US. Hence the "need" for tri-band (and now Quad-band) phones so they work world-wide.
I'm still pleased with my Toshiba Libretto L2 - even after 2 years of use, I'm regularly getting 8 hours life out of the extended battery.
It's not the fastest - a 600Mhz Crusoe processor, but the battery-life far outweighs anything else I've seen.
As for whether it's tough, it gets carried around in a backpack, and generally fairly beaten up, but hasn't yet had any failures at all.
I got mine from www.dynamism.com, if that helps at all.
Fair enough, you don't have to use PHP, but SSIs in general work nicely instead of using a frameset.
.shtml file will work just the same.
Personally, I use either a PHP include file, or an ASP one, depending on the set-up of the webserver - but a simple SSI in a
I found that Adblock works fine on my 0.9. However, I did also install the Show Old Extensions extension which has been a god-send for re-enabling stuff that 0.9 blocked.
That joke is revolting.
The problem with being snide about other people's spelling is when you then make a spelling mistake yourself.
Their, not thier.