Anyone else having problems with today's (?) security updates? KB 2518864, 2572073 and 2633880.
Keeps prompting, installing, prompting again, installing again, and so on...
I don't appear to be alone (http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-windows_update/windows-update-keep-installing/03b79e2b-da93-4e63-99b5-f933e3841036)
You could pay twice as much to have it developed in the UK and it would still make sense not to off-shore. Not only is this tax revenue leaving the country rather than being spent back into the economy, but you've also just increased the unemployment figures...
This is like using your petrol to fuel someone else's car on the basis that they get better MPG than you... (I admit that this fails to include the possibility that we might get some decent software at the end of it, but then how likely is that?)
At the price, the lack of recent releases doesn't bother me so much, and seems pretty much inevitable, and I assume that their catalogue is going to expand.
My two gripes so far are occasional problems with the sound/picture being slightly out of sync and the fact that you can't browse the entire catalogue. The syncing thing seems to sometimes go away if you stop and restart the film, but I don't even understand how modern hardware and codecs even allow that to happen...
I would add some of the categories it offers me to the complaint, but they're more just bizarre rather than a problem ("Dark thrillers with a strong female lead", or something like that - that's a thing?).
Price-wise, netflix seems to be a clear winner - either that or I misunderstood what lovefilm was offering.
Anyway, lovefilm's not an option. We have a good dvd deal with them which their desperate to make us switch from. Every new service they offer requires us to switch away from it. TBH I haven't even used the deal we have (pay-per-disc rather than monthly), but I don't want to cancel it, I want to pass it on to my children when I die....
Indeed. I presume BT pay their PR people and don't just crowd-source them or something. How do large companies keep making the fundamental mistake of thinking no one will find out?
"That computer has legitimately saved my life on more than one occasion."
This is the bit that scares me... I'm tempted to forgive it as hyperbole, but imagine the same statement about, say, smoke detectors saving one person's life on more than one occasion. I'd humbly suggest that they might be doing something wrong...
... someone managed to trick users into taking the pc into the shower with them by generating a fake error message?
I have to admit that I'm sort of vaguely impressed - although whether by the stupidity of the users or the recognition of that stupidity by the culprit, I'm not sure...
I have no real comment to make on the seriousness or otherwise of what happened, but it seems there's a fairly simple lesson - make sure that you factor in not having mains power for several days.
Jesus - don't these people read Jurassic Park or anything?
The really dumb thing was offering it in the first place without a clear strategy to cope with the PR fallout when they (inevitably) had to remove the feature.
They should have never offered it, and, if for some reason they felt they had to offer it, they should have shouted from the rooftops what was going to happen when it got hacked...
If you bothered to read his blog post, you'd see that he does have a backup of the originals - however, all the metadata is now gone, all the links to his photos on flickr are broken, and he has to upload the whole lot again.
In what way does a paid service screwing up like this without any way of fixing the issue represent 'no problem'?
And BTW, can everyone who is ever tempted to post some smug and inane remark about backups every time they read about someone losing data, count to 10 and then go and do something more productive.
I have copies of my photos on my local HD as well as on flickr, and if my HD fails, then I can just download them all from flickr to copy to my new HD... oh, hang on...
Err, flickr, if you're not going to back up our photos, at least give us some way to do so...
It seems a bit rich for Mr Hurst to be muttering about the market when his dealer and other owners manipulate it to hell and back in order to boost and/or maintain the prices of his works...
Weird - I'm currently proposing to my company that we start up a news-server
We all work from home, and the endless round-robin of emails are hard to manage - a news-server seems like the perfect solution.
TBH I'm always surprised that news-readers never found a place in SMS - instead people seem to be happy with endlessly growing lists of CCs in emails....
The article implies that IE8 will attack the site, not the user. If so, why is this IE's problem? The sites will still be vulnerable to black-hatters, who can use whatever tool they want.
I may well have got the wrong end of the stick - cross-site scripting attacks make my head hurt...
I'm an ex-smoker (not normally the most tolerant of non-smokers), but, whilst I can accept that there is a risk from secondary smoke, this sounds like a load of tosh.
Exactly what statistical evidence do they have to support this, or is it just supposition? Do they make any guesses as to how many people will die because of this, or what the increase in your chances of developing cancer are? I would humbly suggest that the answer for both is "not a lot".
Self-cert was a real problem, and arguably caused house prices to spiral out of control. Self-cert was what allowed people to borrow far more than they could have obtained from a conventional mortgage product, in order to pay higher and higher prices on houses, which were only going up in value because, apparently, everyone was loaded and chasing the same commodity.
This expectation that anyone should be able to walk into an estate agent's and walk out with a house, with no deposit and no questions asked, is the sort of bollocks that caused this mess in the first place.
If your email account is with GMail, then they've already got it. If not, I'm not sure how you think Google are suddenly going to know what your email password is.
The bottom line is that, to use Google, I have to -gasp- give google my search terms and -gasp- click on one of the links they serve me. That is what they can log, nothing else. Personally, I don't care whether they keep a log of these or not.
While the information on wikipedia may be "good enough" for most casual purposes, the ability of dedicated editors (i.e. obsessives with too much time on their hands) will pretty much ensure that any well-intentioned non-fanatics will pretty soon give up trying to make any meaningful edits in all but the most innocuous of subjects.
Pardon me for mentioning it, but I get pretty pissed off with people who defend the wikipedia process but make it clear that they've no experience or interest in editing the damn thing.
Ok, so it's a load of nonsense... so let's have another supposedly true sheep-themed (and SFW) story...
A young teacher from Leeds had accepted a temporary job teaching a class of four-year-olds out in one of the most isolated, rural parts of north Wales. One of her first lessons involved teaching the letter S so she held up a big colour photo of a sheep and said: "Now, who can tell me what this is?" No answer. Twenty blank and wordless faces looked back at her. "Come on, who can tell me what this is?" she exclaimed, tapping the photo determinedly, unable to believe that the children were quite so ignorant. The 20 faces became apprehensive and even fearful as she continued to question them with mounting frustration.
Eventually, one brave soul put up a tiny, reluctant hand. "Yes!" she cried, waving the snap aloft. "Tell me what you think this is!" "Please, Miss," said the boy warily. "Is it a three-year-old Border Leicester?"
Register
37 posts • joined Friday 27th April 2007 09:30 GMT
XP - Latest KB updates
Anyone else having problems with today's (?) security updates? KB 2518864, 2572073 and 2633880.
Keeps prompting, installing, prompting again, installing again, and so on...
I don't appear to be alone (http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-windows_update/windows-update-keep-installing/03b79e2b-da93-4e63-99b5-f933e3841036)
No fans of TrueCrypt or PGP?
Re: what devices are supported?
where does it say that it's only for mobile devices?
Hmm... apart from the sound (and I'm partially deaf) I can't think of any particular reason to buy this.
So... moving on, is it just me or does the special edition suck? (as in "adds nothing, takes away a lot")
The main crimes:
1. The scenes with the colonists
2. Boring shooting gallery scene with the automatic guns in the corridor
More useful info from XKCD
Nice, but, if you're going to start referencing XKCD, can we have something more useful?
http://xkcd.com/936/
Just pretend it's foreign aid...
... because otherwise it makes no sense at all.
You could pay twice as much to have it developed in the UK and it would still make sense not to off-shore. Not only is this tax revenue leaving the country rather than being spent back into the economy, but you've also just increased the unemployment figures...
This is like using your petrol to fuel someone else's car on the basis that they get better MPG than you... (I admit that this fails to include the possibility that we might get some decent software at the end of it, but then how likely is that?)
I don't want to complain, but...
... would it have killed them to wait for a nicer day?
Netflix - two probems
At the price, the lack of recent releases doesn't bother me so much, and seems pretty much inevitable, and I assume that their catalogue is going to expand.
My two gripes so far are occasional problems with the sound/picture being slightly out of sync and the fact that you can't browse the entire catalogue. The syncing thing seems to sometimes go away if you stop and restart the film, but I don't even understand how modern hardware and codecs even allow that to happen...
I would add some of the categories it offers me to the complaint, but they're more just bizarre rather than a problem ("Dark thrillers with a strong female lead", or something like that - that's a thing?).
Price-wise, netflix seems to be a clear winner - either that or I misunderstood what lovefilm was offering.
Anyway, lovefilm's not an option. We have a good dvd deal with them which their desperate to make us switch from. Every new service they offer requires us to switch away from it. TBH I haven't even used the deal we have (pay-per-disc rather than monthly), but I don't want to cancel it, I want to pass it on to my children when I die....
Indeed. I presume BT pay their PR people and don't just crowd-source them or something. How do large companies keep making the fundamental mistake of thinking no one will find out?
More than one occasion?!?
"That computer has legitimately saved my life on more than one occasion."
This is the bit that scares me... I'm tempted to forgive it as hyperbole, but imagine the same statement about, say, smoke detectors saving one person's life on more than one occasion. I'd humbly suggest that they might be doing something wrong...
No surprise
My job involves a lot of work with the NHS. For all their ICO bollox, they rarely train or provide any encryption software.
We've largely given up the battle of trying to persuade some of our clients to stop sending us unencrypted patient data via email...
Shocking of course, but...
... someone managed to trick users into taking the pc into the shower with them by generating a fake error message?
I have to admit that I'm sort of vaguely impressed - although whether by the stupidity of the users or the recognition of that stupidity by the culprit, I'm not sure...
Oh, and it was on a Mac ;)
I'd rather they had a better process for handling username disputes
Any shite-stirring bugger can report you to sony and get you barred, and getting stuff back that you actually paid for is a nightmare.
And what exactly is wrong with P3n1sVanLesb1an anyway?
Right but wrong
It's worded very confusingly...
I think it means:
before 10% legit email, 90% spam - eg. 10/90
now 25% legit email, 75% spam - eg. 10/30 (since the amount of legit is unchanged)
or not... no, you're right. It still doesn't make much sense...
Because...
... if you're in government, the answer to every problem is always more complexity.
I think they did it on purpose
I think they deliberately went very generic - they wanted something that they could sell everywhere and would offend nobody.
Simple lesson to learn
I have no real comment to make on the seriousness or otherwise of what happened, but it seems there's a fairly simple lesson - make sure that you factor in not having mains power for several days.
Jesus - don't these people read Jurassic Park or anything?
address the growing demand for studio content to be delivered in a timely and cost-effective manner
The above quote from the article is the point IMHO.
I looked into using iTunes to watch films with the family. Could I burn them to dvd? No. Torrent it is then...
Stupid Sony
The really dumb thing was offering it in the first place without a clear strategy to cope with the PR fallout when they (inevitably) had to remove the feature.
They should have never offered it, and, if for some reason they felt they had to offer it, they should have shouted from the rooftops what was going to happen when it got hacked...
no problem?
If you bothered to read his blog post, you'd see that he does have a backup of the originals - however, all the metadata is now gone, all the links to his photos on flickr are broken, and he has to upload the whole lot again.
In what way does a paid service screwing up like this without any way of fixing the issue represent 'no problem'?
And BTW, can everyone who is ever tempted to post some smug and inane remark about backups every time they read about someone losing data, count to 10 and then go and do something more productive.
Backup Fail
I have copies of my photos on my local HD as well as on flickr, and if my HD fails, then I can just download them all from flickr to copy to my new HD... oh, hang on...
Err, flickr, if you're not going to back up our photos, at least give us some way to do so...
Too short
Only 10? And no Strider or R-Type?
Tcchh - I'm not coming to your video arcade. Hardly worth getting my change from the grumpy git in the glass box for...
Market <> Art
It seems a bit rich for Mr Hurst to be muttering about the market when his dealer and other owners manipulate it to hell and back in order to boost and/or maintain the prices of his works...
FFS
while we're at it, what about
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Angelo_Bronzino_001.jpg
(NSFW... err.. SFW... err... oh, who the f**k knows?)
Weird - I'm currently proposing to my company that we start up a news-server
We all work from home, and the endless round-robin of emails are hard to manage - a news-server seems like the perfect solution.
TBH I'm always surprised that news-readers never found a place in SMS - instead people seem to be happy with endlessly growing lists of CCs in emails....
Am I Missing Something?
The article implies that IE8 will attack the site, not the user. If so, why is this IE's problem? The sites will still be vulnerable to black-hatters, who can use whatever tool they want.
I may well have got the wrong end of the stick - cross-site scripting attacks make my head hurt...
In fairness to the HSE...
I read this as a concern about crowd-levels rather than, y'know, the bloody suicidal cheese-chasing. I could be wrong though.
Meanwhile, have a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nrSi7-_Pj4
Any made up statistics to go with this?
I'm an ex-smoker (not normally the most tolerant of non-smokers), but, whilst I can accept that there is a risk from secondary smoke, this sounds like a load of tosh.
Exactly what statistical evidence do they have to support this, or is it just supposition? Do they make any guesses as to how many people will die because of this, or what the increase in your chances of developing cancer are? I would humbly suggest that the answer for both is "not a lot".
An Easy Mistake?
I'm always amazed this doesn't happen more often - do drug smugglers have state-of-the-art shipment tracking? I assume not...
Self-cert was bad news
Self-cert was a real problem, and arguably caused house prices to spiral out of control. Self-cert was what allowed people to borrow far more than they could have obtained from a conventional mortgage product, in order to pay higher and higher prices on houses, which were only going up in value because, apparently, everyone was loaded and chasing the same commodity.
This expectation that anyone should be able to walk into an estate agent's and walk out with a house, with no deposit and no questions asked, is the sort of bollocks that caused this mess in the first place.
And the answer is...
42.
To labour the point, the problem isn't "What's the right answer", but "What's the right question?"
@Luke
If your email account is with GMail, then they've already got it. If not, I'm not sure how you think Google are suddenly going to know what your email password is.
The bottom line is that, to use Google, I have to -gasp- give google my search terms and -gasp- click on one of the links they serve me. That is what they can log, nothing else. Personally, I don't care whether they keep a log of these or not.
Why block ads?
Since these websites largely depend on advertising revenue to survive, isn't it rather shooting ourselves in the feet?
I'm on their side. Ignore the ads, don't block 'em.
Wikipedia defenders are missing the point(s)
While the information on wikipedia may be "good enough" for most casual purposes, the ability of dedicated editors (i.e. obsessives with too much time on their hands) will pretty much ensure that any well-intentioned non-fanatics will pretty soon give up trying to make any meaningful edits in all but the most innocuous of subjects.
Pardon me for mentioning it, but I get pretty pissed off with people who defend the wikipedia process but make it clear that they've no experience or interest in editing the damn thing.
Ha Ha - Hmm....
Not a bad idea. If enough people got the habit, we could swamp the phishers.
0.1% valid response to phishing = nice profit.
0.1% valid response + 5% spoofs = a hell of a problem for them.
Blames itself? Well, sort of...
...but you had to read between the lines.
They refer to "A vulnerability within our implementation of Webmail", but, IMHO, this is hardly the most direct way of putting it.
More Sheep Fun
Ok, so it's a load of nonsense... so let's have another supposedly true sheep-themed (and SFW) story...
A young teacher from Leeds had accepted a temporary job teaching a class of four-year-olds out in one of the most isolated, rural parts of north Wales. One of her first lessons involved teaching the letter S so she held up a big colour photo of a sheep and said: "Now, who can tell me what this is?" No answer. Twenty blank and wordless faces looked back at her. "Come on, who can tell me what this is?" she exclaimed, tapping the photo determinedly, unable to believe that the children were quite so ignorant. The 20 faces became apprehensive and even fearful as she continued to question them with mounting frustration.
Eventually, one brave soul put up a tiny, reluctant hand. "Yes!" she cried, waving the snap aloft. "Tell me what you think this is!" "Please, Miss," said the boy warily. "Is it a three-year-old Border Leicester?"