• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ckn last won the day on November 22

ckn had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,084 Excellent

About ckn

  • Birthday August 9

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Are they encrypted music files? If not, can't you just plug it into your computer and copy across?
  2. Do you use Firefox? If so, look for the NoScript add-on. I don’t use a specific ad blocker as they block all ads indiscriminately, NoScript only blocks those that use scripts.
  3. T'interweb BAAAD, mkay? Many companies on t'interweb will happily allow anyone who will give them a micro-shaving of a penny in credit to run anything on your computer through their advertising websites. It's not exactly surprising to me that a Murdoch owned website is the worst at it on my frequently visited sites list, and wanted to allow 50 things to run on my machine that weren't part of its core website; what's worse is the site is paywalled so they're effectively getting paid twice for their stuff, once from the punters who pay and once from the advertisers they've pimped your viewing history to. Just think back to the few times on this site that people have reported getting nasties over the years. Despite John being on the paranoid side of cautious over allowing advertising companies, the iffy advertising companies will still sell space on your computer to people who want to do bad things. John has eliminated those companies on first-offence basis and runs the ones who haven't offended and have a decent reputation. One example, a number of companies now run scripts on their website that use your computer's processing power to "mine" for digital currencies. It technically does nothing permanent but it will put your computer to 100% usage of its processing power, not great for if you're actually doing anything else on it. I don't want things running on my machine without my permission. Someone will exploit something in your browser at some point that will allow malicious websites to run things that do far more damage than simply sending browsing history to Facebook. My computer allows what I want to run and only when I want it to run, if websites don't like that then I'll stop going there. An example, the harmless site BoredPanda with harmless time-wasting articles and pics of cute fluffy kittens. They've just started to run something called Pagefair which detects that I've blocked most of their host of advertisers as I don't trust them, the Pagefair system redirects my access attempt to a landing page that essentially tells me to disable the ad-blocker or I can't access the site. Fair enough, I won't access their site then, their call. If an advertising company pledged to only issue fixed image adverts with no scripts running beyond that needed to display the image then I'd happily allow their adverts. What I won't allow is an advertising company to run scripts on my machine without permission when I've no control over what they're running. Alternatively, if trusted site owners gave me a written indemnity that they'd pay for any recovery of damage caused to my system by malicious advertising scripts then I may allow it.
  4. There apparently is a market for these things. Cow scratchers:
  5. Electronic engineering done right. Someone hooked their Alexa device up to one of those talking fish and managed to synch it properly.
  6. I'll reply to this one of my rants... the NoScript app has been updated to work with Firefox 57 and it's had some big improvements as well. I upgraded just now and experimented on some of my frequent websites. It blocked the Telegraph website sending my detailed browsing to Facebook as well as 12 advertising companies' javascript code calls. Twelve advertising websites trying to run javascript on the home page of the Telegraph alone! Most of the other media sources are much the same as the Telegraph, it's just that was the first one I tried. The Times website had 50 (yes, fifty) javascript entries blocked from third party websites TRL is quite well behaved so I allow it to do things. John I know is a bit of a fanatic about dropping advertisers who go over their permissions. Strangely, Facebook just asked for Facebook and its content delivery sub-site. No ad sites at all. I guess this is because its adverts are embedded within the base Facebook code. I don't think I could browse the web these days without a code blocker running...
  7. 120,000 children

    I do get that but money problems often relate to long-term mental health problems, the longer you have to do with not much the harder it is to keep from clinical depression. The NHS thread here is full of examples of how the government has badly let down mentally ill people. I know one young woman who was in hospital at the same time as my wife, she was NHS funded into the private hospital. The NHS Trust funding her essentially ran out of money to keep here there so told her she could either self-pay or leave for a half-way house. This seriously ill young woman was the subject of complaints from patients at the time because she was being asked to leave, the complaints weren't at her but at her leaving because even the other very ill people could see how bad she was. She lasted a week in the half-way house before running away and was eventually found sleeping under a lean-to in the woods miles from anywhere. She's now in a secure NHS hospital where she'll probably be for years. Knowing the NHS system as I do, to get her that bed will have meant that the least-ill on the hospital wards would have been booted out while still ill, and probably into a community caring system that's in a worse state than the inpatient mental health treatment. I've seen it first hand, never mind through other people, that suicidal people at A&E are being turned away once their physical symptoms are treated. I actually saw one where someone suicidal who had taken a paracetamol overdose, but not enough to require inpatient stay, was asked by a social worker (the on-call psychiatrist refused to attend) if she was going to try to kill herself again, the answer was "yes, definitely". The social worker then asked "do you intend to hurt anyone else?". "No". Social worker then said they couldn't help and she was released back to the care of her family and GP. I also know of too many stories of ex-squaddies being homeless. I know one squaddie (single, no family) who left the army in Colchester under the cuts in the mid 90s, so not voluntary leaving, he couldn't get a job straight away so went to the council for a council house, the council said to him that as he was a squaddie he should go back to his home area as he wasn't a "resident" in the area either economically or residentially. His home area said he hadn't been there for 10 years so they wouldn't help. He ended up homeless and living on the streets. A very common story, even today. Unless you've got kids, councils have really few resources to help and often refuse point blank if you're an ex-squaddie.
  8. Budget 2017

    Yes, they did. It was still below inflation and RPI but it was better than the cap they had. The police and fire services didn't get the extra money to pay them though, they had to pay it out of their previous budget settlements.
  9. 120,000 children

    The Chancellor yesterday pledged to get rid of rough-sleeping by 2027 with it halved by 2022. I genuinely would like to see how he plans to do that. The Big Issue takes a fairly neutral view on it, maybe not wanting to be too judgemental until the fine-details are published. I can't see it myself though. With the government's own budget showing that inflation will continue to outstrip pay rises for the next five years, people will see net real-terms pay cuts for each of those five years. That's less income for people and everything else that's coming means homelessness is likely to rise.
  10. Budget 2017

    One thing missed was Phil Hammond saying the Tories' wonderful economic mastery had taken the UK out of the Top 5 world economies. Yet, Labour are the party accused of financial incompetence... go figure that one out.
  11. Milne is a disgrace and should never have been allowed near any politician in the Labour party. That alone almost disqualifies Corbyn as a credible leader.
  12. You're absolutely right, with a caveat though. Whistleblowers who are doing it for no personal profit should have the full protection of the state and an automatic assumption of immunity from prosecution. As soon as you take money for it though you should reverse the burden of proof on that immunity from prosecution, that's where this guy went wrong. His first contact with the Mirror would have been fine and should have had anonymity, but when he started taking money he broke the law, I see little problem with his conviction for taking money for his stories. I've seen it repeatedly in the NHS, whistleblowers lose their careers and are blacklisted for bringing forward public safety issues with no aim at all to profit from it. I've also seen people sell utter gossip to the media, under the guise of "whistleblowing" for it to then wreck careers of people publicly gossiped about in the press.
  13. Here's the actual text of the EDM. You do realise that the Bosnian (or Balkans) War, from which Mladic was convicted rightly of genocide, and the Kosovo War were two different things, don't you? In one, there were genuine atrocities, massacres and rightful interventions. In the other, the spin was used from the previous one that the nasty Serbs were at it again, and it worked. Edit: Every one of the Mladic indictments at the Hague were made years BEFORE the Kosovo war. Edit2: Maybe you can use that to go back to the right-wing cess-hole you got that spin from and use it to correct them.
  14. A kitten jumping on my face at 4am trying to catch a moth in the bedroom.
  15. Budget 2017

    On a roll today. The niggling things above got me to actually look again at the budget book. One thing that immediately caught my eye was on the welfare cap (Annex B). How can any ethical government include bereavement benefits in a welfare cap? I pick up that one as it was top of the list (nearly) but there are others in that list of things in-scope for the welfare cap that you really have to wonder what sort of stone-cold soul would allow. Could you ever imagine being the government employee that has to tell someone they're getting a reduction in their benefits for the rest of the year because they're too disabled, or too cold, or grieving too much. Oh, and your Christmas Bonus goes towards that cap as well. I really couldn't care what the cap is, it's the ethical nature of the things that make up the cap in the first place that bother me.