Gavin Williamson has done another whoopsie – politicalbetting.com

Selebian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I might be wrong but I believed Foxy to be a woman? Many apologies if I am wrong

All man, well he was when I met him in 2015.

Times change.

I always find it polite to make sure that I am not misgendering people, so I like to start each conversation with "[x], how nice to see you. Tell me, how do you self identify these days?"

Of course, there are limits to this. One shouldn't ask more than once (or at most twice) per day.

Welcome to California!

We have a friend with a 13 year old daughter. Said daughter has decided she's now a boy and wants to be known as "Norman".

The funny bit is that when I call her by her birth name, she's totally OK with it. Doesn't seem to bother her in the least. But when her mother calls her by it... it's breakdown from hell.

And this makes me think that (in many cases) this is all a part of teenage rebellion. (And the fact that the parents did saddle her with a rather untraditional name. And this might be a little bit revenge for that.)

My wife made an interesting point to me the other day - she said that she'd have no objections if either of our girls decided they wanted to be or are boys. But she would have an issue with them changing their names, that we spent a long time picking their name for them and that it'd be upsetting to have that name discarded.

Perhaps if someone switches their gender, their parents should pick a new name for them in their new gender, instead of picking their own?

Have had similar discussions (name change wasn't considered though!) as a relation of mine - some kind of cousin? cousin's son* - apparently told his mother that he considered himself a girl and started dressing in women's clothing. This was some years back; I'd had little contact with him and only sporadic contact with his mother although both came to our wedding. She had effectively disowned him, which horrified my wife and I and led to the discussion.

These are big decisions though, we'd support our children, but I'd certainly be concerned that it might be a manifestation of a different mental health issue and we'd try and work through that. People with gender issues are of course real and should be supported, but I think that there is a danger that people with mental health issues can latch on to anything more tangible as a cause and solution. The treatments have long term implications, even delaying puberty, so it's not s decision to be taken lightly particularly when there is a risk that the real underlying issue is different.

I hope that if we ever get to those issues (our eldest is only 3) they will be much better understood and the services much better.

*I'm using male terms as he was a boy and identified as such when I knew him. I don't know the situation now - the mother cut off contact after I expressed the opinion that she was doing the wrong thing and all I ever had for him was an email address - we emailed to offer support/a friendly ear if needed, but never heard back.

Good post. This is also basically my perspective on the situation.

What I would also say is that, in this day and age; if you disowned your children for this, then you would find yourself socially ostracised and probably cancelled. It isn't an option.

Britons oppose the decision to suspend the triple lock 32% to 22%. Tory voters split, 34% in favour, 35% opposed.

Only 18 to 24 year olds in favour of the suspension
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1435635557745504257?s=20

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

(over-simplified, but you still might regret asking - and I might get corrected by an actual expert)

Competent password management on a site means that the password is never stored, only a hash of it (which converts the password to a seemingly random - but in fact reproducible for the password - string of characters of uniform length).

When you log in, the hash of what you type in is compared to the stored hash to verify your password. If it matches, then you're in.

Insecure hashing methods (see md5) are open to manipulation so you can find collisions - i.e. different inputs that give the same hash. There are also tables of hashes of popular passwords available online - e.g. hashes of 'password'.

So, if RCS chooses a password that gives the same hash as 'password' anyone hacking PB.com for example and recovering the hashed passwords will think that RCS's password is in fact 'password' by looking it up in such a table) even though it is not. The joke is that becuase only hashes are compared, typing 'password' to log in to PB.com will get you in, as the hash matches the hash of RCS's password. Likewise on other sites, where his other unique passwords will all have a hash that lets you in if you enter 'password' as the password*. So what RCS does would make his accounts completely insecure*. Also very computationally intensive (if possible at all, depending on hashing method) to generate on demand passwords that will have a hash that collides with (matches) the hash of 'password'

*note, this shouldn't work in reality as sites should also add their own random strings to the passwords before hashing, so that the hashes for 'password' on PB.com and on google.com for example should not be the same

HYUFD said:

Britons oppose the decision to suspend the triple lock 32% to 22%. Tory voters split, 34% in favour, 35% opposed.

Only 18 to 24 year olds in favour of the suspension
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1435635557745504257?s=20

And 45% D/K which is not surprising as how many really know about the pensioner triple lock, unless they are pensioners

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

Thing is, it's always the capital "P" in Password11 that will fool the hackers.

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

I was there thinking, this is Robert making a clever joke right? Or am I just an idiot. And thus, I said nothing.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Britons oppose the decision to suspend the triple lock 32% to 22%. Tory voters split, 34% in favour, 35% opposed.

Only 18 to 24 year olds in favour of the suspension
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1435635557745504257?s=20

And 45% D/K which is not surprising as how many really know about the pensioner triple lock, unless they are pensioners

Which means the media reaction over the coming days and weeks, is going to be important in the polling.

99% of non-retired people probably don’t understand the full extent of the proposals.

TOPPING said:

NerysHughes said:

kle4 said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I might be wrong but I believed Foxy to be a woman? Many apologies if I am wrong

All man, well he was when I met him in 2015.

Times change.

I always find it polite to make sure that I am not misgendering people, so I like to start each conversation with "[x], how nice to see you. Tell me, how do you self identify these days?"

Of course, there are limits to this. One shouldn't ask more than once (or at most twice) per day.

Welcome to California!

We have a friend with a 13 year old daughter. Said daughter has decided she's now a boy and wants to be known as "Norman".

The funny bit is that when I call her by her birth name, she's totally OK with it. Doesn't seem to bother her in the least. But when her mother calls her by it... it's breakdown from hell.

And this makes me think that (in many cases) this is all a part of teenage rebellion. (And the fact that the parents did saddle her with a rather untraditional name. And this might be a little bit revenge for that.)

I doubt it is 'all' that in all cases but at times it might seem a bit trendy. I think there was a phase where celebs used to cavalierly say they were bi, which probably annoyed actual bi persons.

My friends son who is a 6ft 14 year old, probably weighing 13 stone told his mum at the start of the year that he wanted to wear womens clothes. He said that they had been talking about gender in class and he said he might want to be a girl now. She dealt with it brilliantly and just listened to him without judgement. It was all he could talk about for a month and they were at the stage of a shopping trip to get him a dress. Then one day he came home from school and said he did not want to be a girl anymore and that was the last she heard of it.

He has no feminine traits whatsoever so I just assume ot was a cool thing to say at the time.

I have a friend (a lot of "friends" here on PB on this subject ) who's child (13yrs old) is either a boy who believes they are a girl or a girl who believes they are a boy. I met his child last year at a party - hold on must have been two years ago - and the child was dressed androgenously. I recently saw a picture of them in their new (senior) school uniform and I couldn't remember/work out which way "round" the transformation was.

I do know that the school (old style public school) was pretty accommodating given the androgenous uniform the child was wearing.

I don't for one second think they are doing it because it is "cool". Although I'm sure some are. Convinced or confused would be my guess at it.

I think sensible schools are aware that in some cases it is a rebellion / phase, and in some not. So they accept as is sensible and see what happens.

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

Thing is, it's always the capital "P" in Password11 that will fool the hackers.

Ooh, so you go with Password11 rather than Password1!

I have been known to add the requisite number of "1"s depending on how long the effing password is required to be.

When I get told my password has to be eight characters then I make my password 'SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs'

I'm told that the only unacceptable password on any site is "Ivehadeffingnuffof this'

I have access to sixteen different systems at work, and each month I have to come up with a new password for each system.

I have to come up nearly 200 passwords each year, it's a bloody challenge.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

Thing is, it's always the capital "P" in Password11 that will fool the hackers.

Ooh, so you go with Password11 rather than Password1!

I have been known to add the requisite number of "1"s depending on how long the effing password is required to be.

When I get told my password has to be eight characters then I make my password 'SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs'

Needs to be “SnowWhite&The7Dwarfs”, as you need to include a number and a special character.

Although many will argue that Snow White is a special enough character on her own.

UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K

UK case summary

UK Hospitals

TheScreamingEagles said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

Thing is, it's always the capital "P" in Password11 that will fool the hackers.

Ooh, so you go with Password11 rather than Password1!

I have been known to add the requisite number of "1"s depending on how long the effing password is required to be.

When I get told my password has to be eight characters then I make my password 'SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs'

I'm told that the only unacceptable password on any site is "Ivehadeffingnuffof this'

I have access to sixteen different systems at work, and each month I have to come up with a new password for each system.

I have to come up nearly 200 passwords each year, it's a bloody challenge.

LOL, sixteen. I think I’m on 60, although some do renew quarterly rather than monthly.

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

Thing is, it's always the capital "P" in Password11 that will fool the hackers.

Ooh, so you go with Password11 rather than Password1!

Password1! is clearly more secure because it has a symbol.

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

(over-simplified, but you still might regret asking - and I might get corrected by an actual expert)

Competent password management on a site means that the password is never stored, only a hash of it (which converts the password to a seemingly random - but in fact reproducible for the password - string of characters of uniform length).

When you log in, the hash of what you type in is compared to the stored hash to verify your password. If it matches, then you're in.

Insecure hashing methods (see md5) are open to manipulation so you can find collisions - i.e. different inputs that give the same hash. There are also tables of hashes of popular passwords available online - e.g. hashes of 'password'.

So, if RCS chooses a password that gives the same hash as 'password' anyone hacking PB.com for example and recovering the hashed passwords will think that RCS's password is in fact 'password' by looking it up in such a table) even though it is not. The joke is that becuase only hashes are compared, typing 'password' to log in to PB.com will get you in, as the hash matches the hash of RCS's password. Likewise on other sites, where his other unique passwords will all have a hash that lets you in if you enter 'password' as the password*. So what RCS does would make his accounts completely insecure*. Also very computationally intensive (if possible at all, depending on hashing method) to generate on demand passwords that will have a hash that collides with (matches) the hash of 'password'

*note, this shouldn't work in reality as sites should also add their own random strings to the passwords before hashing, so that the hashes for 'password' on PB.com and on google.com for example should not be the same

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

Thank you both!

Selebian said:

Cookie said:

TOPPING said:

Cookie said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I might be wrong but I believed Foxy to be a woman? Many apologies if I am wrong

All man, well he was when I met him in 2015.

Times change.

I always find it polite to make sure that I am not misgendering people, so I like to start each conversation with "[x], how nice to see you. Tell me, how do you self identify these days?"

Of course, there are limits to this. One shouldn't ask more than once (or at most twice) per day.

Welcome to California!

We have a friend with a 13 year old daughter. Said daughter has decided she's now a boy and wants to be known as "Norman".

The funny bit is that when I call her by her birth name, she's totally OK with it. Doesn't seem to bother her in the least. But when her mother calls her by it... it's breakdown from hell.

And this makes me think that (in many cases) this is all a part of teenage rebellion. (And the fact that the parents did saddle her with a rather untraditional name. And this might be a little bit revenge for that.)

My wife made an interesting point to me the other day - she said that she'd have no objections if either of our girls decided they wanted to be or are boys. But she would have an issue with them changing their names, that we spent a long time picking their name for them and that it'd be upsetting to have that name discarded.

Perhaps if someone switches their gender, their parents should pick a new name for them in their new gender, instead of picking their own?

I would, quite frankly, be heartbroken if any of my girls decided to become boys.

Wow seriously? Why?

Because I love the people they are. And I don't want them to be unhappy with the people they are.
Because they would be doing themselves all sorts of irreversible physical harm.

I don't think I want to deny any grown adults the right to reassign their gender. The mental anguish such people must be in for this to seem an attractive option must be huge. (Though I'm not convinced in all cases gender reassignment assuages that mental anguish as anticipated.) But it's a fairly huge thing to go through. All other things being equal, living a life in which you remain the gender you started out as is the simpler and easier path. I don't want my daughters to have to go through it.

I'm slightly surprised you're surprised. I'd expect most parents to feel the same. I don't think its hopelessly antediluvian to hope that your daughters grow up to have the sort of life their parents do: i.e. find and marry some man and have children.
I want my children to be happy. And the route 1 approach is the most straightforward way to achieving that,

I have a lot of respect for that position.

Years ago (at uni, so ~ 20 years ago) I had an argument with a friend in which I said that I would prefer my (future) children not to be gay. Purely because, at that point, I believed that gay people still faced a lot of prejudice and being gay would likely mean a harder life than being heterosexual (I would have absolutely accepted and supported gay children).

Fortunately, we've moved on as a society, which means that I no longer care either way.

Well in all honesty I'd still prefer them to be straight - but only for the same reason. A close family member is a gay woman and as far as I can see this has caused her an awful lot of misery over the years. She is now, happily, after a great deal of time, expense and heartbreak, a parent, but it has been far from an easy ride. I'd hope my daughters wouldn't have to go through that. Again, the route 1 approach seems easier, cheaper and more likely to result in a happy outcome.

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

Thing is, it's always the capital "P" in Password11 that will fool the hackers.

Ooh, so you go with Password11 rather than Password1!

I have been known to add the requisite number of "1"s depending on how long the effing password is required to be.

When I get told my password has to be eight characters then I make my password 'SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs'

I'm told that the only unacceptable password on any site is "Ivehadeffingnuffof this'

I have access to sixteen different systems at work, and each month I have to come up with a new password for each system.

I have to come up nearly 200 passwords each year, it's a bloody challenge.

LOL, sixteen. I think I’m on 60, although some do renew quarterly rather than monthly.

I used to have one login/password for all sixteen systems then we hired some IT/security consultants who tested our system and decided I was a security risk if my login credentials were compromised so the solution was to give me access to all sixteen systems individually.

Turned out I was the only individual working at the company who had access to all sixteen systems, not even the board had such access.

HYUFD said:

% who agree [X] would be a better alternative for funding the NHS+social care than the gov's current plan of raising National Insurance:

Raising capital gains tax: 43%
Raising income tax: 27%
Cutting public spending: 22%
Using more money from the estates of individuals: 18%
Raising VAT: 16%
Borrowing more: 13%
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1435629242969116675?s=20
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1435602395908739072?s=20

A great surprise that the most popular target is the tax almost no-one pays and raises just enough money to feature as a statistical footnote in the accounts, and is subject to lots of avoidance.

algarkirk said:

HYUFD said:

% who agree [X] would be a better alternative for funding the NHS+social care than the gov's current plan of raising National Insurance:

Raising capital gains tax: 43%
Raising income tax: 27%
Cutting public spending: 22%
Using more money from the estates of individuals: 18%
Raising VAT: 16%
Borrowing more: 13%
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1435629242969116675?s=20
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1435602395908739072?s=20

A great surprise that the most popular target is the tax almost no-one pays and raises just enough money to feature as a statistical footnote in the accounts, and is subject to lots of avoidance.

Urgh. I'm dipping into PB as light relief from trying to work out my CGT, after realising belatedly that my unit trust has changed its procedures in a way which have made me potentially liable for it for the last 5 years. Happily no actual liability till this current year (because of other and much larger changes). But it is a pain to calculate.

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

Thing is, it's always the capital "P" in Password11 that will fool the hackers.

Ooh, so you go with Password11 rather than Password1!

I have been known to add the requisite number of "1"s depending on how long the effing password is required to be.

When I get told my password has to be eight characters then I make my password 'SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs'

I'm told that the only unacceptable password on any site is "Ivehadeffingnuffof this'

I have access to sixteen different systems at work, and each month I have to come up with a new password for each system.

I have to come up nearly 200 passwords each year, it's a bloody challenge.

LOL, sixteen. I think I’m on 60, although some do renew quarterly rather than monthly.

I used to have one login/password for all sixteen systems then we hired some IT/security consultants who tested our system and decided I was a security risk if my login credentials were compromised so the solution was to give me access to all sixteen systems individually.

Turned out I was the only individual working at the company who had access to all sixteen systems, not even the board had such access.

In almost every company I’ve encountered professionally, the board directors are the weakest link in the IT security chain.

They demand access to systems they don’t need, and demand exceptions to the rules that all other employees have to follow.

2FA always leads to fun with The Senior Manglement Team....

darkage said:

Selebian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I might be wrong but I believed Foxy to be a woman? Many apologies if I am wrong

All man, well he was when I met him in 2015.

Times change.

I always find it polite to make sure that I am not misgendering people, so I like to start each conversation with "[x], how nice to see you. Tell me, how do you self identify these days?"

Of course, there are limits to this. One shouldn't ask more than once (or at most twice) per day.

Welcome to California!

We have a friend with a 13 year old daughter. Said daughter has decided she's now a boy and wants to be known as "Norman".

The funny bit is that when I call her by her birth name, she's totally OK with it. Doesn't seem to bother her in the least. But when her mother calls her by it... it's breakdown from hell.

And this makes me think that (in many cases) this is all a part of teenage rebellion. (And the fact that the parents did saddle her with a rather untraditional name. And this might be a little bit revenge for that.)

My wife made an interesting point to me the other day - she said that she'd have no objections if either of our girls decided they wanted to be or are boys. But she would have an issue with them changing their names, that we spent a long time picking their name for them and that it'd be upsetting to have that name discarded.

Perhaps if someone switches their gender, their parents should pick a new name for them in their new gender, instead of picking their own?

Have had similar discussions (name change wasn't considered though!) as a relation of mine - some kind of cousin? cousin's son* - apparently told his mother that he considered himself a girl and started dressing in women's clothing. This was some years back; I'd had little contact with him and only sporadic contact with his mother although both came to our wedding. She had effectively disowned him, which horrified my wife and I and led to the discussion.

These are big decisions though, we'd support our children, but I'd certainly be concerned that it might be a manifestation of a different mental health issue and we'd try and work through that. People with gender issues are of course real and should be supported, but I think that there is a danger that people with mental health issues can latch on to anything more tangible as a cause and solution. The treatments have long term implications, even delaying puberty, so it's not s decision to be taken lightly particularly when there is a risk that the real underlying issue is different.

I hope that if we ever get to those issues (our eldest is only 3) they will be much better understood and the services much better.

*I'm using male terms as he was a boy and identified as such when I knew him. I don't know the situation now - the mother cut off contact after I expressed the opinion that she was doing the wrong thing and all I ever had for him was an email address - we emailed to offer support/a friendly ear if needed, but never heard back.

Good post. This is also basically my perspective on the situation.

What I would also say is that, in this day and age; if you disowned your children for this, then you would find yourself socially ostracised and probably cancelled. It isn't an option.

It’s more socially acceptable to disown them for being a Tory.

Selebian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I might be wrong but I believed Foxy to be a woman? Many apologies if I am wrong

All man, well he was when I met him in 2015.

Times change.

I always find it polite to make sure that I am not misgendering people, so I like to start each conversation with "[x], how nice to see you. Tell me, how do you self identify these days?"

Of course, there are limits to this. One shouldn't ask more than once (or at most twice) per day.

Welcome to California!

We have a friend with a 13 year old daughter. Said daughter has decided she's now a boy and wants to be known as "Norman".

The funny bit is that when I call her by her birth name, she's totally OK with it. Doesn't seem to bother her in the least. But when her mother calls her by it... it's breakdown from hell.

And this makes me think that (in many cases) this is all a part of teenage rebellion. (And the fact that the parents did saddle her with a rather untraditional name. And this might be a little bit revenge for that.)

My wife made an interesting point to me the other day - she said that she'd have no objections if either of our girls decided they wanted to be or are boys. But she would have an issue with them changing their names, that we spent a long time picking their name for them and that it'd be upsetting to have that name discarded.

Perhaps if someone switches their gender, their parents should pick a new name for them in their new gender, instead of picking their own?

Have had similar discussions (name change wasn't considered though!) as a relation of mine - some kind of cousin? cousin's son* - apparently told his mother that he considered himself a girl and started dressing in women's clothing. This was some years back; I'd had little contact with him and only sporadic contact with his mother although both came to our wedding. She had effectively disowned him, which horrified my wife and I and led to the discussion.

These are big decisions though, we'd support our children, but I'd certainly be concerned that it might be a manifestation of a different mental health issue and we'd try and work through that. People with gender issues are of course real and should be supported, but I think that there is a danger that people with mental health issues can latch on to anything more tangible as a cause and solution. The treatments have long term implications, even delaying puberty, so it's not s decision to be taken lightly particularly when there is a risk that the real underlying issue is different.

I hope that if we ever get to those issues (our eldest is only 3) they will be much better understood and the services much better.

*I'm using male terms as he was a boy and identified as such when I knew him. I don't know the situation now - the mother cut off contact after I expressed the opinion that she was doing the wrong thing and all I ever had for him was an email address - we emailed to offer support/a friendly ear if needed, but never heard back.

That's sad.

In my family I don't know anyone who is trans, but I do have a cousin whom if they were to say they are it wouldn't surprise me. In fact I don't think it would surprise many people, be one of those "we always knew" kind of things if they did say that.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Britons oppose the decision to suspend the triple lock 32% to 22%. Tory voters split, 34% in favour, 35% opposed.

Only 18 to 24 year olds in favour of the suspension
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1435635557745504257?s=20

And 45% D/K which is not surprising as how many really know about the pensioner triple lock, unless they are pensioners

Which means the media reaction over the coming days and weeks, is going to be important in the polling.

99% of non-retired people probably don’t understand the full extent of the proposals.

99 per cent of non-retired people (or lots of them anyway) do not understand that their future pension is partly determined by decisions taken now, and that their pension would have been higher if the triple lock had been followed, as increases are compounded. The media have done everyone a disservice, and the government has been very clever, in presenting this as only benefiting those already retired.

As if today's twenty year olds give a stuff about the state pension being higher in the final quarter of the century. They probably reckon, if they think about the subject at all, that the retirement age will be about 80 by the time they finally catch up with the ratchet. Either that or the welfare system will already have gone bust by that point. And they may well be right.

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

Thing is, it's always the capital "P" in Password11 that will fool the hackers.

Ooh, so you go with Password11 rather than Password1!

I have been known to add the requisite number of "1"s depending on how long the effing password is required to be.

When I get told my password has to be eight characters then I make my password 'SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs'

I'm told that the only unacceptable password on any site is "Ivehadeffingnuffof this'

I have access to sixteen different systems at work, and each month I have to come up with a new password for each system.

I have to come up nearly 200 passwords each year, it's a bloody challenge.

LOL, sixteen. I think I’m on 60, although some do renew quarterly rather than monthly.

I used to have one login/password for all sixteen systems then we hired some IT/security consultants who tested our system and decided I was a security risk if my login credentials were compromised so the solution was to give me access to all sixteen systems individually.

Turned out I was the only individual working at the company who had access to all sixteen systems, not even the board had such access.

In almost every company I’ve encountered professionally, the board directors are the weakest link in the IT security chain.

They demand access to systems they don’t need, and demand exceptions to the rules that all other employees have to follow.

Because remembering X different passwords is hard especially when you rarely use them.

My default advice here is to use a password manager to store everything and allow it to generate random passwords as otherwise it's a world of pain when a system gets compromised.

algarkirk said:

HYUFD said:

% who agree [X] would be a better alternative for funding the NHS+social care than the gov's current plan of raising National Insurance:

Raising capital gains tax: 43%
Raising income tax: 27%
Cutting public spending: 22%
Using more money from the estates of individuals: 18%
Raising VAT: 16%
Borrowing more: 13%
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1435629242969116675?s=20
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1435602395908739072?s=20

A great surprise that the most popular target is the tax almost no-one pays and raises just enough money to feature as a statistical footnote in the accounts, and is subject to lots of avoidance.

Not a surprise that the only plausible solution (wealth ) isn't mentioned at all.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The ability for humans to create secure passwords is surely something we can evolutionarily adapt to

I suspect passwords will eventually go the way of the dinosaur...

On security:

More than two decades ago, a place I know implemented its own security and alarm system - apparently it was an experiment to see whether it was a business area they wanted to move into.

It was all rather a mess. Firstly, locks were put on the doors leading into the toilets, so you had to wave your security card at an RFID receiver to get in and out. People complained, because it potentially gave the management the chance to see how long people were spending on loo breaks.

Then there was an incident one weekend. Some engineers were working when the alarm was triggered. All the doors locked. Because some idiots had designed it as a fail-secure, not fail-safe system, they were trapped in their parts of the building. The site security guard was also locked in, and could not reset the system. In the end a couple of engineers had to smash the window into a server room, climb in, and reboot the computer. Only then did the doors unlock.

The system was abandoned, and an alarm firm further up the road came in to do a proper job ...

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Raducanu, balls of steel that lass...Saves 3 break points by pulling out blazing shots like she is practising down the local park.

How often in an Olympic year has SPOTY gone to a non-Olympian?

She won't win it regardless of what happens in the US Open, but she has something special....again crucial 30/30, smashes a perfect Ace.

The best seem to get better when the pressure is being turned up.

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Raducanu, balls of steel that lass...Saves 3 break points by pulling out blazing shots like she is practising down the local park.

How often in an Olympic year has SPOTY gone to a non-Olympian?

Damon Hill was the last, in the dreadful Olympic year that was 1996.

Maybe in fairness all humans look alike to his spider. Whilst it is unfair to blame the spider for all of his mistakes who can doubt that he is in day to day charge?

eek said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If anyone does work for one of these companies, I suggest resigning and sending an email to the Information Commissioner (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I recall one Dido Harding oversaw such a security failure at TalkTalk, whatever happened to her?

What companies - without any quote - I haven't a clue what you are on about.

Companies that do the following:

Don't use encryption of any kind
Store passwords as plain text
Use unsecured and/or publicly accessible db environments

And these companies exist

All my passwords are different, and I algorithmically generate them so their hashes collide with "password" for added security.

What does that last clause mean, please??

OK...

Proper computer systems don't store plain text passwords. So, they'll have a table in their database that has:

username, password
rcs1000, 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99

Now, "5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99" is not the actual password, but is instead what's called a "hash". That is, it is the output of a function - in this case the MD5 hashing function for the string "password". The reason for this is that if someone breaks into your system and downloads the database, you don't want them to be able to see the actual passwords. Them only knowing the hashes of them makes it more secure.

However, the joke is that there will be multiple inputs that all generate the same hashing output - perhaps thousands of strings (or even millions if you let your string length expand sufficiently) - as 'password'.

By using complex passwords that share the same hash as "password", I actually have a massive security problem, because people wouldn't need to guess my actual passwords, they could just type "password".

It's the best cryptography joke I've ever come up with...

Thing is, it's always the capital "P" in Password11 that will fool the hackers.

Ooh, so you go with Password11 rather than Password1!

I have been known to add the requisite number of "1"s depending on how long the effing password is required to be.

When I get told my password has to be eight characters then I make my password 'SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs'

I'm told that the only unacceptable password on any site is "Ivehadeffingnuffof this'

I have access to sixteen different systems at work, and each month I have to come up with a new password for each system.

I have to come up nearly 200 passwords each year, it's a bloody challenge.

LOL, sixteen. I think I’m on 60, although some do renew quarterly rather than monthly.

I used to have one login/password for all sixteen systems then we hired some IT/security consultants who tested our system and decided I was a security risk if my login credentials were compromised so the solution was to give me access to all sixteen systems individually.

Turned out I was the only individual working at the company who had access to all sixteen systems, not even the board had such access.

In almost every company I’ve encountered professionally, the board directors are the weakest link in the IT security chain.

They demand access to systems they don’t need, and demand exceptions to the rules that all other employees have to follow.

Because remembering X different passwords is hard especially when you rarely use them.

My default advice here is to use a password manager to store everything and allow it to generate random passwords as otherwise it's a world of pain when a system gets compromised.

Even that can be a pain when some applications do not allow passwords to be pasted in, and the password manager has generated a password including characters not available to your outsourced Ukrainian staff with their funny keyboards.

Malmesbury said:

On COVID - vaccine effects....



So, the cases have fallen to level(ish) state (31st August onward) among the vaccinated groups. Pretty much perfectly in order of the level of vaccination per age group, as well.....

Meanwhile the 5-9, 10-14 and 15-19 groups are going up.

Presumably if that pattern holds firm for another week or two (caveat: I don't know how far universities will go in trying to force students to use Covid tests, which would send the 20-24 numbers flying as well,) then we'll have a good indicator that the youth casedemic isn't about to filter through into mass hospitalisation and death amongst the middle aged and the olds?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Raducanu, balls of steel that lass...Saves 3 break points by pulling out blazing shots like she is practising down the local park.

How often in an Olympic year has SPOTY gone to a non-Olympian?

She won't win it regardless of what happens in the US Open, but she has something special....again crucial 30/30, smashes a perfect Ace.

The best seem to get better when the pressure is being turned up.

Yes, the US Open is not on proper telly so it doesn't count except that she may pick up some adverts on the back of this. At the moment, Emma Radacanu is not even the British number one, or even number two, though she should go top when the rankings are recalculated.

ETA and this morning, Bencic was favourite to win this match.

Northern_Al said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I might be wrong but I believed Foxy to be a woman? Many apologies if I am wrong

All man, well he was when I met him in 2015.

Thanks for the credit on the header TSE. I feel like my life's work is now complete.

Which it surely is. Only way is down after this.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Raducanu, balls of steel that lass...Saves 3 break points by pulling out blazing shots like she is practising down the local park.

How often in an Olympic year has SPOTY gone to a non-Olympian?

She won't win it regardless of what happens in the US Open, but she has something special....again crucial 30/30, smashes a perfect Ace.

The best seem to get better when the pressure is being turned up.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of her winning it if she wins the US Open.

The amount of affection and support she won from Wimbledon was incredible - and if she follows that up with a Grand Slam she'll be a champion too. She has a great PR machine behind her . . . I could definitely see her winning SPOTY if she wins the US Open.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Even that can be a pain when some applications do not allow passwords to be pasted in, and the password manager has generated a password including characters not available to your outsourced Ukrainian staff with their funny keyboards.

Blocking password pasting is another thing that the NCSC recommends against.

There is some genuinely very good advice at the NCSC, and for more technical recommendations NIST does a lot of good work. It would be nice if businesses took notice.

pigeon said:

Raducanu now 6-3, 3-2 up with a break, after Bencic double faults...

Watching on Amazon but picture is a bit jumpy

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Raducanu, balls of steel that lass...Saves 3 break points by pulling out blazing shots like she is practising down the local park.

How often in an Olympic year has SPOTY gone to a non-Olympian?

She won't win it regardless of what happens in the US Open, but she has something special....again crucial 30/30, smashes a perfect Ace.

The best seem to get better when the pressure is being turned up.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of her winning it if she wins the US Open.

The amount of affection and support she won from Wimbledon was incredible - and if she follows that up with a Grand Slam she'll be a champion too. She has a great PR machine behind her . . . I could definitely see her winning SPOTY if she wins the US Open.

9/2 now which is too short imo. Someone tipped her at 20/1 recently on pb, I think. Same price for her to win the US Open!

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

Raducanu now 6-3, 3-2 up with a break, after Bencic double faults...

Watching on Amazon but picture is a bit jumpy

Might be your internet connection, mine's clear and consistent.

Bencic is really having to fight to try to stay in this.

Reminds me of the time OGH told me off for mixing him up with TSE!

I made that up by the way

What channel # is GB News.....if I have jinked her.....I will be sent to watch it right?

FrancisUrquhart said:

What channel # is GB News.....if I have jinked her.....I will be sent to watch it right?

236 on freeview.

FrancisUrquhart said:

What channel # is GB News.....if I have jinked her.....I will be sent to watch it right?

All OK no GB News for you

FrancisUrquhart said:

What channel # is GB News.....if I have jinked her.....I will be sent to watch it right?

Sky 666

Chameleon said:

Bencic's head's gone. 4 straight unforced errors at 0-30 up. Raducanu's opponents just seem to mentally disintegrate.

You just had to say that, didn't you?

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

On security:

More than two decades ago, a place I know implemented its own security and alarm system - apparently it was an experiment to see whether it was a business area they wanted to move into.

It was all rather a mess. Firstly, locks were put on the doors leading into the toilets, so you had to wave your security card at an RFID receiver to get in and out. People complained, because it potentially gave the management the chance to see how long people were spending on loo breaks.

Then there was an incident one weekend. Some engineers were working when the alarm was triggered. All the doors locked. Because some idiots had designed it as a fail-secure, not fail-safe system, they were trapped in their parts of the building. The site security guard was also locked in, and could not reset the system. In the end a couple of engineers had to smash the window into a server room, climb in, and reboot the computer. Only then did the doors unlock.

The system was abandoned, and an alarm firm further up the road came in to do a proper job ...

Who the hell would implement a fail-secure system, on a building that wasn’t a prison or MI5 HQ?

Doesn’t come close to meeting any known building code.

And their server room had a window? There’s your security hole, right there.

This was back in 1997/8 period, when things were a little different. But yes, failing secure was insane. Especially as the system was designed in their spare time by a couple of engineers (AIUI). I don't think they had a spec aside from 'build an alarm system'. The window was an internal one, inside the building; not an external one.

If there'd been a fire and the system failed (power cut?) we'd have been toast.

Oh, and the computer controlling the system might have been running a development version of the OS, not a stable one. Just to add to the hilarity.

Sounds like an episode of the mid/late 1990s BBC TV drama Bugs. Precisely the sort of thing that used to happen on the show.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Boris Johnson telling Tory MPs at the 1922 “we must never forget… we are the party of low taxation” - the day after announcing a £12bn tax hike on workers to fund NHS and social care

https://twitter.com/singharj/status/1435651577633820681

Boris Johnson is committed to "low taxation" in the same way he's committed to "libertarianism".

They're things he cares about only as far as they directly affect himself.

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1435657220491026438

I would have said 'in the same way he's committed to marital vows.'

MAtch point!

Told you, balls of steel......30/30, maasive ace, match point, hits net, totally calm....