Oh my god!
Whoever wrote the later series of Charmed (4th Season onward) completely runined the character of Phobe :(.
The love whole story between a Demon and a Good Witch (Cole and Phoebe) is/was timeless (and should have ended in a win for the power of love.. should of). In the first, second and even third seasons it was explored so vividly and so well (with love conquering all against great odds). The up's and down's, the mistakes and the forgiveness.
Then, the Seer arrives and maniplulates the couple (which was not in of itself a bad direction for the plot). Love then proceeds to fly out the window and the whole series decends into a pointless re-living of earlier events (and in essence basic story concepts of Cole plotting subitly) and attempts to turn Cole back into the evil character he once was. Though at each stage its the actions of Pheobe that turns Cole more and more evil (whilst she is excused of her own evil and making cole feel he can be nothing but).
All the charm went out of Charmed!
Pheobe and Page's characters are made to appear to be total sluts going from one seemingly loveless bedding to the next (though some small amount of effection is always involved) and all the witches are painted as blameless and good no matter what they do whilst a Demon (who infact often behaves far better than any of the witches, is evil).
It left me feeling I should be getting in touch with my inner demon as the Demon sets a better example than the girls. Maybe its a bitter writer trying to say its better to be demonic than good O_o but this is hardly a moral to live by, nor one I would support.
Just to be clear, I don't think theres anything wrong with a strong female character, but its hardly strong sleeping with a range of men (who all want to sleep with the girl) and the character keeping moving on to the next. To many "males" of this world its their idea of the ideal girl i'm sure *rolls eyes*.
At least Pipers character remained strong and thats probably the only thing compeling me to keep watching (as I need something I can relate to / sympathise with). Piper stays true to love without ceasing to be faithful and loving to her partner.
The whole Cole-Pheobe love story was so complelling and filled with the best and sometimes the most challenging aspects of true love.
Only eventually to paint true love as pointless and evil in the later episodes.
"Pheobe has become the architypal loveless slut" would be a fair quote for the seasons past season 3.
Which is such a shame because Phoebes started out as a powerfull woman living by her own rules. Which didn't initially mean a lack of love. She started out as strong and independent, willfull and loving. I am not sure what she became but it wasn't the original Phoebe. Maybe its more realistic and thats why I don't like it... I guess that could be fair to say.
Monday, 20 December 2010
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Recommendations to increase your personal privacy
I am very concerned with my pesonal privacy. What I decide to search for is my very own business and noone elses. Only these days everyone wants to make it their business.
This is largely something unavoidable. Though there are ways to prevent unintended breaches of privacy.
Google is a great search engine, but, it completely invades your privacy as much as the law will allow.
Whenever you use a modern browser with Google the site stores all the unique information about your browser (there can be valid reasons for doing this, there is no requirement to do so for a search service except to support user tracking for its ad's, and, hence, tracking of you as an individual). Sure its not tied to your name but I don't like it at all. Secondly, when using modern browsers, everything you type into the search box gets sent to google immidiately (to provide you with an as you type search, if your feeling generous to google). Again, this is crap, many a time I've accidently typed a private URL into their search box only to curse as it was already too late.
So, for a solution I recommend the following:
Add http://www.google.co.uk/ to your restricted websites. You will still be able to use the search facility but Google will now only receive information after you have accepted a prompt to transmit it and furthur no google related browser scripted components will run.
Google have made their own bed on this one and I fully recommend to everyone to do this!
Google became great by respecting the public and providing clean and simple search results. Now Google is big business and feels little need to respect the public beyond the minimum necessary to keep us using their service. Given that this is their attitude, I say your going to get the minimum necessary information from ME to use YOUR service.
The end.
This is largely something unavoidable. Though there are ways to prevent unintended breaches of privacy.
Google is a great search engine, but, it completely invades your privacy as much as the law will allow.
Whenever you use a modern browser with Google the site stores all the unique information about your browser (there can be valid reasons for doing this, there is no requirement to do so for a search service except to support user tracking for its ad's, and, hence, tracking of you as an individual). Sure its not tied to your name but I don't like it at all. Secondly, when using modern browsers, everything you type into the search box gets sent to google immidiately (to provide you with an as you type search, if your feeling generous to google). Again, this is crap, many a time I've accidently typed a private URL into their search box only to curse as it was already too late.
So, for a solution I recommend the following:
Add http://www.google.co.uk/ to your restricted websites. You will still be able to use the search facility but Google will now only receive information after you have accepted a prompt to transmit it and furthur no google related browser scripted components will run.
Google have made their own bed on this one and I fully recommend to everyone to do this!
Google became great by respecting the public and providing clean and simple search results. Now Google is big business and feels little need to respect the public beyond the minimum necessary to keep us using their service. Given that this is their attitude, I say your going to get the minimum necessary information from ME to use YOUR service.
The end.
Monday, 29 November 2010
Windows Security
Windows Security is pretty good. The UI for managing the security is sometimes very poor. Any Administrator who is trying to manage permissions on complex directory trees will know the sense of frustration I experience when being presented with a dialog like the following:
Whats required here is the option for the Administrator to provide sufficient system credentials to circumvent this "Access Denied" issue (or if it is behaviour by design, a full description on why these permissions are thought not to be changable).
The reason is probably that some permissions in the ACL are set not to be inheritable (e.g. not to propergate above this folder). The error message does not give the Administrator the clue that this is the issue.
Security permission control should be simple. Make is so Microsoft, please.
Which as you can see is completely useless to the administrator. This box is usually seen when using the option:
Whats required here is the option for the Administrator to provide sufficient system credentials to circumvent this "Access Denied" issue (or if it is behaviour by design, a full description on why these permissions are thought not to be changable).
The reason is probably that some permissions in the ACL are set not to be inheritable (e.g. not to propergate above this folder). The error message does not give the Administrator the clue that this is the issue.
Security permission control should be simple. Make is so Microsoft, please.
FaceBook fails users AGAIN (privacy failing)
I am so *£%#@ off right now. I already setup my privacy settings ONCE to disallow public access to my account BUT FaceBook has gone through a back door to enable that access.
How so? Well, whilst I setup my account settings to be all "Friends Only", APPARENTLY FaceBook author (feel like telling him to go *£%#off) feels the "general public" are my friend so allowed the world to see my name and a list of my friends (which has lead to an unhealthy amount of new spam which lead me to find out the source of this spam).
Heres a heads up for all facebook users, vital personal information (in this case your name and a list of people who are your friends) is being made publicly available by your FaceBook account. Yes.. I repeat publicly available.
Please PLEASE follow the following steps to prevent this before you too become another hit on Google (and therefore the primary target of spammers!).
Goto the "Account" drop down in the top left of your FaceBook page. Click "Privacy Settings" and you should be taken to the following page:
In the section "Public Search" click "Edit Settings".
Untick the box which contains the "Enable Public Search".
How so? Well, whilst I setup my account settings to be all "Friends Only", APPARENTLY FaceBook author (feel like telling him to go *£%#off) feels the "general public" are my friend so allowed the world to see my name and a list of my friends (which has lead to an unhealthy amount of new spam which lead me to find out the source of this spam).
Heres a heads up for all facebook users, vital personal information (in this case your name and a list of people who are your friends) is being made publicly available by your FaceBook account. Yes.. I repeat publicly available.
Please PLEASE follow the following steps to prevent this before you too become another hit on Google (and therefore the primary target of spammers!).
Goto the "Account" drop down in the top left of your FaceBook page. Click "Privacy Settings" and you should be taken to the following page:
Click on the "Edit your Settings" button next to the "Application and Websites" at the bottom of the screen.
In the section "Public Search" click "Edit Settings".
Untick the box which contains the "Enable Public Search".
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Grand Theft Auto IV
This is the worst game in the GTA series yet (so far).
First off theres the massively invasive installation process which forces you to play online (or at the least forces you to require an internet connection to use the product).
Right, so for now I've put up with that s**t on the basis, hey maybe the game makes the loss of personal privacy worth it? (hah).
So, I am playing the game... unlike the other GTA's (which where suggestive and excitingly unconventional and to be fair down right criminal hehe) this game just comes across as lude, crude, rude and somewhat offensive.
Within the first converstation between the main character and his cousine many sensiblities are down right offended. Now, I realise thats part of the ethos of the game genera, but frankly previously it was done with alot of class. This introduction is just plain "base", it might be more realistic, but I don't want to REALLY be a criminal. I want to PLAY at the exciting parts of the fantasy of Crime (thats why I play). This incarnation of the game so far seems to completely miss this concept.
Graphically the game is good, but, I bought the game months and months ago but only reciently upgraded with a machine good enough to play it. Now, bear in mind my old machine was no slouch. It was a Pentium D 3.2ghz with a Nvidia GTO 7900. Sufficient for many lush games (like BioShock and Batman). Though failed for GTA IV.
Now my new setup runs it fine, but what a disapointment.
The MOST annoying thing though, the thing that made me quit the game in disgust, is the completely control freak nature of the new system.
In the older GTA games the joy of the game is not doing what your told the freedom of those games is massive and frankly very exciting. I thought this would be a given for the new game so the first thing I do is ignore my "cousin" and wander off to explore. At this stage, without the irritating dialog, the games looking pretty exciting again. However, just as I am enjoying myself, the game cuts me off mid pummel and says "You have abandoned your cousine" and then RESETS ME back to the car.
OH MY GOD! How shit can you get!
I will probably try the game again at some stage but that experience has put me right off.
First off theres the massively invasive installation process which forces you to play online (or at the least forces you to require an internet connection to use the product).
Right, so for now I've put up with that s**t on the basis, hey maybe the game makes the loss of personal privacy worth it? (hah).
So, I am playing the game... unlike the other GTA's (which where suggestive and excitingly unconventional and to be fair down right criminal hehe) this game just comes across as lude, crude, rude and somewhat offensive.
Within the first converstation between the main character and his cousine many sensiblities are down right offended. Now, I realise thats part of the ethos of the game genera, but frankly previously it was done with alot of class. This introduction is just plain "base", it might be more realistic, but I don't want to REALLY be a criminal. I want to PLAY at the exciting parts of the fantasy of Crime (thats why I play). This incarnation of the game so far seems to completely miss this concept.
Graphically the game is good, but, I bought the game months and months ago but only reciently upgraded with a machine good enough to play it. Now, bear in mind my old machine was no slouch. It was a Pentium D 3.2ghz with a Nvidia GTO 7900. Sufficient for many lush games (like BioShock and Batman). Though failed for GTA IV.
Now my new setup runs it fine, but what a disapointment.
The MOST annoying thing though, the thing that made me quit the game in disgust, is the completely control freak nature of the new system.
In the older GTA games the joy of the game is not doing what your told the freedom of those games is massive and frankly very exciting. I thought this would be a given for the new game so the first thing I do is ignore my "cousin" and wander off to explore. At this stage, without the irritating dialog, the games looking pretty exciting again. However, just as I am enjoying myself, the game cuts me off mid pummel and says "You have abandoned your cousine" and then RESETS ME back to the car.
OH MY GOD! How shit can you get!
I will probably try the game again at some stage but that experience has put me right off.
Windows L(Spy)ive
I only need to mention two technologies, SecuRom and Windows Live. Two of the most public and invasive technologies created today (who thought Steem would look innocent by comparison).
So, SecuRom installs a kernel component to give itself root level access to your system (even more priviledged that the user and able to bypass any and all security measures you may have in place). Windows Live installs a swath of processes all of which want to be very chatty about the fact that you have Windows Live installed (to the joy of any system hacker, its like installing a process saying "pick me, pick me, I have a gianormous attack footprint").
So, SecuRom installs a kernel component to give itself root level access to your system (even more priviledged that the user and able to bypass any and all security measures you may have in place). Windows Live installs a swath of processes all of which want to be very chatty about the fact that you have Windows Live installed (to the joy of any system hacker, its like installing a process saying "pick me, pick me, I have a gianormous attack footprint").
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Comodo = Software Leak?
Now I've got a lot of good things to say about Comodo Internet Security suite. Firstly it has proper 32bit and 64bit versions and has for some time now. Secondly its feature "Defense+" is possibly the most comprehensive and ambitious pro-active security solution ever (though you really need to be a computer developer to make the most from it).
Now for the whine:
Defense+ includes a section called "Pending Files" which I hadn't really investigated much until today (that is Comodo Internet Security version 4.1.1500349.920). This section reportedly maintains a list of unrecognised executable files (which on the surface seems fine). It gives the option to submit these unrecognised files to Comodo (presumably for approval or whatever).
So, today I was investigating a Virus Report from the engine. Comodo has had a bit of a spotted history with its Anti-Virus solution. Specifically if is quite prone to false or incorrect reports. So, I was attempting to validate its claim using http://www.totalvirus.com/ which seems like a good site. Whilst I was looking into this I came across "My Pending Files" and I looked and there where a list of executables (fair enough) and amoung them some of my own peices of software.
Then I looked again, and noticed that 2 of the files in the list had been "submitted" to Comodo. I was not aware of ever agreed to this! One of these files was an application I develop that contained propritory code I would very much not like to distribute anywhere for any reason. Whilst I'm not saying Comodo are going to be stealing code, they are probably going to be performing a threat analysis upon the executable in question and to do that understanding its function and purpose is key. So, then they will understand the function and purpose of my propriotory code and well, if you understand something you use that knowledge!
This, to me, is a serious risk of software leak. One I felt I was not given the option to prevent (or at least there was no clear warning it would be sending this file out).
So in summary. If your a software developer, Defense+ is both a boon and a danger. I am not going to disable it because it does guard my system well in all other respects.
This post on their forums has also pacified me for now :
http://forums.comodo.com/help_for_v3/how_do_i_disable_my_pending_files-t15799.0.html;msg124795
Lastly at least it DID tell me it had leaked my executable. I will be keeping a close eye on it in future and possibly doing my development on a different machine to my internet connected system.
Now for the whine:
Defense+ includes a section called "Pending Files" which I hadn't really investigated much until today (that is Comodo Internet Security version 4.1.1500349.920). This section reportedly maintains a list of unrecognised executable files (which on the surface seems fine). It gives the option to submit these unrecognised files to Comodo (presumably for approval or whatever).
So, today I was investigating a Virus Report from the engine. Comodo has had a bit of a spotted history with its Anti-Virus solution. Specifically if is quite prone to false or incorrect reports. So, I was attempting to validate its claim using http://www.totalvirus.com/ which seems like a good site. Whilst I was looking into this I came across "My Pending Files" and I looked and there where a list of executables (fair enough) and amoung them some of my own peices of software.
Then I looked again, and noticed that 2 of the files in the list had been "submitted" to Comodo. I was not aware of ever agreed to this! One of these files was an application I develop that contained propritory code I would very much not like to distribute anywhere for any reason. Whilst I'm not saying Comodo are going to be stealing code, they are probably going to be performing a threat analysis upon the executable in question and to do that understanding its function and purpose is key. So, then they will understand the function and purpose of my propriotory code and well, if you understand something you use that knowledge!
This, to me, is a serious risk of software leak. One I felt I was not given the option to prevent (or at least there was no clear warning it would be sending this file out).
So in summary. If your a software developer, Defense+ is both a boon and a danger. I am not going to disable it because it does guard my system well in all other respects.
This post on their forums has also pacified me for now :
http://forums.comodo.com/help_for_v3/how_do_i_disable_my_pending_files-t15799.0.html;msg124795
Lastly at least it DID tell me it had leaked my executable. I will be keeping a close eye on it in future and possibly doing my development on a different machine to my internet connected system.
AMMENDIUM: I now noticed this:
The "Submit the file to COMODO for analyis" button must have been checked when I was wanting / expecting to check / select "Do this for every" checkbox from the older Comodo dialog. So, sadly, I guess I have been my own leak. Still far to easy to do and no way to disable this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)