alexmuller

7 ms·

1.
by alexmuller 3y ago
There's some recent good news about this in a GitHub issue: https://github.com/openbenches/openbenches.org/issues/232
2.
by alexmuller 10y ago
> it'd be great if GDS would stop with the ridiculous forced password recipes across gov.uk sites. GDS isn't enforcing weird password policies across government. This is the advice GDS publishes on passwords: https:/&#x2F
3.
by alexmuller 10y ago
Rules for cyclists in the UK: At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors
4.
by alexmuller 12y ago
I couldn't disagree more with the author about appended URLs being a problem. A print stylesheet is exactly when you want URLs to be displayed in the text of the page, because there's no other way to find out where that underlin
5.
by alexmuller 13y ago
Content-Security-Policy is doing something vaguely similar with <script> tags, where you add a nonce in the HTTP header and then only <script nonce='foo'> tags with those nonces are executed. script-src at http:/
6.
by alexmuller 13y ago
The new Fastmail webmail interface is actually massively on-par with Gmail. It's very slick and I'd encourage everyone to give it a(nother) go.
7.
by alexmuller 14y ago
Right, but they also store the decryption key -- your Inky password. Which is (presumably?) encrypted… somehow? Maybe?
8.
Designing for Receipt Printers(labs.newsint.co.uk)
3 points by alexmuller 14y ago|0 comments
9.
by alexmuller 14y ago
The cost of the product seems ok ($20 on Kickstarter, probably a little more later), but the lack of information on film pricing is a bit concerning. Especially after you include shipping from the US to the UK (in my case).
10.
by alexmuller 14y ago
Ah, dead on! Those user figures are from August this year but the revenue is listed as 2011. Thanks.
11.
by alexmuller 14y ago
I must be missing something here with regards to revenue. Spotify has 15 million users, 4 million of whom are paid subscribers. So 11 million free users. They have two paid plans: $60/year and $120/year. If we assume the following structure
12.
by alexmuller 14y ago
This is exactly what I'm seeing. I just spent half an hour on the phone with my friend going over public posts from 2007 saying "WOAH, did we _really_ say that in public?". Every one was public. There were no examples of private messages sh
13.
by alexmuller 14y ago
As far as I can tell, this offers no way to use Google Authenticator. Only the Facebook for Android app.
14.
by alexmuller 14y ago
While nice, it would be trivial to send you to prison for doing that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act_1990#The_C...
15.
by alexmuller 14y ago
> For example, is there any harm in changing where that contact us form points to? The point could more be made: "Why not keep that URL the same?" It's trivial to do technically, and there's no advantage to be had from moving back and f
16.
by alexmuller 14y ago
Theoretically, sure. But I can't think of a nice way to authorise users on something like [1]. They'd then need a computer with the radio to provide some kind of access code, I guess? [1] http://www.robertsradio.co.uk/Products/Internet_rad
17.
by alexmuller 14y ago
Desktop release notes are at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin/ReleaseNotes/UbuntuD...
18.
by alexmuller 14y ago
They've got that covered: > The column on the right provides a short explanation of the terms of use and is not legally binding.
19.
by alexmuller 15y ago
Yep, I thought exactly the same thing. Didn't notice the strikethrough (it's almost invisible on iPad) before reading the other comments here.
20.
by alexmuller 15y ago
I tested using the login form on huffduffer.com, which does exactly that.
21.
by alexmuller 15y ago
Tested Firefox and Chrome, they both clear the password field but leave the username. I'd be interested to hear if there is a browser that leaves the password field intact.
22.
by alexmuller 15y ago
The GitHub app never felt amazing before. I don't know if anyone else had the same experience I did, but it was forever doing weird things when redrawing the window. All gone. I'm always surprised by how software can feel so, so much better
23.
by alexmuller 15y ago
And I guess this is why established brands are so uptight about other companies or services using their names. I had no idea this was a 3rd party until seeing this article.
24.
by alexmuller 15y ago
And to expand a little on what mbreese said, the basic, fundamental idea behind the URL is for a client to indicate to a server what resource it's trying to access. So it's totally broken by that #!. http://isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/Br
25.
by alexmuller 15y ago
> A Freedom of Information request to get the full list, Although (as far as I know) the FOI Act only applied to public bodies (government and organisations like universities). So O2 wouldn't need to comply with a request under that act
26.
by alexmuller 15y ago
Let's not forget Vodafone, who released an update for Android at about the same time 2.2 was arriving. Only it wasn't 2.2, it was a whole load of Vodafone-branded cruft for 2.1 that couldn't be removed. http://www.itpro.co.uk/625774/vodafo
27.
by alexmuller 15y ago
From the PDF transcript, page nine: Caller: No, it’s absolutely free, free of charge. Ok, there’s a small fee for hosting of Ksh. 200 per month. This seems like an incredibly simple scam, and it looks like blhack's nailed it. There is no
28.
by alexmuller 15y ago
Having just checked, it's not Google App Engine. GAE appends the string "AppEngine-Google; (+ http://code.google.com/appengine ) " to the user agent regardless of what it's set to. But still, I agree there may well be another explanation.
29.
by alexmuller 15y ago
Thanks for clarifying - ok, so there was lots of traffic from a Kenyan IP resulting in phone calls from a "Google employee", followed by traffic from a Google IP resulting in the same. Perhaps I'm trying too hard to find a way out for Googl
30.
by alexmuller 15y ago
I left this comment on the original post, but it's been caught by the spam filter there: Hi Stefan – apologies if I’ve missed something, but the only solid proof I can see that this is actually run by Google is that the IP address some cal

More ›