numeroz

IT-istii nu au frontiere. Nu ii va afecta radical nici o schimbare in legislatia UK sau UE pana la urma urmei. Ideea e ca daca romanul (care nu lucreaza in IT), ar depune acelasi efort la un job din Romania cum depune la un job din UK, am ajunge departe. Dar aici il doare la basca, ca i se permite sa o frece in timpul programului, poate sa mai faca o combinatie, pe cand in UK nu i se permite nici sa aiba telefonul in buzunar cat timp este la munca si nu isi permite sa se tireze de la treaba nici 5 minute fara a fi observat si penalizat de team leader. Per total nivelul de trai al unui roman santierist sau lucrator in fabrica e cam acelasi si acolo si aici, dar multi sunt multumiti ca acolo se gaseste de munca pe cand in orasele mici din Romania nu ai efectiv unde sa te angajezi.

Anglia a fost si va ramane un imperiu. Nu le plangeti de mila englezilor. Or sa fie bine si fara UE. Plangeti-le de mila celor care au impresia ca acolo umbla cainii cu covrigi in coada. Nu ma refer la IT-isti, ci la oamenii care se duc pentru job-urile "normale". De doi ani incoace o gramada de prieteni si amici s-au dus acolo sa munceasca. Multi, foarte multi. Incredibil de multi. Am crezut ca raman fara prieteni in Romania. Majoritatea dintre ei isteti, muncitori, oameni foarte ok, care aici castigau minim 2000 lei pe luna. Cand a inceput exodul am auzit atatea cuvinte de lauda incat m-am gandit serios sa plec si eu. Frate, e bine aici, or sa imi mareasca salariul, o sa am si ore suplimentare, o sa strang cam 5-600 de lire pe luna dupa calculele mele. Am gasit si chirie la comun cu alti romani/emigranti/whatever ca sa platesc mai putin. Mancarea e ieftina. Englezii sunt civilizati. Aceeasi placa o auzeam de la toti. Din februarie anul asta au inceput sa se intoarca pe capete. Acum aceleasi povestiri si nemultumiri le au toti. Treaba cu marirea salariului pe ora nu aduce un mare castig in plus, cat sa iti permiti sa pui deoparte. Orele suplimentare nu sunt asa cum crezi ca vor fi ca numar de ore. Polonezii care deja au obtinut functii de team leaderi mai peste tot ii freaca pe romani si pe restul ca sa ii menajeze pe ceilalti polonezi. Nu iti permiti sa inchiriezi o casa, garsoniera, orice, doar pentru tine. Sa imparti ani de zile casa cu alte 5-6-10 persoane, ce se schimba constant, ca sa iti limitezi cheltuielile e mai nasol decat sa stai cu ma-ta si cu tactu in Romania. Salariile ajung undeva in jur de 1000-1500 lire pe luna. Au strans fix _)_. Unii mai norocosi au prins 1800-2000. Nu au ramas cu prea multi bani, ca deh, preturile la chirie + transportul + mancarea + alte cheltuieli incadrate la necesitati. Nu multi au ocazia sa munceasca cu englezii. Majoritatea emigrantilor lucreaza cu alti emigranti. Nu pare ceva nasol, dar nici nu poti spune ca e prea bine. Pleci din pleava romaneasca si ajungi in mijlocul plevei raselor mixte. Inveti fix _)_ O solutie sa strangi ceva e sa te duci cu iubita sau nevasta si sa impartiti cheltuielile timp de 3-4-5 ani. Dar intimitate veti mai avea din parti, cu inca o droaie de persoane cu care impartiti aceeasi casa. Asa ca pentru ce sa muncesti in UK? Ca sa castigi 1500 lire si sa traiesti la comun la fel ca in Romania? Ori sa iti mai iei un job, doua in plus. Da-le in ma-sa de timp liber si de somn. Bani sa fie. Anglia nu e Germania anilor 90 ca toata lumea sa se intoarca cu multi bani si nici Romania nu mai e tara cu preturile din 90, ca sa zici ca te intorci cu bani si faci ceva aici. Mare paguba nu e nici pentru UK si nici pentru romani. Oricum ei primesc anual sute de mii de indieni, asa ca ii doare la basca cu forta de munca.

@sleed inteleg punctul tau de vedere, dar nu crezi ca era mai profi sa discuti cu el inainte si sa vezi daca se poate rezolva frumos situatia? E irelevant ce au facut altii si ce probleme au avut cu el, atata timp cat nu ati discutat in prealabil despre problema respectiva, care te priveste strict pe tine. La faza cu mailul nu pot spune ca ai dreptate. In mediul corporate se sterg imediat conturile celor care au parasit compania, din motive lesne de inteles.

Zi-le sa se decida daca sunt ori 25, ori 35.

iPhone 4-4s cu husa de protectie anti-shock. TAKTIK 4/4S | LUNATIK | Gentlemint Other than car Brands, the other omnipresent Brand was Apple. Almost every character was seen at one point using an iPhone, sometimes for traditional phone calls and once for a FaceTime video call. - Concave Brand Tracking - Need For Speed (2014) Brand Integration Review

@QUADMACHINE Moon Light Admin - Themeforest Premium Admin Theme » THEMELOCK.COM - FREE PREMIUM THEMES & TEMPLATES ?

Sursa: https://itsecuritything.com/computer-misuse-act-life-in-prison-for-uk-hackers/ It appears to have gone unnoticed by many that the maximum sentence for someone found guilty of breaching the Computer Misuse Act in the UK has been increased recently from just 10 years to, wait for it, life in prison. Hacking, in the sense of gaining unauthorised access to a computer system and let’s not start the whole hacking/cracking debate here please folks, is a serious offence these days. But is it really serious enough to warrant a possible maximum sentence of life in prison, when you consider that it puts hacking right up there with murder? Few rapists will get near a life sentence, and espionage only carries a maximum 14 years inside, so what makes hacking so special? Stories are best told from the beginning, unless they have been turned into some weird conceptual screenplay in which case they are often best not told at all. Ours starts back in the mid-1980s when my friends, and fellow explorers of online networks at the time, Robert Schifreen and Steve Gold carved their names into security stone by gaining ‘unauthorised access’ to the British Telecom Prestel service. This interactive Viewdata service bore no resemblance to anything that a modern-day hacker might come across online, but back in the day it was something worthy of exploration. Not least, as it turns out, because one of the users was the husband of Her Madge the Queen, Prince Philip, himself. The pair managed to gain access to the royal message box, and the rest is hacking history. Eventually they were both charged under a section of the ‘Forgery and Counterfeiting Act’ of 1981, for defrauding British Telecom of a measly amount of money that they would have had to have paid if they had accessed the system in the more usual fashion. Both were found guilty and fined, both appealed to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and were subsequently acquitted. The story doesn’t end there though, as the prosecution appealed the appeal, as it were, and finally in the House of Lords that acquittal was upheld on the grounds that the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act didn’t apply and that “dishonestly gaining access to the relevant Prestel data bank by a trick… is not a criminal offence.” The powers that be soon changed that, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990 was born in, erm, 1990. Since then, both Richard and Steve went on to have successful careers within IT security journalism and Steve, who sadly died earlier this year, even ended up editing and edition of the now legendary Hacker’s Handbook which was something of a bible to early network explorers such as myself. Up until 3 May 2015, the most anyone convicted of a crime under the Computer Misuse Act could have expected was 10 years in prison We now need to fast forward 25 years into the here and now, a place where for the most part ‘hacking’ is no longer a matter of harmless exploration and the quenching of a technical knowledge thirst for the explorer; it’s pretty much always not only a malicious, but also an illegal, act. Painted within this modern landscape, where the context is one of either politically motivated activism or financially inspired criminality (although there is a muddy middle ground where hacking is done ‘just for the lolz’), few would argue against the need for some kind of law to define the boundaries of illegality. For that law to be of any real use in the real world, as a deterrent to those who would follow in the footsteps of their peers, it needs to have bite and that is provided by the teeth of sentencing. In Nigeria the teeth are very sharp indeed, and as from earlier this year anyone found guilty of attacking critical national infrastructure so that it causes death will, according to its cybercrime laws, be hung until dead. Thankfully the UK has not gone quite as far down that road, however, at around the same time and with the same intent from what I can tell, it did revise the maximum sentencing applicable to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 by way of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Up until 3 May 2015, the most anyone convicted of a crime under the Computer Misuse Act could have expected was 10 years in prison. Well, I say expected, but to be honest most people coming up before the beak on a hacking charge would be expecting a hell of a lot less than that. Indeed, until recently if my conversations with hackers are anything to go by, most feared being extradited to the USA and/or having their kit confiscated by the Old Bill far more than the sentence a judge would likely lay down for them. Then everything changed, and under certain circumstances that 10 year stretch has turned into a life one instead. Anything that leaves so much interpretation open to the British Judiciary is of concern, especially when that ‘anything’ is in the realms of technology What those certain circumstances are remain rather open to question, as the wording of the revision is somewhat vague and open to individual interpretation to say the least. At its core the sentencing guidelines would appear to follow the Nigerian lead, however, being that the ‘unauthorised act’ is carried out firstly in the full knowledge that the access is actually unauthorised and secondly knowing (or be reckless regarding the same) that it could reasonably be expected to lead to ‘serious damage’ to national security or human welfare. So we are talking about attacks on national critical infrastructure, just like the Nigerians are, apart from the fact that we don’t actually say as much in black and white. Which is where the law becomes if not an ass, then certainly an assumption as to what act is deserving of the full term. While the IT security industry, for the most part, quite rightly tears David Cameron and Teresa May a collective ‘new one’ for their desire to bring back the Snooper’s Charter and effectively emasculate data encryption, it has been worryingly quiet over the Computer Misuse Act revision. I’m sorry, but both these moves have the same motivation in being a knee jerk reaction to the cyber-terror threat. Anything that leaves so much interpretation open to the British Judiciary is of concern, especially when that ‘anything’ is in the realms of technology. Judges have a well-earned reputation for not having, how can I put this, a pulse on the finger of the latest technical and cultural trends. I am tempted to say that many are doing well to have a pulse at all, to be fair. However, understanding both the technology in question and the culture surrounding hacking is at the heart of my misgivings here. It is one thing hitting some wannabe script kid with a fine, or a more serious cybercriminal with a year or two in the clink, but step those sentences up to life and things start to get very complicated indeed when we determine who ‘deserves’ such a harsh punishment. I appreciate that, as an ex-hacker myself, my views may not go down well across the broad-brush that is the sweep of the IT security profession; but someone has to stand up and shout when the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes! How do you sensibly, and consistently, define either ‘serious damage’ or ‘national security’ in such a way, when it applies to the highly technical world of hacking, that your average judge or jury can be expected to have a proper, balanced, grasp of the facts? One cannot help but wonder where Edward Snowden would have fallen amongst this new legislative desire for retribution? One thing is clear, unlike in Nigeria where a loss of life is part of the requirement for the maximum sentence to be applied, here it could be something that causes damage of a material kind which is defined to include environment, economy or national security. The latter being the national security of any country, by the way, not just the UK – so leaving the doors nicely open for the potential of a little bit of politically expedient back scratching. Loss of life doesn’t even come into it, but rather damage to ‘human welfare’, which is defined as including the disruption of money supply, fuel supply, water or energy supply; are you getting the gist of it yet? One cannot help but wonder where Edward Snowden would have fallen amongst this new legislative desire for retribution? Or, indeed, how it may impact upon other whistle blowers thinking about disclosing data that they see as being in the interest of humanity, but the state determines to be a matter of national security that endangers human welfare? Food for thought, don’t you think…

La mine functioneaza ca si inainte. Si totusi: 18. 'Restricted territories' means the United States of America, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Denmark, Austria, France, Estonia, Romania, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom and/or any other country as chosen by the operator at any time by virtue of placing notice in these Terms and Conditions available with the Affiliate Tool. Am vorbit cu ei. Asteapta aprobarea licentelor si debaneaza Romania.

21?

Nu e mai simplu sa dati un mail la fb support si sa ii faceti o reclamatie de frauda la vrajeala? Nu au de unde sa stie cei de la fb ca acel cont din screenshot ii apartine tot lui, decat daca si contul de facebook e facut de mai mult timp cu aceeasi adresa de mail.

Ia zi Andreea. Ai prieten?

Cum adica ati pus o poza pe icloud? Ati folosit telefonul sotiei sefului pentru a face o poza si poza a ajuns pe icloud-ul ei? Daca ati sters poza din telefonul ei s-a sters si de pe icloud. Detaliaza putin problema.

Nu ai poze cu dalmatieni

Nu ai cum. Ca sa treci de filtrele facebook trebuie sa folosesti foarte multe sendere si mesajul sa fie diferit la majoritatea. Daca ai niste linkuri care apar in fiecare mesaj rata de succes va fi foarte foarte mica. E mai greu sa spamezi facebook mail decat serviciile consacrate de mailing pentru ca pe fb ii doare la cuc daca mailul ajunge sau nu la destinatie.

@iPhoneCracker cand vrei sa ii inveti pe oameni ceva conteaza foarte mult exprimarea si expunerea. La tine ambele sunt de tot cacatul. Daca pe langa text puneai ceva imagini si clipuri intelegeau mai multi ce vrei sa spui. Asa, doar cu text, asteptam sa apara subtitrarea in romana. Nu e usor sa critici munca altuia, dar e usor sa critici un cordel care face tutoriale de cacat din munca altora. Ah da. Si sa ma pis pe aia care cumpara telefoane furate si apoi folosesc tot felul de metode ca sa scape de iCloud. Muriti ba!