Loz

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can anyone throw light on what happened here? > > In December I emailed a client in Poland our work > bank details. Some weeks later I found out from my > contact in that company that several hours after > my email arrived she received another one, which > appeared to come from me but with different bank > details. This is where she made a payment to. > > She sent me the 2nd email she had received and on > opening it and choosing 'reply' I saw the actual > address for me was '[email protected]'. Not my > address. My work PC was taken out of operation. > However we have still no idea what has happened > apart from something fraudulent. > > I don't know how my work PC was compromised so it > is all a bit of a mystery. Any ideas? Could have been your PC or email system, could have been hers. Doubtful is was anything in the middle. As KK said, sending an email with spoofed (that's the word, Kel!) headers is trivially easy. Some services rely on this (e.g. Yahoo groups, mailchimp) Even Hotmail can do it, though they have controls in place to stop you doing it when you shouldn't. So, all the bad people needed do was see the original email. From that they had all they needed - your name, her name and email address, plus the email text so they could create a plausible copy. So, they almost certainly saw it either in your sent mail or the recipient's inbox. Considering they didn't bother to delete the first email, I'd guess it was yours. Are either your email or hers accessible from the internet? Most are these days, in one form or another. Sounds like, for the second email, they messed up and meant to send it to a different victim.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Something i read today,, > > Italy per capita income no higher now than 18 > years ago (yes Eighteen!) > Output is the same level as the early 80s > The economy 7% smaller than in 2008 > The population is 1 million higher How does that differ from Wales?

It's always Groundhog Day, RD...

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Sawdust is used to bulk up jam for example. > > I Googled this, closest result was this post :)... Cellulose (which is sometimes made from wood pulp) is used in many foods. But jam ain't one of them. Completely safe and rather a decent source of dietary fibre. Trying to frame benign ingredients in the form of their origin is not sensible. Otherwise the cake you layer your (sawdust free) jam on will have been made with aborted chicken fetuses, contain ground up seeds and the sap from members of the grass family plus the glandular secretions of a cow. Or eggs, flour, sugar and milk as you know them.

keano... there is no money anyway

The are many 'phishing' emails going around. These are designed to make you think they are from some legitimate corporation. They are generally designed to do one of a couple of things: 1) either get you to hand over your login and password to a site they can get your money (through bank details or credit card details) or buy stuff on your account. So, generally banks, ebay, iTunes, Amazon, etc. 2) get you to either open an attachment or go to a website that will cause you to download something. This will install something bad onto you computer that will either hang around waiting for you to type in passwords, help in attacks on other sites or, as is common of late, encrypt everything on your computer and ask you for ransom money to restore it. So, be very, very careful and look carefully at any email that asks you to click on a link or open an attachment. If you are worried, contact the business/government department or whatever, or log in the way you normally do, WITHOUT using anything from the email itself in term of links. In general... 1) if the email does not refer to you directly by name, be suspicious. If it refers to you by your email address be very suspicious. 2) if the email says 'we need you to log in/change your password' because of some upgrade/security issue/something scary/money coming your way, be very suspicious. 3) if the email has an attachment, be really, really suspicious. NEVER open email attachments unless you are 150% sure the email sender is legitimate 4) if you are suspicious, hover your mouse (DO NOT CLICK) on the link that the email is asking you to click. The real address of the internet site will show up in at the bottom of your browser. If this does not look exactly as you would think, be extremely suspicious. If you have clicked through and filled out a form with your login details, change your password NOW and contact the company to tell them something has happened. If you have opened an attachment, do not use your computer for anything financial and seek professional assistance. There are bad people out there. They pose as business, banks, HMRC, parking tickets... just about everything you can think of. Be careful - and be suspicious.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, always had a soft spot for Guy Fawkes The only people to plan a bigger bang at Westminster were John Major and Edwina Currie.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Poll in You Gov today shows majority of UK in favour of not cancelling Trump State visit - so > > does show the Echo Chamber effect. > > 49% in favour, 36% against, 15% don't know. Is 49% now a majority? I've wondered this before. The dictionary has a number of definitions of majority. The best answer I've come up with is 'maybe'.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And is Trumps filing to run again in 2020 have any > particular significance ? Does anyone know if that is standard practice (i.e. did Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc do it) or is this something newly cooked up?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a very very interesting and plausible analysis. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Trump is a businessman, not a politician. That is basically an extreme form of how a lot of businesses work - set the price at ?x + 20%, accept ?x and customer thinks they have a bargain. Next time that wine is 'half price' at the supermarket (you know, the one that has been on and off half price for about a year or two) and you think 'bargain', you actually should be thinking 'sucker', because you've bought a ?5.99 wine you probably didn't want for the bargain price of ?5.99.

Trump is many bad things, but a lunatic?

My thoughts: 1) Personal opinion is that snow socks are the most useless things ever. Even more so at any decent speed. 2) Cortina is showing light snow for early next week. So, at the very worst, I'd want winter tyres as you'll look very strange with full snow chains in 5cm of snow. 3) Some resorts/areas mandate snow chains in certain situations, but usually only in heavy snow, which weather forecasts are currently not predicting (but with the added caveat that weather forecasts over about 2 days in the mountains are notoriously inaccurate). A final tip: Next time, if you are a BA exec club member (any old colour will do), the Avis deal they do via the Exec Club website is pretty good (and they usually throw in an extra driver for free). And at least thank small mercies that Ryanair didn't saddle you with Goldcar or Firefly...

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If we assume our net contribution (allowing for > the abatement) is around ?8.5 Billion a year for > 2017,18 and 19 that's ?25.5 Billion. So what is > the outstanding ?574.5 Billion for? I doubt it will be ?600m, but if you think Brexit will only cost the remaining years' contributions, you're in for a big surprise.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone know any shops locally with deals on > shampoo and conditioner (preferably sold > separately). I love my Elvive Ultra Shine but it's > ?4 a bottle. Any helpful suggestions? Sainsbury's > is a no-no. Already checked. > > Louisa. Louisa, You'd be surprised at how many known brands of shampoo and conditioner you local Poundland (or whatever) has.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I got my tax breakdown last year. I paid ?88 to the EU. Yep - and you'll pay much more than that in higher Brexit prices over the next 12 months.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway pub on Chancery Lane at lunchtime today > "Unlike Trump. We welcome everybody." Hah. It's at this point I wished I worked in TV. I'd be organising a crew to head out and test that little boast...

If we add 'trump' to the poo-words list, 90% of the threads on the front page of the lounge will be immediately unreadable...

There are already at least two threads about the petition - did you really have to create another one??

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'No better', as in--> excessive consumption of sugar-free (artificially sweetened) drinks is no > better than excessive consumption of full-sugar drinks, i.e. they are both associated with > negative health outcomes. Ah, I think this is where we differ. To me that is like saying 'being hit by a car travelling at 20mph is no better than being hit by one at 80mph, as they both result in negative health outcomes'! I understand that there are ongoing studies into both artificial sweeteners and sugar and they are discovering some interesting stuff, but I just can't equate the two in terms of 'badness'. But, really interesting links, though my lack of a clinical education in the area means I don't generally get past abstracts in most of the proper papers. The article in last of your links was really rather readable, though.

I can see why people are signing this, but I'd like us talking to Trump more, not less. Goodness knows he needs better influences than the dubious bunch he has filled the top jobs with. I think TM got some more encouraging stuff out of Trump last week (not least some support for NATO) so I'd like to see her exerting more influence over him.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was this attempt, after a House of Representatives vote, to sue Obama in 2014 over > Obamacare. I don't know its outcome but it seems to have been regarded as an oddball action: "Legal > scholars have questioned whether any member of Congress can prove injury by the president and > therefore prevail in court." A curious thing to say. They weren't suing on the basis of injury. They were suing on the basis he exceeded the executive powers. Incidentally, they won. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28554842 ... which also has nice summary of the executive orders.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm more concerned about the rise/potential rise in prices of day to day food items. Butter seems > to have set off at an inflationary gallop recently..... We import most of our butter, so it's not surprising.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The main sugar in many fizzy drinks in fructose. That's true in the US, but not so in the UK.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Research suggests that the diet/sugarfree versions are no better than the full-sugar > versions. This may be an effect of artificial sweeteners and/or carbonation on > metabolism, and this effect is particularly noticeable with fizzy drinks. The same > effect is not noted in diabetics using moderate amounts of artificial sweeteners > as part of a healthy diet. Source? Can't find anything on this that isn't on some barmy 'health' site. There was a study where they showed that people who drink diet drinks tend to eat more than people who drink sugary drinks or water (suspected to be caused by the sweetener telling the body to expect calories that never come). But you couldn't lead to a conclusion that diet/sugarfree versions are thus 'no better' than the full-sugar versions.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sports drinks are a good alternative to fizzy drinks. They replace minerals your body needs. > Fizzy drinks actually change the structure of your cells and cause...among other things..premature > ageing I was sceptical of this (especially considering the nonsense written about Aspartame), but a bit of googling pointed me to https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/16/sugar-soft-drinks-dna-ageing-study. From there I went onto the actual study which summarises: After adjustment for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, sugar-sweetened soda consumption was associated with shorter telomeres (b = ?0.010; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.020, −0.001; P = .04). Consumption of 100% fruit juice was marginally associated with longer telomeres (b = 0.016; 95% CI = −0.000, 0.033; P = .05). No significant associations were observed between consumption of diet sodas or noncarbonated SSBs and telomere length. It is a interesting summary. There doesn't seem to be a single obvious cause of this. Sugar - nope as non-carbonated sugar-sweetened beverages didn't have the same result. Fizziness (CO2) - nope as diet sodas didn't have the same result. Personally, I wouldn't conclude one way or the other until further studies are done.