<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Michael M. Knight - Latest Comments</title><link>http://michaelmknightuk.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://michaelmknightuk.disqus.com/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:48:00 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Internet Protection</title><link>http://www.michaelmknight.co.uk/internet-protection/#comment-1453941158</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks - here is another one on it: &lt;a href="http://blog.knowbe4.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://blog.knowbe4.com/"&gt;http://blog.knowbe4.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kathy Wattman</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:48:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Internet Protection</title><link>http://www.michaelmknight.co.uk/internet-protection/#comment-1453841306</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you Kathy. The article is basically for non-techie people. Anything that's be used to spread Cryptolocker will be used as the variants get stronger and better, though here's an interesting article.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://fakebit.com/symmetric-encryption-in-a-cryptolocker-variant/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://fakebit.com/symmetric-encryption-in-a-cryptolocker-variant/"&gt;http://fakebit.com/symmetri...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks again for your comment.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Knight</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:43:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Internet Protection</title><link>http://www.michaelmknight.co.uk/internet-protection/#comment-1453707158</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Nice article Michael. As an added note - CryptoLocker and its variants have been spread frequently as an email attachment disguised as a voicemail, delivery details or order details doc.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Kathy Wattman</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:24:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: UK Government make another mistake by ditching Microsoft Office</title><link>http://www.michaelmknight.co.uk/uk-government-make-another-mistake-by-ditching-microsoft-office/#comment-1238079148</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think it's one of those debates that you can have like which is better, Mac or PC? But in the long run, the British Government never know what they are doing and if they do change, it will end up being a complete mess and cost tax payers more money. In the last years or so, the tax payer in the UK has had to cover £120 billion due to the mistakes and over spending of the Government.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href="http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2013/06/bumper-book-government-waste-exposes-120-billion-wasteful-spending-4500-household-uk.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2013/06/bumper-book-government-waste-exposes-120-billion-wasteful-spending-4500-household-uk.html"&gt;http://www.taxpayersallianc...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;My point in this article was to mention the cost and the mistake to change now, ODF (odt,.fodt) has only been around since 1 May 2005; 9 years ago whereas .doc has been around since the late 70's and really it was only started to be used as a standard in the early 80's with Wordperfect, also, "open standard" does not mean mainstream standard. So in theory you could make .xml a standard.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Different disciplines use their own systems to set out information about sources, I'm aware of that, but I simply don't trust my Government to get it right.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your comment though, I do appreciate it, and sorry for the late reply.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Knight</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:57:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: UK Government make another mistake by ditching Microsoft Office</title><link>http://www.michaelmknight.co.uk/uk-government-make-another-mistake-by-ditching-microsoft-office/#comment-1226582641</link><description>&lt;p&gt;good move by the UK government, which they should had started long ago. France and Munich already made the switch: &lt;a href="http://www.cio.co.uk/news/change-management/munich-open-source-completed-successfully/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.cio.co.uk/news/change-management/munich-open-source-completed-successfully/"&gt;http://www.cio.co.uk/news/c...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also libre / open office both have native 1 click PDF export.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is something that can be downloaded or given away free on CDs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Anyway ODF is a real open standard, like HTML5 is, unlike ".doc" and microsoft has for years said they would implement full support for it, which is oh yea a standard. Maybe this will be yet another good incentive to get their butts moving.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">madjr</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2014 07:43:20 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>