No, I cannot see a completely clear explanation in the article, perhaps you can enlighten me.
If you mean this:
"A source at CCHQ denied members of staff had been browsing porn sites and blamed the dodgy link on a ‘technical glitch’.
That is not a completely clear explanation (it could mean anything) especially to someone who worked in the Nuclear Industry, I would rather see what the investigation reveals than consider the matter closed as the MP would wish.
is google broken today?
the links posted were to the url shortening service tiny url
the link shown was
************/cp2nso which links to the adult site.
the intended link was
************/cp25nso which points to the article referenced in the tweet.
the links posted were to the url shortening service tiny url
the link shown was
************/cp2nso which links to the adult site.
the intended link was
************/cp25nso which points to the article referenced in the tweet.
But you know that is not what happened. why are you lying?
Lying no. I'm doubting the line put out.
The MP found the interesting political piece himself. The tweet contents indicate that. But he had to ask Tory HQ to send him a shortened URL for the site because he didn't know how to do that?
The MP found the interesting political piece himself. The tweet contents indicate that. But he had to ask Tory HQ to send him a shortened URL for the site because he didn't know how to do that?
Unlikely.
interesting. so you think the shortcode cp2nso containing only 6 digits and having been issued years ago was only 1 digit away from the randomly generated 7 digit code cp25nso which happened to redirect to a page the tweet was actually about?
interesting. so you think the shortcode cp2nso containing only 6 digits and having been issued years ago was only 1 digit away from the randomly generated 7 digit code cp25nso which happened to redirect to a page the tweet was actually about?
could you explain how this might happen?
That's such a geek's response perhaps you better explain it.
If a whole load of other Tory MPs tweeted at the same time on the same subject with the same link it would be more believable. Did they? I doubt central office spends its time looking for helpful articles and then only asks one MP to tweet a link to it.
If a whole load of other Tory MPs tweeted at the same time on the same subject with the same link it would be more believable. Did they? I doubt central office spends its time looking for helpful articles and then only asks one MP to tweet a link to it.
interesting. so you think the shortcode cp2nso containing only 6 digits and having been issued years ago was only 1 digit away from the randomly generated 7 digit code cp25nso which happened to redirect to a page the tweet was actually about?
could you explain how this might happen?
That's such a geek's response perhaps you better explain it.
url shortening services take a url and provide you with a link that is shorter. when you click it their server then provides a redirect to the original url.
they obviously try to shorten it as much as possible. so they first issue, usually all the 4 digit combinations. then when they have all been issued all the 5 digit combinations. and so on.
the porn link was a 6 digit code 'cp2nso' as they are now issuing 7 digit codes the 6 digits codes will have been issued a long long time ago. there is no way that a new link would generate a new 6 digit code.
the new 7 digit codes are assigned randomly. the seven digit code with the 5 in it does point to the right place. the place that the tweet was referring to.
the only explanation that fits is the one i describe. that the shortened url was hand typed and a digit missed out. he was probably on a phone and couldn't copy and paste.
It sounds plausible flagpole but when I want to know what's right and wrong I read the Daily Mail reader's comments. I'm sorry but the jury have reached their verdict.
"Yeah, like we was all born yesterday."
"Accidentally? " oh yeah!! He tweeted what he had been watching, what a pillock"
"Of course it would be someone else's fault wouldn't it ?"
"Typical MP - trying to pass the blame for their own mistake!"
the only explanation that fits is the one i describe. that the shortened url was hand typed and a digit missed out. he was probably on a phone and couldn't copy and paste.
The only credible explanation for missing a digit in the middle of the short url is that it was hand-typed. Anyone familiar with the internet, word processing and emails will know that hand-typed addresses are notoriously prone to typos and will avoid them like the plague. There are too many porn cyber-squatters out there for someone worried about their reputation to risk it.
Comments
is google broken today?
the links posted were to the url shortening service tiny url
the link shown was
************/cp2nso which links to the adult site.
the intended link was
************/cp25nso which points to the article referenced in the tweet.
But you know that is not what happened. why are you lying?
Lying no. I'm doubting the line put out.
The MP found the interesting political piece himself. The tweet contents indicate that. But he had to ask Tory HQ to send him a shortened URL for the site because he didn't know how to do that?
Unlikely.
interesting. so you think the shortcode cp2nso containing only 6 digits and having been issued years ago was only 1 digit away from the randomly generated 7 digit code cp25nso which happened to redirect to a page the tweet was actually about?
could you explain how this might happen?
That's such a geek's response perhaps you better explain it.
Good point.
url shortening services take a url and provide you with a link that is shorter. when you click it their server then provides a redirect to the original url.
they obviously try to shorten it as much as possible. so they first issue, usually all the 4 digit combinations. then when they have all been issued all the 5 digit combinations. and so on.
the porn link was a 6 digit code 'cp2nso' as they are now issuing 7 digit codes the 6 digits codes will have been issued a long long time ago. there is no way that a new link would generate a new 6 digit code.
the new 7 digit codes are assigned randomly. the seven digit code with the 5 in it does point to the right place. the place that the tweet was referring to.
the only explanation that fits is the one i describe. that the shortened url was hand typed and a digit missed out. he was probably on a phone and couldn't copy and paste.
"Yeah, like we was all born yesterday."
"Accidentally? " oh yeah!! He tweeted what he had been watching, what a pillock"
"Of course it would be someone else's fault wouldn't it ?"
"Typical MP - trying to pass the blame for their own mistake!"
The only credible explanation for missing a digit in the middle of the short url is that it was hand-typed. Anyone familiar with the internet, word processing and emails will know that hand-typed addresses are notoriously prone to typos and will avoid them like the plague. There are too many porn cyber-squatters out there for someone worried about their reputation to risk it.