Curd Karyo

The City striker, who has 42 goals this season including 28 in the Premier League, missed last week’s 4-1 victory over Liverpool as well as Norway’s two European Championship qualifers during the international break.

But Guardiola confirmed Haaland will be in the squad for the 17:30 (UK) kick-off at St Mary’s as we aim to extend our Premier League winning streak to five games and close the gap on leaders Arsenal who play on Sunday.

“He trained the last two days really good, he will be ready,” Guardiola said in his pre-match news conference.

Asked if he needed minutes to be considered for the Champions League quarter-final with Bayern Munich on Tuesday night, the boss added: “Bayern is our last thoughts it's Southampton - the Premier League is every day, every week. Depends on that.”

Guardiola did not report any other injuries ahead of the game at St Mary’s although Phil Foden also missed the win over Liverpool after surgery following acute appendicitis.

DOWNLOAD THE MAN CITY APP

Southampton are currently bottom of the Premier League but Guardiola is not expecting an easy game on the South Coast.

St Mary’s was where we secured a 100th point of the 2017/18 but it has been a difficult venue during Guardiola’s time with City knocked out of the Carabao Cup earlier in the campaign, while we were held to a 1-1 draw last season.

Since then Ruben Selles has taken over as coach and Guardiola believes that every side in the Premier League has something to play for.

“Already, they’ve played a few games with the manager so the patterns are quite clear,” he said.

“Now every team is playing for something, it’s the same importance to fight for the Premier League as it is to stay in the Premier League.

"That’s why every game has its own characteristics and you have to be ready, because Southampton have always been so tough.

“Since the year we got 100 points in the 94th minute, the game we won they were much, much better than us.

"After the games we play really good, we draw. Always it has been a tough tough game and I have a feeling tomorrow won’t be an exception.”

The 2015 data breach of the adultery website led to 32 million accounts being publicly dumped online, including victims’ names, passwords, phones numbers, credit card information and more. Up to a year after the hack, researchers with Kaspersky said that affected users were still being hit with an array of attacks, from credit card scams to spam emails.

Now, cybercriminals are exploiting the treasure trove of breached Ashley Madison data again in a new highly-personalized and targeted attacks. According researchers at Vade Secure, extortionist are sending emails targeting affected Ashley Madison users once again.

“In the last week, Vade Secure has detected several hundred examples of this extortion scam, primarily targeting users in the United States, Australia, and India,” said Ed Hadley with Vade Secure in a Friday post. “Seeing that more than 32 million accounts were made public as a result of the Ashley Madison data breach, we expect to see many more in the coming weeks. Moreover, like sextortion, the threat itself will likely evolve in response to tweaks by email security vendors.”

Victims are receiving emails threatening to expose their Ashley Madison accounts – along with other embarrassing data – to family and friends on social media and via email, unless they pay a Bitcoin ransom (which, in the sample email below, totaled around 0.1188 Bitcoin, or $1,059).

Researchers said these emails are highly personalized with information from the Ashley Madison breach – including the affected users’ names, bank account numbers, telephone numbers, addresses, and birthdays, as well as Ashley Madison site info such as the signup dates and answers to security questions.

In addition to the shame associated with being an adulterous website user, researchers said that cybercriminals also leverage embarrassing previous purchases supposedly made by victims. One of the emails (above) even references previous purchases for “male assistance products,” and says “Do the partners you find on AMadison know you have been using ‘chemical help’ to have a good time?'”

The body of the emails then refers to an attached, password protected PDF, which “says what you need to do to stop this.” This PDF includes additional info from the Ashley Madison data breach, including when the recipient signed up for the site, their user name, and even interests they checked on the site when seeking an affair. It also contains the ransom demand.

“What’s interesting about this extortion scam is that the financial demand isn’t made in the email body itself, but rather a password-protected PDF attachment,” said researchers. “As the email itself acknowledges, this is done to avoid detection by email filters, many of which are unable to scan the contents of files and attachments.”

The PDF file also includes a QR code, for victims who are using a compatible mobile payment app to scan and make the payment.

While the PDF tells victims that the QR code is an option “if you do not want to type the address,” researchers say that the QR code is a common phishing technique that is used to avoid detection by URL scanning or sandboxing technologies. That’s because many email filters do not feature detection tools for QR code technology, they said.”

How can I get Statement of my Loan Account? 1 You can view the summary of your loan or last 5 or future 5 transactions by logging into our website wwwhdbfs

MADELEINE BRAND, host:

And here's another debate, a linguistic debate. When it comes to the English language, purists are constantly defending it against assaults. One such transgression makes them so angry steam literally comes out of their ears. Or does it? Using `literally' to describe something that's not literally true irritates many people. Jesse Sheidlower is the editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary. He says the critics should back off, and points out that even great writers have been `literally' to mean `figuratively' for centuries.

JESSE SHEIDLOWER:

When I introduce myself as a dictionary editor to a stranger, I can usually count on a few things. The stranger will say, `Oh, I'll have to watch how I talk in front of you.' The stranger will ask me about why some word like `bling' was put into the dictionary--`the' dictionary, as though there's only one. And then the stranger will complain about a pet usage peeve, some error perpetrated by members of a disliked group: sportscasters, say, or teen-agers, or Americans.

Recently, strangers I meet seem particularly peeved by people who use `literally' to mean `figuratively,' the ones who say things like, `He literally exploded with rage.' As is often the case, though, such abuses have a long and esteemed history in English. The ground was not especially sticky in "Little Women" when Louisa May Alcott wrote that `The land literally flowed with milk and honey.' Tom Sawyer was not turning somersaults on piles of money when Mark Twain described him as `literally rolling in wealth.' Jay Gatsby was not shining when Fitzgerald wrote that he `literally glowed.' Such examples are easily come by, even in the works of the authors we are often told to emulate.

How did literally come to mean the opposite of what it originally meant, either `word for word' or `exactly'? By the late 17th century, `literally' was being used as an intensifier for true statements. Jane Austen wrote of being `literally rocked in bed on a stormy night.' In such examples, `literally' is being used for the sake of emphasis alone. Eventually, though, `literally' began to be used to intensify statements that were themselves figurative or metaphorical. You can find examples throughout the 19th century, but no one seems to have objected until the early 20th. In 1909, the satirist Ambrose Bierce included the term in "Write it Right," a little blacklist of literary faults. `It is bad enough to exaggerate,' he wrote, `but to affirm the truth of the exaggeration is intolerable.'

In truth, many words are used in seemingly contradictory ways. They're known as Janus words, contronymns or autoantonyms. They include `cleave,' which means both `to stick to' and `to split apart,' and the verb `dust,' meaning both `to remove dust from' and to `sprinkle dust upon.' And don't forget `peruse' and `scan,' each of which means both `to read closely' and `to skim.'

Usage writers often single out one of the meanings as wrong, although the right definition is simply the older one or the one more frequent when 18th-century grammarians began to examine language systematically. In fact, the literal meaning of `literal' is something like `according to the letter.' So when we use `literally' to refer to something other than individual letters, we're already walking down the figurative path. If we end up with people eating curry so hot their mouths are literally on fire, how surprised can we be? And why don't we also complain about using the word `really' to refer to things that aren't real? In "Little Women," when Meg moans that `It's been such a dismal day; I'm really dying for some amusement,' she's not the one who's really dying.

The one sensible criticism of the way `literally' is often used is that it can lead to confusing or silly-sounding results. In this case, the answer is simple. Don't write silly-soundingly.

BRAND: Opinion from Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary. And you can find his article at slate.com.