1386 posts • joined Monday 5th March 2007 21:42 GMT
You seem to be arguing from an invalid position regarding copyright. The law already stands: materials are copyright the moment they are created. There's no need for the increasingly repressive and unworkable new copyright laws currently lobbied for as they are solving a problem that doesn't exist, attempting to extend the meaning of copyright to places it was never meant to go, or attempting to snatch works from their owners so they can be handed over to the state or huge copyright mills.
Enforce the laws that exist rather than creating new ones. Of course that leaves copyright as a mostly civil matter in the UK, which is apparently an undesirable outcome for some people.
Conflating the copyright issue with personal privacy is a non-starter as well. Our "traffic data" is not a copyright problem and making it one opens up all sorts of problems, not least being who actually gets the copyright on that traffic data - the person it is recording, or the entity that made the recordings of that person?
In addition it's been established by precedent in the UK for centuries that we have the right to freely move about without interference from the government or its agents, under any name, without unjust challenge. It's been a bit battered recently but it's there - and it applies to everything we do, not just wandering the hills and dales. This ancient freedom establishes a right to privacy far more robust and flexible than the EU-inspired human rights bullcrap, which is so full of caveats and exceptions that it might as well not exist.
Not that any amount of legislation matters a jot when the government is intent on ignoring it anyway. Stop making new laws and enforce that which already exists.
And hang on, are you actually trying to convince me that the repos disappeared after just one year of use? You're either claiming that Squeeze is gone, which is a lie, or you're saying you installed an OS that was due to be EOL after just a year (these things are flagged for a long time before they happen). Either way you cocked up mate, not debian. You wouldn't recommend people install Windows XP a year before it' due to be knocked off, would you? Yet you've apparently done the equivalent here.
My advice was bad somehow?
The installer uses the current stable release name because they want to guarantee that it installs a particular package set in order to provide the most stable installation experience. In addition, someone might actually want to install an older version of debian than the current stable release, presumably because they're trying to achieve some particular thing.
However, if you want to keep your installation up to date with the latest stable release, you change the release to "stable" rather than the current release name. It really is so simple, and flexible. Far more flexible than windows update, wouldn't you say?
So why is this proof Linux won't make it? The original post complained that a Debian install's repos suddenly disappeared and spent a great deal of time complaining about something that takes les than a minute to sort out, then used this as "proof" that Linux is a bigtime failure, so I offered a solution that is both quick and simple (even my dad could probably do it, and he HATES computers). And now this ease of adjustment is also proof that Linux is going to fail?
Re: 17 *layers* of bacteria?
Nono, what you do is expose them to a bad idea. Osbourne would be the one that ran towards it.
Re: This cant work
Ahh but ze fallen madonna with ze big boobiez is not porn, she is art!
If anyone wants a companion to these books and the Narnia chronicles they'd do worse than to pick up a copy of "Planet Narnia" by Michael Ward. It discusses the underlying imagery of much of Lewis's work and reveals a very interesting unifying theme. Worth a look IMO.
Re: However, the deniers will soon be along to point out ...
All the things I listed do falsify AGW. The tropospheric hotspot is mentioned as a predicted effect of AGW in the IPCC reports but it has not appeared at all. In fact, the upper troposphre where the hotspot is supposed to be has barely changed its temperature. If a theory makes a prediction and the opposite occurs, the theory is wrong.
The fact that CO2 and temperature don't correlate over the long term is in itself a huge falsification of AGW as it demonstrates there's no direct relationship between CO2 and temperature - if there's no relationship, there is no effect and no problem.
It only takes one of these things to demonstrate that AGW is wrong. We have two right there. There are plenty of others out there.
And on the subject of ensemble means: Weather forecasts average several runs of a single model, not several runs of several models. Given that a single model will tend to produce similar results with each run it is more likely to be "right" when you average it, but only for a given value of "right". After more than 3 days they are not very right at all and all the averaging in the world won't change that. You can get you position on a map "right" if you make a bunch of random dots and take the average to be where you are, but it's only "right" within a huge margin of error and if you start moving (changing over time as temperature does) the margin of error becomes so wide that it's functionally useless.
The ensemble mean of GCMs takes the averaged outcomes of several different models and averages them again. Given that each of these models does indeed miss out one or more major warming or cooling events in the 20th century, taking average of the averages of each models runs is also going to have such a wide margin of error as to be functionally useless. Each model gets it "right" in a very wide margin of error. The average get it "right" in an even wider margin of error. given we're talking about 10ths of a degree changes in temperature, and given these models diverge more than that from each other, taking the average seems to be a rather pointless exercise.
Re: However, the deniers will soon be along to point out ...
Actually us global warming "deniers" are more likely to point out that there are a number of falsifications of AGW out there already, such as the lack of stratospheric cooling, the lack of tropospheric hotspot, the fact that CO2 and temperature don't correlate over significant timescales, the fact that the models can't hindcast (they are tuned to roughly correlate with the late 20th century and are incapable of producing anything that resembles historic temperatures), the fact that most all the models miss at least one of the major warming and cooling events of the 20th century (To hide this they use an ensemble mean, which is pointless; averaging a bunch of wrong answers doesn't magically produce a right answer) don't account for clouds, don't account for changes in TSI, don't properly model dust and are generally useless as a result, and the fact that this "prediction" is essentially just a straight line over a thirty year period.
And this is before we get into the serious doubts over the temperature data and repeated, documented adjustments that lower the temperatures in the past to make the present look warmer.
Re: I'd give anything to go back to Honeycomb
I haven't had any of the major issues you mentioned and, overall, ICS has been quite nippy on my tf101. However the stock browser is crashing regularly and, given that's the app I use most, it's a bit of a pain.
They're avin a larf ain't they? Would you buy a computer from Dell Boyce?
Re: True, but...
Reasons to not drive a porsche are as numerous as the stars in the sky, top of the list being "!they're all basically the same car". I'd rather drive a nice old E-type jag or a big old 67 mustang, but that's because they appeal to me on an aesthetic level.
As long as I have enough room for my hidey hole and my computers, I'm happy. :)
Re: Warning: agenda at work
What's that? Argument to authority? Oh my, so *scientific*.
Re: Warning: agenda at work
"There's overwhelming evidence to prove that it's a simple statement of fact. "
No, there isn't. There's a great deal of circumstantial evidence but there's also a great deal of question over how accurate and reliable that evidence is, especially given the repeated "adjustments" of historical temperature records that nearly always reduce temperatures in the past, and the reliance on a very small number of proxies that have been shown to have significant error margins and biases in the collection method, amongst other issues. In addition the current warming trend is neither unusual nor particularly significant in historical terms - even within the instrument record - and falls well within the bounds of natural variability.
The entire AGW concept is based on the idea of "forcings" reaching a tipping point. Given that temperatures have been higher in the past (or were until the temperature records were fiddled to show otherwise), and CO2 levels have been much higher without any tipping point being reached, and given that we are still here despite these much warmer and much higher CO2 epochs, I would suyrmise that the current paranoia about a fractional increase in CO2 levels is just so much hokum. That leaves only political reasons for its persistence.
You have to admit, it does offer a great way to raise more revenue.
Re: Warning: agenda at work
A page which quotes or paraphrases AR4 and its summary for policy makers. In fact the quote you picked is directly referenced as coming from the AR4 summary for policy makers.
So it's political. Stop pretending it isn't.
Re: It makes me think
Completely Unrealistic, Like Theyalwaysare.
And as for youtube comments, has anyone else noticed that every video featuring animals of any sort invariably has at least one comment declaring it to be animal cruelty? Even videos of lions on the Serengeti chasing zebra are "abuse" now. One example I recall even declared that there would be no "abuse" if only us horrible humans weren't forcing these poor animals to eat each other...
anything that contrives to make my witterings look sane in comparison MUST be bad...
They had a tablet. I'm holding it right now, though it's not switched on... granted the n810 is a little smaller than the average these days but, when it came out, it was a breath of fresh air.
God in heaven. Nokia, you wasted so much talent and money developing a tablet line that would have put you ahead of EVERYONE by now, if only you'd actually stuck at it but no, you had to can it just when you'd got to the point where it was about to pay off. And then you did it again. And you keep doing it, every time something new cones along you get cold feet and run off to carry out the worst possible alternative.
Anyone who says Elop has detroyed Nokia is only half right. He's simply carrying on Nokia's grand tradition of self-sabotage and moronic decision-making.
Re: there *was* a plan to put a kind of cetrifuge on the ISS
The centrifuge was for experiments, not people. You can tell from the size of the proposed device.
Re: Intelligent, but inexperienced...
From hell's heart I stab at thee!
It's not "here say", it's "hearsay". As in "I heard someone say", not "someone said here".
adaptaion to confined spaces?
I wonder if they've performed similar studies on submarine cres or other occupations that spend long periods in xonfined spaces? This could be the eye adapting to the lack of use for longacdistance vision.
Re: 15m people using iPhones on a 2G network?
You're right, there's plenty of other things that make buying an iPhone a waste of time.
Makes me wish I still had my old telescope.
Re: yes but
The oceans are alkaline and that alkalinity has reduced ever so slightly in some areas. That is not, in any way, "acidifying".
So yes, New Scientist is talking out of its arse. Again.
Re: What's all this then?
Orv, have you considered that it's actually the island sinking? Atolls have a tendency to do that over the long term when they're prevented from acquiring new material - as they are when inhabited by humans in anything other than a very primitive existence. Human habitation erodes existing land prevents new material from being deposited on the island, which would be a problem even if sea levels were static.
Re: What a fucking hypocrite!
JDX, you've got it backwards. They are our servants, not our masters. We aren't their "children". That sort of paternalistic nonsense is the reason this planet is such a political mess.
Re: Dredging for a Scare story....
C J Bill, actually it probably isn't. We can't say whether it's unprecedented because we only started detailed measurements of atmospheric CO2 within the last century, and only reliably wide-spread and detailed measurements within the last 60 or so years. Prior "measurements" are taken from ice cores and other proxies, and have a ridiculously low resolution on the measure of, at minimum, a decade and up to centuries between data points. They show fairly big changes but what they don't show is the noise. We could just be measuring noise and thinking it's significant.
Of course there's the inconvenient fact that temperatures do not correlate with CO2 levels at all now. They appeared to for a while, but not any more.
Re: Re: Re: I think
What's the Ubuntu way of doing things? As far as I recall Ubuntu doesn't ever give the user a root password. They have to use sudo, or the GUI equivalent, which pops up and asks them for their own password, not the root password. They can't strictly get root access at all unless they have the right to sudo su- which isn't a given.
On a rocket, into the sun?
Apply the Vetinari Solution, vis: take your incredibly smart person, find out their favourite hobby and lock them in a light, airy room with unlimited supplies, then ask them to make the codes in their spare time.
Re: I think
I can teach you what it means for free.
Nothing. It's nonsense.
Try Debian, they do a much better "give me root" sort of dealie. In my experience it just plain works.
Re: Because he is a narcissistic asshole
He's Finnish. It goes with the territory.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?
I try to be creative. Sometimes it even wins me arguments. Sometimes. :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?
The argument in the states is over whether the police could get a warrant for encryption keys. Your assumption seems to be that they must be allowed to get that warrant regardless of prior evidence and regardless of any legal protections that prevent the police from fishing for evidence. The judge said that the police couldn't get a warrant for the man's encryption keys because they had no reasonable suspicion; as a result, they would be forcing a breach of the fifth amendment in the same way that they would by forcing him to speak to them.
Similar, lesser protections did exist here until RIPA and its related laws came along. The police had to have reasonable suspicion and they had to convince a judge before they could get a warrant. They couldn't just say "we think we can find evidence". They had to prove it.
You're claiming that I was disputing this, when I was not: your position has been consistently that it's justifiably illegal to withhold encryption keys FULL STOP, that the fact that it's illegal to refuse to hand over encryption keys is a good thing in itself. The issue of warrants only came up when your earlier argument was revealed to be a pile of shite.
You argued that it's right that the police have uncontested right of access to encryption keys and that the law as it stands was good. I and others showed you that it was an unjust law in its intent. You then argued that you disagreed with RIPA in its current form and that the police should have warrant powers to get access to encryption keys. I showed you that they already had those powers prior to RIPA. Your argument now seems to be that I was arguing against the concept of warrants, which I was not and never have. I was arguing against your original contention that the police should be able to compel me to hand over encryption keys purely on their say so. You keep contradicting yourself.
And now you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I would have trouble getting them past your foot.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?
The police could already get your encryption password with a warrant you blithering idiot. They had to have reasonable suspicion that it would provide them with firm evidence of a crime and they had to convince a judge that their suspicion was reasonable and not just a fishing expedition. Faced with that warrant you would then have to either hand over the keys or be held in contempt of court.
What you keep defending, however much you claim otherwise, is warrantless seizure of private property without anything other than vague belief that it might provide evidence.
Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?
The problem is the support for that principle itself. It's the equivalent of being forced to allow the police into our home at any time of day or night and it's been a principle of English law (can't speak for Scottish law) that the police or whichever authority happens to be around can't simply enter your property without your explicit permission unless they have a warrant from a judge.
The "principle" you support leads inevitably to travesties like RIPA *by its nature*, as it overrides a fundamental aspect of the common law.
Re: Re: Re: The British way of thinking
First: I said that the law requiring we hand over encryption keys on their say-so is a power grab, not "all law".
Second: Yes there's a need to rationalise the law regarding such things. You know what rationalising means? It means streamlining, removing cruft, scaling back. Pruning. It certainly doesn't mean implementing a series of badly written, overbroad pieces of legislation that are routinely used to justify bin diving by local authorities, have no legal merit and go against the very concept of a free and democratic nation.
Third: I'm an electrician, I wouldn't know hostile takeovers if they, ah-heh, took over my tools. You're assuming what? That I share your sexual preferences perhaps? (See, two can play that smarmy insinuation game).
Fourth: THEY HAVE NOT HAD THAT RIGHT. EVER.
The power to do a thing is not in any way the RIGHT to do a thing.
The Bill of Rights 1689 declares "all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
This is one of the founding documents of the English constitution and it states, outright, that the state cannot seize property or levy fines against those who have not been convicted of any crime. They have no right to look through my drawers to find evidence to convict me with unless they have prior evidence and a warrant. They have *never* had a right to just waltz in and take things. Parliament may have ignored these documents, they may have decided they can take on any POWER they so choose but that has never given them the RIGHT. Learn the difference and you may begin to understand what justice and democracy really mean.
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16