Re: the blue strips are
The dildo is meant to sit in the driver's seat.
1653 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
The dildo is meant to sit in the driver's seat.
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.
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.
"The universe’s very first galaxies may be a little closer by the weekend"
... they're going to reverse the big bang! RUN!
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.
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.
He's Finnish. It goes with the territory.
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.
I try to be creative. Sometimes it even wins me arguments. Sometimes. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, there is NOT a need. There is a desire by the state for more power. The government of this country doesn't NEED to see the contents of my encrypted drives any more than it needs to see the inside of my underpants, no matter how much they may want to air my dirty laundry. Unless they have some evidence that I'm committing a crime, they have no right to rifle through my private things - they certainly have no right to look just because they think they *might* find something. The mere fact that they've written a law that grants them the power to do this doesn't give them any moral right to do it nor does it justify the abuse of people with no power at the hands of the ever more powerful state.
Your justification of this sort of "law" is a mockery of everything our ancestors fought to gain over the last thousand years. You don't deserve to live in this country.
English born and bred (okay, slightly Irish, but don't hold it against me guv!) and I down voted every single one of your idiocies.
But I may be on the edge of a bell curve so that doesn't prove anything. :)
Must be great having to live in a black and white world where you never have to make any compromises to survive.
The three fifths compromise was made up to prevent the slaver states from using their large slave populations to gain more power in congress. Read your damn history.
The issue isn't the lock. The issue is that the 5th amendment of the US constitution provides for suspects to remain silent in order to avoid inadvertently incriminating themselves. Oddly enough this is nothing to do with guilt or innocence as such, and everything to do with the well known fact that the authorities can and, indeed, will twist anything you say into a case against you. It's in their interests to have you talking, because they can use anything you say in court against you.
A good video explanation from a lawyer can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
In this case the self-incrimination would be quite simple. They're trying to compel him to hand over what amounts to a detailed description of everything he's ever done online, from which they can very easily construct a very powerful yet entirely circumstantial case against him. They may not have evidence of a crime, but with his harddrive contents the can establish motive, and probably find enough evidence to twist into a logical pretzel establishing presence or actions that would be construed as acting on motive.
In your example, they don't need to find a meth lab at your home. They just need to place you near the location of the meth lab when it was operating and find evidence of motive to operate one (which might be as simple as gettig you to admit that you like watching Breaking Bad), then they can get warrants to search your home, your place of business and everything else until they think they've found enough evidence to prosecute you.
Arrives hot in 30 minutes or your money back?
Being a self-made success who overcame great personal obstacles doe.n't preclude his being a twat.
Of course he isn't, don't be silly. He's postulating that the Greeks knew about dark matter and were offering huge grants to anyone who could write papers on it.
The papers were all lost in one of the many sackings of Alexandria. Nobody cared.
Also humble. And they never lie.
You do when the class warfarists turn up the rhetoric. Everyone who earns more than the national average wage is a rich bastard who should be eaten - unless you're the right sort of rich bastard (such as a union boss or a "campaigner") or you show "solidarity". Or something.
I know I'm working class. I work... except today, because my stomach is dancing around my guts and annoying the hell out of me. And I don't earn a wage when I don't work. :|
I think I lost my point somewhere.
Actually I'd say its bad rep is due to the fact that it has a proven track record of getting long-term and even short-term predictions blisteringly wrong. This is nothing to do with the amount of computing power available, but everything to do with the models they use to make their predictions, models based on assumptions that are (as their track record shows) demonstrably wrong.
Which presumably means they're really just trying to get a prestige project to justify their budget in the face of continuing government cuts.
That's right AC, I'm a complete blithering idiot who writes down an easily memorable number and lets people steal my card after standing creepily close to me.
You think I'm an idiot? Bite me.
Yet somehow, when my chip and pin card was nicked a few years back, the crims were able to buy a baker's dozen of mobile phone without haviing the pin.
With my n900 I have not only sent things to people whilst on the phone to them, I've SSH'd in to their server to fix things, e-mailed them details and told them to check and respond, all from the same little device.
Hey apple. Keep up will ya?
In comparison to that particular scenario my current android phone feels quite limited.
Halliburton going Apple? I'm surprised they didn't mutually annihilate.
Canute wasn't trying to hold back the tide, he was trying to prove to his councillors and people that he *couldn't* hold back the tide. They wanted to declare him divine, he didn't want to be a god so he sat on the beach and let the water come past him as proof that he couldn't hold it back.
It annoys me when people get it wrong. I can understand why people get it wrong (it's such a great metaphor that I can even forgive it sometimes) but it annoys me, nonetheless.
Technically speaking, because of their relative size and mass, they both orbit the sun around a barycentre that happens to sit fairly close to the earth's centre of gravity. The moon is relatively enormous as moons go; it's more than fair to call earth/luna a twin planetary system rather than a planet with a moon.
I thought it was pain in'th ears, e?
Steve Renouf, what makes you believe they're talking about a blind corner? There are plenty of corners that can be safely driven at a speed appropriate to the road conditions and the tolerances of the car without the risk of hitting someone, as the corner is not blocking your line of sight. Such corners would easily topple a Smart (or that ugly, top-heavy range rooney everyone seems to be driving nowadays) but which could easily and safely be navigated at much higher speed by other cars.
"If you're going to play tha game, let's not forget the Newton. Which was manufactured by..."
No. No they didn't.
All right, Reg, back to the Fresh Start Club...
I think it was called The Rock That Wouldn't Quit
Start with a largish number of people in your study, begin whittling and compartmenting them by gender, race, age, physical health and so forth until you've whittled them down into tiny, tiny boxes and an apparent correlation appears. Blow the correlation up to claim it's significant, publish your study implying the initial number of participants is the only number that matters, claim a big grant and walk away laughing. Repeat next year and find the opposite conclusion. Fame and fortune await.
mccp got here first with the essential argument, but let me expand a little by re-using an argument I made a little while back.
Consider your favourite purveyor of cakes and sweets. You visit, look around at a particular cake and think that it would be rather tasty. Then you notice the price and think that, whilst it looks tasty, it's just too expensive. You realise that you could make it yourself so you go home and do just that, trying to make it look like the cake you saw. You're quite pleased with the result.
A month later you're arrested for cake piracy because you caused the cake shop to lose a sale by not buying the cake and making your own instead. You're fined for the potential losses the cake shop suffered in addition, as you shared the cake with some friends.
Ok the analogy isn't perfect but it should demonstrate the complete idiocy of the "lost sales" argument. Lost sales are a fallacy: if the means of duplication didn't exist, those sales still wouldn't have been made, because the price is beyond the means of people who resort to piracy. If cake ingredients were banned then the cake still wouldn't be sold because it's priced at a level the market can't bear - and if it's priced so high nobody buys it, then it's actually worthless.
The solution is actually quite simple: reduce the price. They probably don't have to go too low to generate much greater sales. They might even turn a bigger profit.
*Allegedly* illegal. They need to prove it's actually illegal before they do anything else.
I think you may be imagining it. She's no Bridget.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
It's a wide-angle lens attempting to capture the entire hemisphere from a relatively low orbit, of course it looks distorted.
Mike, tealights are used in my household in the little oil burner I crafted for the wife. I've not really see the point of them anywhere else, but apparently they're quite good for keeping certain kinds of food warm.
Other than that I don't allow candles except for special occasions because they're a fire hazard in a flat with two kitties hanging about.
"What is the difference between a 'throw' and a 'blanket'?"
About thirty quid.
Actually sport is a cure for some people. The natural production of endorphins during physical exertion can have a very positive emotional effect... it's just that the people most likely to benefit are usually suffering the sort of depression that destroys their ability to motivate themselves to act on such things.