1414 posts • joined Wednesday 10th June 2009 10:54 GMT
If you are untouchable ...
... then you don't need to hide your wrong-doings. For whatever reason, these objectionable cunts are given a free pass to get on and do whatever it is they need to do. In a decent country, they would be locked away from decent people, along with other dangerous psychopaths.
"The British government needs to start being a bit tougher and start pointing out to the likes of the US and Sweden that we will hold our companies to account then perhaps they will ensure their own back yards are clean too."
There, fixed that for you. This isn't a tit-for-tat game - the ability of the SFO to do anything meaningful with British firms [alleged to be] indulging in blatant and serious corruption is an embarrassment to anyone that cares about justice.
@ Long Fei - I agree.
There seems to be a false distinction in the market. Something that works as both a tablet and a "proper" machine seems so logical to me that I don't understand why the market isn't seeing lots of them.
This is the silliness in the idea, isn't it?
There is no such thing as a "hacking program" - there are programs that, if used in a certain way, may make hacking easier/possible, but which also have legitimate uses. In the physical world (which legislators seem to have an easier time understanding), we might use the hammer as an example - it can be used for legal and illegal uses, but hammers are not automatically illegal because some people do bad things with them. The requirement is for someone else to show intention to use it illegally.This is usually after the event, but sometimes beforehand.
"Hacking programs" is just more FUD being thrown up by those that don't understand what is happening in the world, and who cannot be bothered to keep up.
"Unfortunately the motor vehicle is a common factor in many serious crimes (as well as the source of much minor crime)". Dihydrogen monoxide is a common factor in 100% of all crime, and yet it goes unregulated. It is a physically addictive substance, and there is no way to reduce dependence on it. The police need to know about everyone that uses it for our own safety.
... I'm native to the UK, and I don't understand it, either! Google gives it as being a place in either Norfolk or Suffolk, or alternatively, "weet" is an archaic form of the verb "to know". I suppose, very vaguely, the second one makes a sort of sense, but it could just as easily have been named after the place some senior police drone had been on holiday (at someone else's expense, of course!)
@ Lonesome Twin, you rude bastard ...
... I take it you have heard of dyslexia? However, you have no idea what it means, do you?
I don't actually know mmied, but s/he is a regular poster here, unlike you, and whilst the spelling is not perfect, there is no doubt of his/her intelligence.
How about you go away and keep your spiteful opinions to yourself?
Errrrmmmm, AC 15:43 ...
... are there many people in the travelling community that have good enough internet access to be downloading anything. Is there any evidence that any of those people were part of the ACS:Law fishing expedition? If not, your use of the perjorative "pikey" is entirely unjustified.
But then, you are just a troll, and don't know any better.
I tend to agree, even though I am from deepest UKania. British "humour" has recently become very cruel, based on laughing *at* people, not *with* them - Ricky Gervaise being at the top of the list. There is something quite cruel in a lot of lauded British humour at the moment, and I think it is recognised at some level by more people than me, because the examples being quoted above (Monty Python, 'Allo 'Allo, Benny Hill) are all from an earlier time.
That isn't to say that there isn't some gentle humour going on (I'd put "The IT Crowd" in there, for instance), but most of the comedy I like to watch seems to come from USA, e.g "Two and a Half Men", "The [American] Office" (and I truly hated the British version, so that shows how much better I think it is).
... I apologise - I initially down-voted you, and listened to my sarcasm meter and changed it. The problem with your comment is that we do get posters here that would say that and (claim to) mean it. People who seem to believe that they are "realists", and that people who want a better world in which justice reigns are naive dreamers and "Potheads" (you know who you are).
This is impressive -
- many comments before the first troll appears. Are we starting to scare them off?
Quite true, AC
We need an EFF equivalent, (and an ACLU equivalent, but that is a different story) over here in the UK. However, who is interested in setting the group up? Obviously no-one, otherwise it would exist.
... we could stop fighting in multiple arenas, bring the military back within the borders of the UK, and therefore save a huge amount in supplies, transport costs ... oh, and millions of quid's worth of munitions that just literally keeps going up in smoke. I suspect that would make a good dent in your figures over the course of a few years.
Then, we could make sure that government money is spent within the country, and not contracted out to foreign concerns.
Then again, ensuring that electricity companies are not owned by anyone outside the UK. Ditto with train companies. Let's keep UK money in the UK.
When all those things are done, and if there is still a shortfall, then we can look at taxing people and companies with lots of money properly.
If there is still a shortfall, we can look at taxing the middle classes a bit more.
Only then, if there is a shortfall, should we even think about preying on those at the bottom.
See what I did there?
But, Matt ...
... a person cannot opt out of basic rights, old boy. No-one can say "I am less than human" without logically contradicting themselves. Due process is a basic right that any person, in or out of the military, has. Just because the military justice* system is stuck in the 18th century, it doesn't mean it is right. There is stupidity here, but it may not be from where you think it comes from.
I don't think soldiers are "baby killing" anything, but I do think that the whole military enterprise needs focussing on defence of borders, not running around the world "educating" people that the Western way is better, whilst proving the opposite by its actions.
PS - I've never used any drugs, so you are wrong about that, too!
* "Military justice" should be the correct example of a perfect self-contradictory statement,not the well-worn "military intelligence".
Ahhhh ... you see, you are missing the point.
In this brave new world we have had foisted upon us, we are not allowed to be angry. Anger is always wrong, no matter how justified it might seem.
I wish this was a joke, but it isn't.
Comparing apples and bellybutton fluff
There was a real, pressing need to regulate the highways, because the physical integrity if real people was endangered. People were killed and seriously injured by those using non-foot travel (don't believe anyone that tries to convince you that the roads were safe before cars - horses and other animal-drawn traffic accounted for many deaths and injuries every year). The internet does not pose that level of risk - any damage is in the realm of the immaterial.
Sure, bank accounts are vulnerable, but we don't have a monolithic governmental agency requiring that we have a licence to use a debit card, do we? The principle* of governing the road is a legitimate function of government, but that of governing the internet is not.
* Regular readers will know that I do not think that the current level of governance on the roads is legitimate, but that does not undermine the truth of the fact that road transport can only effectively be governed by legislation.
I'm waiting to see ...
... what actually happens in the future. What I do know is that I'd have to go a long way to find anything worse than the very fragile Symbian OS on my Nokia 5230. I really wish I hadn't been loyal and stuck with Nokia this time - Android looks like a much more robust and flexible OS. However, even Windows looks like an improvement from where I am at the moment.
Whatever Nokia does, it is going to have to be significant if I'm to change my thoughts that an HTC will be my next phone.
You are right, it doesn't.
It makes proof-reading my wife's formal documents before they are sent off a real pain. She has absolutely no idea of when to use "the" as opposed to "a", or even if either is to be used. The difference between "until" and "by" is a complete mystery to her, as well.
Regardless, her English is still better than my ability to talk in her national version of the Slavic noise.
Like most large towns in South Yorkshire ...
... Barnsley doesn't really *have* a centre, in the sense that many people mean by "town centre". There is just a nebulous area defined by a pedestrian precinct surrounded by fewer residential properties than a bit further out (Doncaster, Rotherham, and Sheffield are the same). There is absolutely no character in any of them, which makes the out-of-town shopping centres so much more attractive - they have no character either, but at least you know where the shops are, and you can park, for free, near to them.
The problem is that successive Labour controlled councils have had to show that they have no interest in history, because it was all about the rich subjugating the poor, and they did actually demolish whole town centres to start from scratch. We are now left with no historical buildings at all, and the replacements are shite.
Your idea about a minimum amount given to each adult member of society is known as the "Citizen's Income", or variations on that theme. It is definitely an idea that needs serious consideration - if everyone gets enough to live on (just), then there is no question of fraud.* The down side is that it would almost certainly need identification tied to the person, and therefore identity cards would be back on the agenda. It would remain to be seen whether the Citizen's Income would be enough to answer the question "What is the benefit of the ID card to the individual".
* One of my first academic papers was written on this topic.
What are you going to do with those that do say "I won't work if you do hire me"? Let them starve, penniless on the streets - or, more accurately, encourage them into criminal behaviour? There is nothing effective that a truly humane society can do with people with that mind-set, so just accept it. Such people are in a very, very small minority, and are just noise in the system.
You have no clue what having a disability is, especially when it comes and goes. Planning is impossible, and that makes doing a paying job very difficult (you know, people want things done to a schedule, usually).
I wouldn't wish such a disability on anyone, but if you haven't experienced it, you are not qualified to make any comment that should be taken seriously.
"What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
It never existed - the correct formulation is "innocent *unless* proven guilty". It makes a big difference! :-)
To Messrs Gumby and Bryant: try all you like, you are not going to convince anyone that it is right that there is a different level of due process for people in the forces. Soldiers are people, and therefore have the same level of fundamental rights as anyone else. Torture and ill-treatment is not acceptable, regardless of what the person is accused of. Apologists for inhuman treatment treatment, such as you two, show the absolute moral poverty of the supporters of military action.
... because we'd be so much better off without any control over our corrupt and self-serving politicians.
... I assume you've heard of it?
(We *really* need a sarcasm font)
This thing about "multiple logins"
Does anyone seriously complain about the number of physical keys (say, door keys) they have to use. For instance, for a lot of people to go out, they need to a) unlock the front door, b) lock it (same key, but new action), c) unlock the garage (different key), d) unlock the car (another key), e) start car (same key in most instances, but new action), f) lock garage (possibly after stopping car and removing key) etc. Add in other actions that may not use a physical key (e.g. home burglar alarm and car immobiliser/alarm) to taste. All these are time consuming actions that may be inconvenient, but how many people would seriously want one key for all those actions? Would the government mandate a "single key" scheme to it easier for people to get access to their own stuff? Very unlikely, so why insist on one for other stuff that needs protection?
If there are people who want this sort of thing (the type of person that gets remote controls for garage doors, and has "smart keys" for their cars that open them before you get there), by all means give them the option. I, on the other hand, want my information hidden behind as many passwords, and distributed across as many servers, as possible.
"Roberts was on a panel discussing "The limits of free speech online" at a Google privacy conference." So, not just "equal airtime", but an invited speaker to a major conference. So, back to the original question - why does anyone give these hysterical, reactionary whingebags a platform?
@"Wow, some of you are VERY paranoid" AC
Not paranoid, just sufficiently historically aware enough to remember that function-creep happens, and what you thought was protected forever is only a statute (or an over-zealous policeman) away from being a total infringement of liberties. The fact that police have used terrorism in the heart of Cornwall (!) as a reason to protect the locations of these cameras shows that they are still on the "be afraid, be very afraid" kick. In fact, your comment should be levelled at the police, not the sensibly wary posters here.
Banks is always going to be difficult to take from page to screen
Does anyone else remember the dreadful version of "Crow Road" (a "non-M" Banks novel for those that don't know) done by the BBC in the mid-late 90s? Relatively straight-forward past/present storytelling you would think, but somehow it all went horribly wrong.
Best to leave Banks to the imagination, I think (I voted for Clarke's "Childhood's End").
It is as if the last 20 years never happened.
The current government have picked up exactly where Thatcher left off. Kill any workers' rights, dismantle the NHS, and make us like that haven of sanity, the USA. (I'm deliberately not including Major's premiership, because he at least slowed down the descent into Ayn Randism).
We desperately need a real socialist party (i.e. slightly left of centre with a real belief in social goods, not the bunch that Millipede leads) to give people like me the chance to have our opinions. The LibDems were the hope of many, and they could still regain *some* credibility if they would pull out of the coalition with the greedy boys. However, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen - it would require courage, which they don't seem to have (maybe yellow is their chosen colour for a reason).
It is Cockney (or mockney) rhyming slang: Hampton Wick=pr ... ahhh you can fill the rest in yourself. (Hampton Wick is a bit of London - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hampton_Wick, though why it was chosen for this usage, I don't know).
I am reluctant to use the word "never" in this context. Whilst it would constitute a major change of direction for Anonymous to do this, Anonymous isn't an organisation with clearly defined structure. Unlikely as I think it is, it could be someone who thinks they are operating under the Anon banner who has missed the basic ethos of Anon.
Alternatively, this loathsome Sony bastard is trying to get Anon to do his work for him by giving them incentive to find the culprit - come to think of it, that actually sounds more plausible to me ...
... deserves so many thumbs up!
<--- Have one on me!
OK, Matt, I call your bluff.
What is it about you that gives you access to extra information that makes you an expert on this, and the rest of us mere "idiots"? You are so far behind the general curve on this one that you really need to have significantly better information, or you are just another person with an opinion, just like the rest of us, so either put up, or stop patronising everyone that thinks "... consistent with ... our values as a nation” should mean that *everyone* should be treated with the same levels of human rights, regardless of what they are alleged, or found guilty in a real court of law, to have done.
Very true, Wize ...
If I had waited another two months I wouldn't have bought my Nokia 5230 last year. I have always liked Nokia phones, and to be honest this one works well as a basic mobile phone that I can't accidentally override the keylock on(!). However, the OS is just awful - far too many button presses to do things, and a bit flaky on some of the sensors. To make this worse, I am finding that there are lots of useful apps for Android (I wouldn't have anything of Apple's, no matter what) that no-one is developing/porting to this hideous OS I'm now stuck with for the foreseeable future.
Whether I'll go with Nokia once it wholeheartedly jumps into bed with Windows I just don't know - depends on the apps and the usability, but I do know that if my 5230 needed replacing due to loss or damage, it wouldn't be a Nokia I'd be getting at this point.
You are right, AdamWill ...
... but not for the reason you seem to imply. The mass evacuation of at least some of those cities some of them was probably unnecessary, and may well have caused more death and injury than has actually occurred due to the reactors' problems. The real story is the willingness of the government to add to the misery of people already affected by a real catastrophe - y'know, the earthquake and tsunami that caused lots of death and destruction.
"Now to drive home and annoy the crap out of everybody by doing 29mph through the villages. I bet the line of cars behind me gets to be longer than I can see in my mirror."
I came across someone worse than that in a black Ford Focus between Bala and Wrexham yesterday The one that seriously believed that he was driving safely by not going faster than 40mph on a road in good condition and in fine weather, and slowed down for every corner and *uphill* section and slowed down without erratically without using brakes in between. The one that tried to cut me off by crossing the white line when I overtook quite safely, at less than the posted limit of 60mph. The one with a queue of eighteen cars behind him that he clearly did not give a fuck about. The one that my wife says pointed at the speed camera sign on the road and suggested that I was crazy. The one that did not pull over to let others go about their business in their own way. The one that, in short, was driving at least without due care and attention, and at times dangerously (deliberately driving into the path of an overtaking car).
He is the one that should be in for driver retraining, not the ones doing a bit more than the speed limit.
@ James Micallef
You may not take note of this, because by your criteria I am not a rational being (I don't see warming when I look at the evidence, nor do I see any evidence that human activity is more significant than ant activity), but I agree with the thrust of your argument, as long as by "using non-carbon sources" you mean "using more nuclear because it is the only way of producing reliable electricity". Certainly phase out the coal/gas/oil power stations, but replace them with nuclear generators of the new generation (LFTR/pebble bed reactors), which can produce sufficient energy density to actually keep us at the technological level we are extremely lucky to live in, and spread it to the rest of the world.
Solar/wind/wave is never going to do that, though they might take some of the load off the generators, and allow for some energy independence at the consumer level.
But, indulis ...
... hostile climate states, since they have happened before, will probably happen again. There is absolutely nothing we or anyone else can do about it. There clearly is a way that the rate of change to hostile climate state can be altered (say, huge lump of rock from space coincides with our orbit, or big volcano gets indigestion), but it is going to happen sooner or later.
Technology is the way forward - we need to be able to mitigate the effects of these changes, not piss about trying to "reverse" them. Being prepared to deal with *any* change is better than worrying about a specific change. The recent events in Japan have shown the difference - you couldn't reverse the changes (stop the earthquake/tsunami combination, but the effects were very well mitigated due to sensible application of technology). Unless and until better means of electricity generation (the absolute core of the technological revolution) than nuclear/gas/coal come on line to keep our levels of technology at the level that saves lives that would otherwise be lost (and yes, dreadful as the death toll is in Japan, it could have been *much* worse), we should not be turning away from them. Going back to a pre-20th Century life-style is going to help no-one.
Also, I'm more worried about global cooling, and we are definitely not going thrive without electricity if that happens.
I am soooo tired ...
... of the "genealogists need this data" argument. We should not be making decisions based on making things easy for some sad hobbyist in the future.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire