Re: Treble damages and prison time is due
Well said, Gordon. The lack of perspective shown when this topic comes up never fails to make me wonder what some people's priorities are.
2359 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Well said, Gordon. The lack of perspective shown when this topic comes up never fails to make me wonder what some people's priorities are.
You seriously think this bloke is going to be treated like a serious sexual offender? Remember, all he did was slow down some computers - most people don't even know it happened. He might get a short custodial sentence, but don't bank on it (though I'm not sure what the political situation is in the Netherlands regarding computer crime). If he does, he'll be treated as an oddity with skills that other criminals can use - this may not have the outcome you seem to think he deserves.
There is a legitimate balancing act to be done here. Suitably anonymised data (and I mean properly: as effectively anonymised as possible - no identifiers at all, not genetic, not even general location in the country) should be available to any researcher, regardless of what part of the research community they come (public, private, combination). There are healthcare advances to be made from this - perhaps not as big as being able to add demographic and other data, but certainly significant. That should be the cost to the patient of being in the NHS - your data goes into the unidentifiable mass with all the rest and it can be mined by whoever for the good of society, perhaps with a price to private users of the data.
Once identifiers come into it, then the full approval route should be invoked, with Research Ethics Approval etc. However, there is a bias towards the research providing a benefit to the individual patient - this can cripple slightly more blue-sky thinking if there isn't a clear advantage to that patient depending on how the local REC sees it. In my opinion, there should be a clearly-defined category of research in which people can say "yes, go ahead and do this research" regardless of benefit and if there is minimal risk (or even some risk but acceptable to the subject). There are a lot of people who would happily allow it, but they should be asked first (it is like a friend borrowing my tools - he knows and I know that I am happy to lend them to him, but asks and doesn't just wander off with them).
That depends on where you are in the country. Some places are far more open with your information than others. I know some GPs who go out of their way to avoid giving information to investigatory bodies without due process. After that, they give the bare minimum required.
Yep - that's a piss-poor training resource! Not only out-of-date but horribly constructed. Someone took a Powerpoint presentation designed for a face-to-face session and just added some words. I love the timeline in the introductory session that goes 1997>2004>2006>2000!
Which planet do you live on AC? It certainly bears no resemblance to where I live.
I agree. I have rarely ever met anyone that doesn't work in that background (I'm from the same working class background as you). Many work "on the side" because they couldn't afford to lose the benefits, some put a great deal of effort into getting as much money out of the system as they can, others steal, and many look after elderly/sick/young relatives and get absolutely no money whatsoever for it from the State or anywhere else.
There aren't that many "layabouts" - it is a product of the Protestant work-ethic we're saddled with that makes some kinds of work better than others. Let's have a basic income for everyone, and then let people choose how to live their lives.
If this came before me in my role as member of a research ethics committee, it wouldn't get past me. It is sneaky, unethical, and just plain lying. Far better to be honest and say "Actually, there are some areas you need to improve, because at the moment you need support/treatment/just sit still while we send the nice men in clean white coats round". Actual therapists and counsellors with their minds on helping the individual (not meeting targets) are required, since many long-term unemployed really do need a chance to look at life a different way, and realise that they at least have the potential to be someone that matters. Issuing platitudes like Sirius Cybernetics Corporation's products is not going to help anyone.
Maybe not just you, given the number of respondents, but I saw it and took part. I do remember thinking that the newsletter heading could have been a bit less opaque, though.
I recently had to use my old Nokia 5230 touchscreen phone that I keep in the car for the satnav (free maps and low battery drain) instead of my Galaxy Note (I'd left it in in the house whilst I popped out to the garage, not intending to need to go out). I had exactly the same thoughts as you, but the other way around - the tiny phone was just soooooo unwieldy. The buttons were hard to find and use, and it just didn't sit comfortably in my hand like the Note does.
This thing about "one-handed-use" in the article - is that really such a big thing? I certainly never use a phone one-handed, regardless of size. Firmly grip with one hand, press buttons with fingers on the other hand - sensible, no?
I can sort of see where you are coming from, but that isn't happening in reality. Google aren't "buying al the showrooms", nor are they "preventing any builders buying new ones". At this moment in time, they have an excellent product that many people want to use. No-one else has yet produced a similarly efficient search tool with easy connection to lots of other useful tools (maps, calendars etc). If anyone did, they would no doubt announce it in relevant media (here, for instance), and lots of techies would go and look at it. If it was found to be good, people would report it on various blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Its credibility would go up, its Google (and other search engine) ranking would go up, and word would spread rapidly. Google is not preventing any of that happening - what we need is the next useful innovation, assuming there is one (some things are right and the only changes are incremental).
Not liking Google because they collect data on users (just like the majority of other big brands) should not cloud your judgement on the actual realities of the situation.
"Sure. Use startpage.com." Welllllllllll, no. I just had a look. I did a search for something I've been using recently - the top of the page has three clearly sponsored adverts for things tenuously linked to the search term.
I won't be swapping just yet.
Agreed - I use a Logitech wireless setup on my desktop (what I actually wanted was a laptop-style keyboard to get rid of the mouse, but I couldn't find one) five or six years ago. The only niggle is the spacebar on the keyboard - it seems to have the microswitch positioned off-centre, and so it needs a good tap with the left-hand to make it work. I recently looked around to see what is on the market these days, and I was really disappointed with Logitech's quality. Even if they produced a trackpad/nipple-mouse keyboard, I doubt I'd buy it from them ...
If Sunil *was* dead before the date of the bombing, then the Reddit mob identified the wrong person ... a major discrediting of the whole effort either way.
However, the police (with some justification) and the court system (with some lesser justification) have become so untrustworthy in the minds of the masses that due process, Rule of Law, and presumption of innocence beyond all reasonable doubt are simply euphemisms for "cover-up" to many people. Allegations are all that is needed to ruin a life* - that isn't new, but the effect propagates more easily through the use of modern communications.
*I'm not referring to Sunil here - however, it could just as easily have been a total innocent that was fingered by the mob (literal meaning, not Mafia).
My thoughts go out to his family. Their statement is calm and loving, so unlike the usual vengeful outpourings we often hear. The world would be better with more people like them.
Leaving aside the clear dig at Samsung, that its the price of success. Build something that makes money, and sometime else will produce something similar very quickly. Sometimes it will even be better (for certain values of "better").
It's always an imaginary figure plucked from the air and then doubled just to make things seem worse.
Actually, you are right - it *is* broken. Both situations you mention should be non-custodial sentences.
It seems your opinion is out of step with most people here.
I have no sympathy with Sony. $600k is an amount their corporates could easily spend in white powder a year, so they lost nothing. They would have done better holding up their hands, doing the coporate equivalent of a wry shrug and saying "Well, we got pwned! It probably serves us right for the whole rootkit thing!" Their reputation would have gone up no end. But no, they have to be vindictive, and ensure that they are about as popular as fart in a space-suit for years to come.
Silly, but that is the world these lunatic corporations have created - no-one should be surprised when people kick back, and really the kickers should be supported by the rest of us.
I use the Aldiko reader on my Galaxy Note. I cannot get the screen dim enough to be comfortable. I have inverted the colours (black background, white text), but it is still too bright, especially when reading in the car down a dark lane* and don't want my night-vision ruined. My experience with other backlit screens is the same - there is a market for an app that will allow the screen to dim waaaay down.
* Not what you are all thinking! Marshalling on road rallies means waiting a long time in the dark sometimes.
James, they wouldn't be using flaming torches - someone would have had to experiment with them, and that would have been a waste of time. Far better to just cower in the dark.
I think I can tell what the next Steve Bong episode is going to include. The bloke wittering on about the GOV.UK even sounds like him ...
Downvoted for not making sense. As far as I can tell, your friend changed all his Android kit (which Android PC was it he was using, exactly?) to splash a fortune on Apple kit because of Windows 8. Even allowing for a little latitude (lets assume that the PC had Win8 which he didn't like), why the wholesale switch to Apple, including Android kit that has nothing to do with Windows? Why didn't he install a different version of Windows? Why does he come across as a spoilt brat with more money than sense? Does he know anything about the tech he owns?
Nothing in your post actually makes the point you seem to think it does, so it isn't a documentary.
For me it isn't the size of the card ot will take, but the fact that there is cpapcity for one so I can keep my books on the SD card, and not the reader itself. Factory resets have cost me lots of time and effort when annotations were lost.
You are correct - there is a valid question to be answered about if Google are monopolistic. Lots of people have taken up postions that assume one side or the other. Certainly, if it can be objectively found that Google (or anyone else) is acting monopolistically, then it doesn't matter who the complainants are.
My particular point of view is that Google are not monopolistic, just ver successful, and cannot be compared with Microsoft in the desktop OS market. Going to a different search engine requires nothing more than typing in a url or clicking a link. It is easy, and requires no expenditure of time, money, or training. Breaking away from Microsoft to go to one of the other OSes requires all of those, and therefore does create an effective monopoly for many users.
Any search engine wanting a new market can use traditional advertising (TV, radio, newspapers), and word of mouth - every time I hear about a new search engine, I try it out. That's how I became a Google user in the first place, and found it better than the search method I had been using before, which involved using a metasearch aggregator to simultaneously (and slowly) do what Google did quickly and efficiently.
My anger comes from the sheer inefficiency of supporting more languages than are really needed in the world, and resuscitating ones that are dying just beggars belief. We need to move towards fewer languages to improve communication, not more. (I have this argument with my wife, whose native language is even less useful than Welsh, but not often - have you ever tried telling a Czech that the country's founders would have been better off sticking with German* instead of forcibly re-introducing a language that few people other than the nationalist academics spoke?)
However, I am honest enough to admit to myself that part of it is that many of these zombie languages are a) politically motivated, and when it comes to Welsh especially I don't see any justification for it, and b) they are often totally lacking in aesthetic appeal (Czech is awful, and Welsh and the other Gaelic languages aren't much better). Someone else used the term "spittle-flecked", and it sums it up nicely for me - if a language sounds like you are hawking up a mouthful of spit, then I hear someone doing just that, and it is offensive to me.
*Remember the modern Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia derives from the Austro-Hungarian empire, and the official language was German until about 1922, so I'm not referring to WW2.
Yes, because Oscar Wilde was soooooo ignorant ...
The world needs fewer languages, not more. By all means have a dead language if you want it (and this applies to any minority language, not just Welsh), but don't expect it to be supported by anyone else. It was a bleak day for improved communication when the Welsh got road-signs in their dead language, and I was appalled that it is the same in the west of Scotland ...
I've only seen the trailer, and couldn't see how it is different from "The Matrix" - strange things happen, people in life-support pods, and a black man wearing shades in a dark room promising to reveal the truth.
I'll probably go to see it, but only to tide me over until Iron Man 3, and then Star Trek.
I don't think the major problem is corporatisation of the industry - it is the fact that actors and directors have too much power. In fact, too often they are the same thing, or wearing one of those hats plus being the producer. This is, in my experience, almost always a bad start. A good movie is a team effort, and one person having more than one important role is usually a sign that the team is diluted. Another problem is that, somewhere along the line, film-makers forgot that we need to have some empathy with the characters if the movie is to work and have any lasting impression. No excellent movie has an entire cast of characters you don't actually give a flying toss about. Look at "Pulp Fiction", for instance, when all of the characters are actually really nasty pieces of work, but there is something to engage with, and compare it with, say, "Mission Impossible III".
Of my recent sci-fi viewing, "Moon" was quite good with some reasonable ideas, good acting, and a clear vision from the director; "Dredd" was fair, with excellent camera-work but too lacking in scope and characterisation; "Prometheus" is okay, but doesn't go far enough, and doesn't have a single character to empathise with (compare that with the real "Alien" franchise); and "Robot and Frank", which nearly got it right, though I had more empathy with the robot than any of the humans.
The law in common law countries requires guilt to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. When the evidence is coming from one person, and being refuted by the other, there is always reasonable doubt. The truth is that, without further evidence, which, by the nature of the offence is going to be hard to find, it *should* be hard to prosecute a rapist if the rule of law means anything at all. Feminist jurisprudence cannot insist on a change to that principle for rape and other crimes againt women and claimat the same time that it has anything to do with equality.
As usual, the idiot legal positivists crawl out from beneath their stones, not giving a damn about facts or context. I suggest they try living under a *really* legal positivist regime, such as Sharia - the bleatings might change very quickly.
On the other hand, I've got some more examples of the complete lunacy of the legal positivist mindset for my students ...
"Still, the headline "Phone + expensive transmitter can be used to hack planes" doesn't have the same ring to it ..." But how does the headline "Phone + trivially-inexpensive-to-bad-guys transmitter can be used to hack planes" sound? "Expensive" is a function of many things, not just financial cost.
You have hit the nail on the head. Up here around the land of "Jam, Jute and Journalism" there seem to be three types of driver - the ones that completely ignore the indicator stalk, the ones that use the indicator stalk as a "curry hook", and people that don't come from here originally - with the former in the majority. I don't know what the locals are taught, but it isn't the same Highway Code I know ... even (some) driving instructors omit the use of indicators!
Thanks for the tip about fotpathmaps.com, but just visted it: got, "Sorry, we've run out of our allocation of data for today. The problem with a free service is we cannot afford to buy more data. Some tiles may appear blank.
Please try again later/tomorrow." It looks as if you may have Slashdotted the site!
I'll stick with Google Maps and the OS site, thanks.
I was a big Multimap fan - IIRC it also used to have OS mapping when the OS site was an absolute pain to use. I was seduced away to Google maps by the fact that it was better to use and had extra information - Streetview, I think, was the thing that weaned me away completely.
"... Streetmap provide proper Ordnance Survey mapping ..." Yes, and if I want that level of information, I'll go to the OS website and find it. It isn't difficult, and allows me to have the two sites open at the same time for comparison.
The OS site used to be really poor unless you knew the grid ref, but now it is more friendly once you know roughly where you need to be. It could still do with some work, though.
I just saw your reply further down the page - I see you do favour the BBC solution ...
So Google should not give people the information they have searched for easily at the top of the page for reasons of ... well, what? What is your solution to this - that Google randomly select a map provider site to put in that position? If so, why? Or do you want Google to adopt the same sort of required statement as the BBC used to have regarding their publications - "Other map providers are available"?
What are the others? I've not seen one yet.
No expansion means no sale to me. I want my books and notations on removable media.
The usual copyright troll showed up, I see.
"... try not to celebrate and rejoice in the fact that another human being has died, regardless of what you think of that person..."
Why? I hated her when she was alive - I'm not a hypocrite like so many others to change my views just because she doesn't breathe any more. I will, however, not state my opinions regarding how she died for fear of being mderated off the board.
For those who haven't seen the link from the BBC website or elsewhere, you can leave messages for Iain at http://friends.banksophilia.com/guestbook/. There are some great ones already (though I only got to about page 15 this afternoon).
Let's hope this is one of those situations where the doctors have got it wrong - or that there is an SC vessel being diverted our way with an important mission.
Are you trying to funny? If so, it failed.
I've been doing that for years. Good to have you aboard!
That makes it alright, then ...
Oh, wait ...
"Check up on reports of people communicating with severed heads at executions if you dont believe me."
I don't, because there isn't a single reliable source of people "communicating with severed heads". All the ones I've seen fall into the homeopathy category of reliability