2337 posts • joined Thursday 18th June 2009 09:56 GMT
Re: I'll get you Gadget.
Well if you're going to do that, surely it would be easier to do 'Go Go Gadget Arms'?
Re: Holy s**t
A mate of mine was over one weekend. We had several drinks. Then several more. Such that I had to pour him into a taxi, and help him through the front door. He couldn't stand up without support, and yet, with me holding him up was able to take out his contact lenses perfectly (without poking his own eyes out) and go through all the rigmarole of washing/rinsing. It was most impressive, given that if I'd let go of his shoulders he'd have gone over backwards...
Actually there's another problem. In order to be able to put contact lenses in, you need to be able to see well enough to get them into the right place, and you need to be able to see well enough to grab them and take them out again - although at least in the second case you're wearing your corrective contacts lenses at the time.
Good work chaps.
But I use 5x magnification, and I've got mercury poisoning from the NHS' last experiment on me with contact lenses. So it looks like I'll have to wait for something else.
Apparently, in the 70s, it was considered sensible to use mercury as an element of contact lens cleaning solution. Admittedly with a rinse to get
most of it off afterwards. I'm not quite sure what part of bio-accumulative toxin they hadn't understood, but I'm not sure I can ever wear lenses again. Applying mercury directly into your eyes hurts by the way. I don't recommend it...
Re: What happened to Eadon??
He went spam-tastically bonkers on one of Trevor Pott's Microsoft articles. I think every other post was calling him a shill, or a FAIL. So he was taken out and shot, then air-brushed from history. Don't ask what happened, or 2 sinister men in leather jackets and dark glasses will start hanging round outside your door. I'm told Siberia is very cold, this time of year...
Re: Equador, the pillar of freedom
They're spies. They spy. The clue is in the name. You would have an argument if all he'd revealed had been PRISM and spying on US citizens. That's clearly a scandal that needs attention. However he's also revealed stuff about spying on foreigners. Well that's what the NSA is for!
Of course if they really are supposed to be helping to spot extremists like the guys in Boston, then they are supposed to be spying on Americans as well. But I'm pretty sure they're not, and that job is down to the FBI.
Re: Equador, the pillar of freedom
I'm not sure if you're really missing my point, or deliberately trying to deflect it - the issue of legality is purely an excuse - and a petty one too. I'm absolutely convinced, had the bloke been a Russian, and holed up in some EU airport, or US airport, having just run from his Moscow masters, there'd be absolutely no problem with granting him asylum in a matter of hours in any of those "democracies", or "true democracies".
Britain has given several Russian citizens political asylum. It's a government that persecutes legitimate and peaceful opposition leaders and journalists. We would struggle to extradite anyone to Russia, even if we wanted to, because they also don't have a free-and-fair judiciary. 98% of people charged with a crime in Russia are convicted. Apparently you have to bribe the police before you're brought back to the police station. Once the process of filling in the charge sheet is begun, you're almost certain to be found guilty.
Thus paperwork is a problem. If we had a Russian citizen here we wanted to send back, the rule of law probably wouldn't allow it. You'd have to resort to illegal actions, such as rendition. And look how much trouble that caused.
So I'm neither missing, nor deliberately deflecting your point. Our governments should be, and mostly are, governed by the rule of law. If they give shelter to someone, and they have an extradition treaty with the US, they would have to justify that action in court. Now they could probably get out of it, by citing political factors and therefore block extradition. But that depends on their own political set-up.
However, they probably don't want to deliberately abuse their own legal due-process. But they probably do want to get cheap publicity. And as much as they don't like being spied on, they also know their own governments legitimately employ spies, and probably don't want to encourage a world where all spies can blab, then run somewhere safe and protected.
Also, it's not totally clear to me that Snowden does deserve sympathy and protection. Well he does deserve sympathy, because he's in a godawful mess, and you'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel sorry for him. But he's got a perfectly valid reason to claim whistle-blower status if the NSA really were running a big program to spy on US citizens. But revealing the NSA spying on foreign diplomats, which is their fucking job - is pretty close to treason. If he didn't approve of spying, why did he get a job working for the world's largest signals intelligence gathering organisation (even if by proxy)?
Re: Equador, the pillar of freedom
First define democracy?
The US founding fathers were referring back to Athens. The Athenians had drastically changed own their democracy after the disaster that was the Sicilian expedition, loss of the war with Sparta etc.
Actually, before defining democracy, define demos. If you were Athenian that was male citizens only, no immigrants, no women and no slaves. You can rule a medium sized city with reference to an assembly of all your voters, bit harder to do it with a country. Speed of communications is a problem for a start, which is why Americans still don't get to elect their presidents directly.
However, I think it's pretty obvious what I meant by genuine democracies. And you were being deliberately obtuse. And yes, I am making a value judgement about the validity of different systems, just because I can. Russia does not have a free media, free electoral commission or a free judiciary. Therefore it doesn't have free-and-fair elections, therefore it's not a democracy. However Putin is probably the leader most Russians want, even after the last election (which was more imperfect than usual). So I wouldn't call Russia a dictatorship - just not a genuine democracy. Maybe an oligarchy? It's a word they use themselves...
While imperfect, the US, UK, Germany, France etc. do have free-and-fair elections. Therefore they're genuine democracies.
However, as you correctly point out, none of them have an assembly of all free adult male citizens meeting in the town square to decide on policy.
Genuinely not that up on 'bitcoins', can someone tell me why?
I can think of no other reason. Standard warning: Bitcoins can go down as well as up, down, flying around, looping the loop and defying the ground...
There is built-in deflation in the Bitcoin system. So in theory they will always go up in value. However, in theory they can't work as a currency because there's deflation built into the system. So my bet is still on them failing. Hence I don't own any. Others disagree and tell me that "I don't get it" and that no other currencies are any more reliable. Britain has had a national debt since the 1800s and not defaulted on it yet. Bitcoin has a 5 year history of volatility, cock-ups and scams...
There's probably no point in insurance on Glonass. There's so many satellites that some are bound to go wrong or go bang. So it's cheaper to just save the insurance premiums towards when something like this happens.
I guess you won't be interested in my scheme then.
I've got £100 in my wallet at the moment. I'm selling shares in a company that will hold that £100, secure and protected in perpetuity. How much you ask? Well, I'm glad you asked me that. A very reasonable £10 a share. I plan to sell 100 shares at first, and maybe more in future. Then you won't need to worry about holding cash yourself, you can securely trade in my rock-solid securities.
I believe my business reputation as a rowing (in both senses), suing, jumper-wearing, publicity-whoring numpty ought to do wonders for the reputation of my company...
I like lines around things. It makes it obvious what's a button or a single element, and what isn't. So for example, my imagination still paints the line you've taken away around the upvote/downvote buttons. I go to click on them, and the mouse pointer doesn't change to a button-pressing-pointy-finger, because I'm actually hovering over the number, which is now no longer part of the button. Fair enough, other than making it a smaller target it's no problem. But I just don't understand why? The old buttons were perfectly fine.
You've also taken away your red branding, and everything's going grey. Well your choice obviously. I don't personally go for it, but it's no skin off my rosy nose - and makes the forum no better or worse.
Putting the icons away on the right is just silly though. They should be the first thing you see. It's already difficult enough getting the hard-of-thinking to realise you're making a joke sometimes. But how come I have to press a button to get the icons when I'm posting?
Finally, small white writing on grey background? Really? Bold white on black yes please, but not thin white on grey. Please give us visual contrast. It makes stuff easier to find. Sod the designers, sod pretty, go for obvious. This site is aimed at techies who generally prefer function over form. But if you want design, you can't sacrifice function for form, it's either both, or if you must lose one, lose form.
Finally to play my trump card. The disabled card for me please. I'm visually impaired. I like big, bold and contrasty. It costs me less concentration and mental effort to sort it out. That's true for average sighted people too, so no bad thing. My reading glasses use 5x magnification, and so have to be focused in on a couple of words at a time. So I get positional cues from peripheral vision. To a lesser extent that's true of everyone, who use centre vision for detail.
For example, If you're going to use a line to separate posts, don't use the thinnest grudging line the designers can get away with, because they're all sulking as users complained when they took the old one away in the last re-design. Put the old thick one back. It makes the page look no uglier. But it does make it clearer. And clarity is a good thing. You seem to be moving your forums gradually to just a bunch of information floating in white space. Devoid of any structure holding it together. I don't understand why. That structure should guide the eye to where it's supposed to be. In summary, lines are good (as that nice Columbian man told me last night).
Re: Equador, the pillar of freedom
No-one can do anything about the US spying on them. Because they're busy spying on the US right back. Plus there's no point trying to stop spying, it's like trying to stop gravity.
Governments spy. They always have, and probably always will. There'll be a short period of public embarrassment, then everyone will go back to business-as-usual.
As for paperwork being a hassle, it really is. One of the things about being a proper democracy is the rule of law. That means the courts can overrule the government. So you can get lumbered with people like Abu Qatada, because the courts won't let you kick his sorry arse out the door due to his human rights.
So if you take in someone like Snowden, the courts might rule that he isn't a genuine asylum claimant and make you send him back home. Which could be embarrassing if you've just been using him to polish up your credentials with his hero-worshippers online.
Look at Assange. Ecuador took him in for some cheap PR. In the hopes that the UK would do a deal. But the UK can't do a deal, as our courts have ruled he's got to go to Sweden. Remember our government doesn't get to directly tell the police what to do. Of course, hints could be dropped, and he could be easily sneaked out of the country if the Met were willing to cooperate. But it would be a career-ending screw-up if (when) it leaked out, and possibly a criminal conspiracy. Even if they wanted to, it would be too much hassle and risk to ignore the law.
I guess one 'good' thing about the Cold War, was that there was always a spy handy to trade for anyone you wanted to get back from Russia.
Sadly there doesn't seem to be anyone we can trade for Andrey Lugovoy. Although I guess they wouldn't have swapped him anyway.
Re: Rock and a hard place
I think you've been reading too much spy fiction. Plus, what "President's lies"? He's not been made stateless, he's a US citizen, but has had his right to travel taken away. He can go home to the US any time he likes. Or he can find somewhere else that wants to take him.
'It has been reported that the US VP put pressure on countries' is not evidence of Obama lying. Or in fact evidence of anything. It's just rumour. Even if true, saying please extradite to us our criminal is not diplomatic wheeler-dealering.
Whatever is, or isn't, true in the Snowden case, he's not important enough to change Middle East policy for. Neither the US or Russians are even remotely likely to think so. Even if he was, the story has already been leaked, so there's nothing left to bargain for.
Re: Equador, the pillar of freedom
You don't understand. No-one wants him because it's too much hassle. He's trouble, and you never know what he'll do. And whatever it is, it'll generate automatic publicity. Plus there's all those forms to fill out. Paperwork's a bitch you know...
In the case of the genuine democracies it's even worse. I'm not sure he's got a valid case for asylum. He broke US laws and they're seeking to arrest and try him. That's not political persecution, that's legal due process. So the German government could stick two fingers up to the US, and then have a legal minefield to walk though, then find they have to extradite him anyway, on instruction from their own courts. Or maybe not, as it could be regarded as a political crime, and therefore exempt from extradition treaties.
Remember, internet wish-fulfilment is not the same as actual, real life.
As for Russia, they can do what they want, as their courts will do what they're told. But it's one thing to make mischief and get free publicity, while embarrassing an adversary. It's another to actually do something, and create a diplomatic incident. Putin wants trade with the US, and diplomatic deals with them too. There's no point gratuitously pissing them off, unless there's something in it for him. As an ex-KGB officer, he's unlikely to be shocked at the idea of spying...
I doubt it's anything to do with US aid. They've given asylum to Assange already. And look how that's turned out...
They've got an untidy bloke blocking up their sofa, and he's just persuaded one of their consuls to do something stupid, and possibly embarrassing, while the ambassador was away. Diplomats are supposed to be publicity-shy unless directly instructed otherwise.
Anyway, the rules of asylum are that you're supposed to claim it in the first country you come to, when you get there. Or you can claim it in an embassy beforehand and then go off there. But I'm not sure that second one is of much practical use, because if you're fleeing from the country you're in - what's to stop them intercepting you on your way to the border, between embassy and target country? As usual with international law, it tends towards the impractical, and appears to be written to assume that all countries are good and honest global citizens. Given what a cynical bunch diplomats, lawyers and politicians are I've never quite understood how that happens...
Re: I met James Cameron in a London hotel bar once.
Does that mean it's you I should punch, and demand that 5 hours of my life back?
Well it seemed like 5 hours anyway...
Re: Grab the pitchforks! Ignite the torches!
From the description here it sounds like a case of Apple hearing about the Samsung "eye-tracking control" and launching into a rapid "quick, lets do the same so that we invented it" mode
No it doesn't. From the article it sounds like Apple are playing around with beta software for people with disabilities to access their products. Which, as shouldn't need to be explained to you, is a good thing.
When Apple are rubbish, or laughable, or just plain evil - please feel free to point and laugh at them with the rest of us. When they do something good, it would be nice to praise them for it. It's not an effort that Google had bothered to make with Android for the first few years. I've not looked at their accessibility options in the last year or so, so they may have improved.
Re: What's the state of Android Accessibility?
These feature sets have been already been implemented superbly by real companies who do innovate!
Have Google? Which was my question.
I've been to industry exhibitions on this stuff (as research for starting a company selling it), and there are plenty of computers accessible to people with disabilities. But the only thing I've seen in phones are big buttons and very simple talking ones. No-one has done the kind of modifications to a smartphone that you can get on PCs - at least that I'm aware of. I wouldn't be surprised if this is no longer true, my knowledge is out of date. Android certainly has the potential, as it's so easy to customise. If I was going to sell an accessible smartphone, I'd sell a modified 'Droid of some sort.
However, despite your hatred of Apple, they've done something good here. They've not put in as much effort as I'd like them to, but they have put in a decent amount - and should be applauded for it.
So chimps can only hurl poo underarm? Might this explain the performance of our Australian friends in the cricket recently?
Possibly they are de-evolving due to all that sun, and easy money from mechanically digging stuff out of shallow holes in the ground and selling it to China. Perhaps all we need to win the Ashes is to have some distracting bananas on the field at all times...
To channel both the spirit of Eadon and W G Grace: Australia rhymes with FAILure!
What's the state of Android Accessibility?
There were almost no accessibility options when I had one, back in the 2.2 days - what's it like now?
Apple have baked quite a few into iOS, and I believe were recommended by the RNIB. It all looked a bit unfinished to me last time I played with it, trying to see if a 10 year-old blind kid could manage it, only partially successfully. However I've heard that they're making more efforts and recently asked him to do some usability testing. With this news as well, at least Apple seem to be taking the issue at least semi-seriously.
It is hard though. I saw a sat-nav for blind people, and almost none of them could use it, as there were just too many menus required. In the end, the company went back to the drawing board and came up with something massively simpler. It tells you where you are, so you know when to get off public transport - but only has a few programmed places - which you have to program in when you're actually there. Some of this stuff requires a superb memory of how the system works, and what the menu items are, so only the more techie blind people can really get to grips with it.
Personally I expected Android to become the kit of choice. Even if Google didn't do it, by being totally customisable, one of the existing suppliers could produce various flavours of accessible launchers. Maybe that's already happened?
Re: Unconfirmed claim that he's in iceland?
while he's chillaxing in the ecuadorian embassy with asange.
I very much doubt that. There's no room. This sofa ain't big enough for the both of us!
Anyway, I resent that remark of yours. I'm Spartacus!
I am not Apple or Android fan but from having used them both iPhone beats any and Android device hands down. (Bring doen the down votes)
Having played with, and read reviews of, the new Blackberry and owned a 'Droid, a Win Phone 7 and now on my first iPhone (a 5) - I can say they're all pretty much of a muchness now. They've all got their differences, strengths and weaknesses, but none of them now totally outshines the others.
Just in the last few months I've recommended a cheapie Windows Phone to a couple of people, a Samsung Galaxy Note to a mate who wants the stylus and big screen and an iPhone to someone else. It's horses-for-courses, and I'm not talking lasagne...
I thought that as well, but didn't the Google Nexus 4 come out in October? Admittedly there were only 3 available to buy, and most people probably didn't get theirs until December/January...
But that's in the same time-frame as the iPhone 5, and about half the price. Although I believe only the direct from Google ones are quite so ridiculously cheap.
As happens, I don't really care. The Nokia Lumia 710 I used to own had a pretty crappy processor even by the standards of the cheap Androids at the time. But it was very fast, presumably due to having a less complicated UI, no multi-tasking - and perhaps more efficient code. It was also pretty nippy on the few apps I ran on it, and was the fastest thing to get a satnav lock that I've used.
Personally I think more than 2 or 3 apps multi-tasking is overrated on a phone, but then I don't use many apps. I prefer a tablet for those. For those that disagree, there's the top-end Androids.
Re: New name
There seems to be a tendency in recent years for people to use words they know are considered abusive without knowing the actual meaning of the word
My Mum had picked up twat as a nice safe, inoffensive insult. The worst swear word she'll allow herself is oh bugger. When we were kids it was "oh bugs", in the hope we wouldn't notice... She's in her mid 70s so swearing isn't something she does much, and it mostly makes her uncomfortable.
It was extremely funny when she found out what twat actually meant. I've never heard her use it since. Perhaps I ought to persuade her that calling people tea-baggers is a nice harmless insult...
Re: A question of forum etiquette
It's one of the few swearwords that still retains some of its power to shock. You still don't hear it very often. And most people would put it top of the naughty hit parade.
I guess in 10-15 years time it'll be as commonplace as fuck has become. I can't think of anything else left to use, and as many of these swearwords are quite old that could mean nothing new comes along to replace it. Rather like antibiotics slowly become less useful as immunity builds up - soon there will be no effective swears left...
Well apart from Belgium...
I don't know why Eadon gets to you so much though. Which he obviously does from the levels of exasperation in some of your responses. He's not offensive to other users, apart from sometimes calling them shills. And even then, he usually does that in general terms. A pointed passive-aggressive, "there's a lot of Microsoft Shills about" in reply to one of my nice posts about Win Mob is the worst I can think of off-hand. He's also not got the full set of troll-skills. He'll bomb a thread with anti-MS posts, but only reply to the posts that go up while he's still looking at it. He doesn't tend to endlessly come back and obsessively reply to all the people having a go at him.
Plus I get uncomfortable at some of the personal abuse he cops. Mostly people make funny digs (and if you're trolling you have to take that), but sometimes people stray over into being personal and nasty. And I've never seen him respond to that by returning the abuse. So he deserves brownie points for that.
So I don't think it's fair for you to call him a cunt. If your post got modded, then it deserved it. When I was a forum mod I'd have handed out a day's forum ban for it as well. But that was a far more strictly modded community that here. On the Irish forum I was even supposed to stop them saying feck. Separating an Irishman from his right to say that is fecking impossible.
So don't be a stupid Ghent. Lighten up. As jake would say, have a home brew. Although all the home brew I've tasted was vile, so maybe have something brewed by professionals instead.
Re: Withdrawn posts are not available for public view.
People use it instead of editing posts. I used to do it occasionally, before you so kindly gave me an edit button. It's then a bit annoying, as you scan down your recent posts looking for replies - as withdrawn ones get in the way. The easiest way to deal with it would be to compress them, and you have to press the expand comment button to see them. That is if you consider it worth bothering to do anything at all.
Assuming editing is the reason, then rolling out the edit button to more people would have a similar effect, for less work.
Re: Pity to see
I hope that's not giving you guys dangerous ideas.
If the next SPB turns out to involve nanotechnology, or be a miniaturised submarine with Raquel Welch and a bunch of El Reg hacks on board, then we know there's trouble in store.
Re: Change of name maybe?
Dubious coding practices and giving away scads of private data. Facepalm? I think not. They should rename it to Facebook.
Re: He's Australian
Firstly, I wasn't being serious. I was having an unjustified dig at Australia / Australians. I'm hoping for an Ashes triumph to celebrate soon, with a side-order of gloating.
As for your 'points'. Norriega was a CIA asset. Not British. Much to their embarrassment he was supposed to be giving them intelligence on drug-running, and was in fact himself drug-running. I'm assuming he didn't get round to telling them that particular bit. I seem to recall they paid him serious money as well.
I don't believe he was ever acting in the best interests of the people of Panama. Not that the CIA were either.
Name and shame them!
According to that quote, the site was penetration tested. Who by? Chimpanzees?
I warn you, if you try to fondle your iPlod touch, you could get into serious trouble!
Can't we have a permanent BBQ with XXXX (cos they can't spell
piss beer) on the pavement outside. Perhaps a few of his countrymen getting stuffed at cricket as well. Plus a nice sheep or two to steal. I'm sure all that lot would make him feel at home, and maybe tempt him out.
I guess we'd need to put up some floodlights to try and pretend that it's sunny though.
Re: About sofas
Just consider it a particularly large, and untidy, pale cushion.
...With an Aussie accent...
Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done
To be fair to Wikileaks they did publish the un-edited version of the 'collateral murder' video.
To be realistic about Wikileaks they also did their own credibility massive damage by releasing an edited version (which I suspect is the one most people saw) that gave a false picture of the event.
Funny how they then refused to edit out the names of the Afghan informers, because it was their job to just release stuff, but seemingly that didn't apply to playing silly-buggers with the evidence in a different case.
We allow in refugees for asylum who we think have genuine requests to make for asylum. Assange doesn't.
Anyway, Assange didn't ask us for asylum. He asked our courts to not allow a perfectly legal warrant for his removal to Sweden. His grounds were basically that we shouldn't have passed that law - and that the evidence/accusations didn't meet the requirements for extradition (which is a different legal process entirely). After a case and 3 appeals, he lost. The legislation was ruled to be compliant with our other laws, and the evidence/accusations were also deemed to be acceptable for both the EAW, and the traditional extradition process. Even though the second bit was irrelevant, as that's not a requirement of the EAW system, which is supposed to act like an arrest warrant with extra protections, not like an extradition.
He is accused of rape by the way. He's accused of using his superior size and weight to force himself on an unwilling partner. Who was only willing if he put on a condom. I believe hat's the most serious of the allegations. If that's a false allegation, the only chance we'll find out if the legal process is completed. Assange had enough trust in the Swedish system that he applied for citizenship - so it's a bit late to claim their courts are rigged now.
But for somebody who wants information freely open in the public domain and let's face it, it wasn't 'dangerous' information
He published the names and addresses of people who'd given information to NATO troops about the Taleban. Do you not regard that as dangerous information? Because I fucking do! I believe he said something like it was their own fault if they got killed because of it.
He also published diplomatic information that didn't advance our knowledge of any alleged government wrongdoing, but possibly did make the process of international diplomacy harder. It's a matter of opinion as to whether this was a good or bad thing. Woodrow Wilson called at the Versailles conference for "Open agreements, openly arrived at." Every comment I've read on this from other diplomats and historians has called it hopelessly naive - and said that the whole point of diplomacy is to allow nations to talk with some secrecy in order to allow them to negotiate and change positions with some freedom. This may be an arguable case, but the peace process in Northern Ireland could not have proceeded without the secret talks begun in the 80s (under Thatcher), and the closest we ever got to peace between Israel and the Palestinians also relied on a long process of secret negotiations. The process that allowed a mostly peaceful handover of power to the ANC in South Africa was also secret diplomacy.
I suspect that although the diplomatic cable leaks have been interesting to read, and revealed a some (unsurprising) shenanigans, they've probably done slightly more harm than good.
However, even if you think that Wikileaks has only done good things, that still doesn't give Assange a free pass to break any laws he likes. If he's guilty of rape, he deserves to spend a nice long time in prison. If he's guilty of espionage, rather than just receiving stolen information, then he has to face the consequences of his actions.
Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....
If he'd gone to Sweden last year, this could all have been finished by now. I can't see them being likely to find him guilty anyway, given there were only 2 people in the room at the time. And he's not accused of violence, so there shouldn't be any injuries to look at. There's not likely to be much evidence.
But instead he's hung around here, stringing it out. A year ago the US didn't look to have an extradition case ready. Myself I doubt they'll be able to make one that's likely to be accepted by UK or Swedish courts. They've mistreated their potential witness, Bradley Manning, and that's not likely to go down well. But such case as they can put together is more likely to be ready, the longer this goes on.
Re: The question is...
Embassies are under the laws of the country they're in. They're not sovereign territory, that's a common misconception. Although they are immune from lots of local laws/fines.
Anyway, it's so small, he doesn't have to come outside if there's a fire drill, just make his way to the nearest exit and shout, "I'm here".
I wonder if this is now going to be the least desired posting in the Ecuadorian diplomatic service. Like Ulan Bator is in the British... "If you don't get that report on my desk by lunchtime, then I'll send you to London to cook Assange's dinner!"
Re: Once again.....
I'm almost certain my next tablet will have a stylus. Possibly a keyboard cover type thing as well. But actually although I use my Logitech Bluetooth keyboard with my iPad reasonably often, it's having a stylus that I miss - at times when using a keyboard is still inconvenient. I'm sitting on the sofa, and want to knock out 2 paragraphs of text. The onscreen keyboard is frustrating, I don't want to get up, fetch the physical one, then have to go to a table to use it. Fumbling round trying to do cut+paste would also be a whole lot easier with pen in hand.
So if Apple won't give me one, I think I'm jumping ship. Sadly Samsung being the only real stylusey game in town, they're charging a nice fat premium for them. Hopefully some nice rivals will knock the profits down a bit. Also making them more common would get more apps working with them too.
At the price of this, I could almost get an HP Atom based full-fat Win 8 tablet. Although I haven't checked to see if that has a digitiser, or if only the expensive Win 8 tablets have those. Hopefully the increased tablet competition will have someone building what I want for cheaper than the £600 you need for the 64GB iPad.
My friend's neighbours'
owner cat doesn't feel that it's being fed sufficiently. So it wanders round to his for dinner. But this isn't acceptable, as it beats his cat up - and nicks it's food of course.
It's a warm Summer's evening, but the windows and doors are all closed, to avoid incoming feline menace. Except one of those tiny little transom windows you get at the top of double glazing. And that was only open a bit.
I heard the bang as the cat missed the first time, so saw it do this. It leapt from the ground, from a standing start to a height of just shy of 2m. Quite high ceilings in this house, so I'd guess the window was my head height, 6'. It had one front paw outstretched, and ran this up under the open pane of the window, and hooked it over the bottom of the window frame. Then dragged itself up by one paw, using its nose to lever the window open and sort of pour itself through the gap and onto the windowsill inside. A very impressive feat of acrobatics.
It then wandered off nonchalantly to the kitchen for a quick bite to eat.
Devil icon, because we're talking about cats here.
Re: The numbers are wrong
The given weight included lift car and a whole bunch of people.
Re: No, but seriously ...
The reason he's in so much trouble is that we really don't have "freedom of speech"
Nope. The reason he's in so much trouble, is that he's accused of rape. He fled the police interview, opposed being returned to a jurisdiction he was seeking citizenship of at 4 court cases, lost all of them, and then buggered off to the Ecuadorian embassy in a further effort to evade justice. That's why he's in trouble.
To be fair to him, it may be that he's genuinely paranoid that the US are out to get him, and so his reason for avoiding Sweden may be genuine paranoia/mental illness/belief. Only he and his accusers know what actually happened. But I'm more inclined to suspect he's avoiding justice because he's been a naughty boy. Given that he has better legal protection after being extradited to Sweden than before, and he thought it was a safe enough country to become a citizen of only a few years back.
As for having him trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy. Nope again. He's got himself trapped in there. He can leave at any time. He can head back to Sweden and face the music, or he can stay in that embassy until the Ecuadorian government get sick of him and boot him out. That was his choice. Being in Sweden was his choice. Coming here after fleeing Sweden was his choice.
It may be there's a shadowy conspiracy to get him. That was the risk he took when he started playing at that level of international politics. However I've yet to see any real evidence of that. And if some of the stuff that Bradley Manning has said is true, then Assange may have broken the law in getting that information. You can claim to be a journalist if you receive info. If you ask for specific stuff, and help with the hacking to get it, then you're getting much closer to espionage. If there's any truth to that, and if they haven't totally buggered the case by the criminal way they've treated Manning, then maybe the US can make that stick. Though most countries would probably refuse extradition.
I would like to know why we're still trying (10 years on) to deport the European head al Al Queda yet our beloved British government has Assange trapped inside an Embassy and threatens to deport him the second he steps over the threshold.
So you've just disproved your own argument. If we don't have freedom of speech or democracy, how come these situations? Assange, Abu Qatada, Abu Hamza have all pissed off the UK government in various ways. And yet all of them got their days in court and in the case of 2 of them, our government keeps losing. We are obliged to protect their human rights by our laws, the government isn't being allowed to break those laws, and laws passed by parliament have been struck down or modified by the courts if they deemed them not to be compatible with human rights. That's the courts functioning as a check on the power of the executive.
Assange will be deported. But was given bail by the courts, even though he was an obvious flight-risk. As he'd already buggered off from Sweden. His freedom of speech is not being curtailed. He's getting to say what he wants. So would you like to re-state your problem?
What's even worse, we're trying to push that fake onto other countries starting civils wars and international conflict as a part of the process. Indeed wars in what were stable countries, albeit countries with a different 'management structure'. Whether the previous structures were inferior to our "democracy" is certainly debatable
I suggest you need some further study. Reality studies perhaps...
I like your phrase "different Management Structure". Would that refer to Saddam or Gadaffi? Or Assad. All have managed to kill quite a lot of their own people. 2 of those regimes have used poison gas on their own citizens. None of them were stable governments when we intervened. Afghanistan certainly wasn't, there'd been a civil war going on for arguably over 20 years. Or you could count it from after the Soviets pulled out. The Taleban mostly won, looked like they'd stabilised things for a year, then turned out to be so awful that they were losing large chunks of the country again, even before 2001.
Whatever you might say about the reasons for, or the effects of, intervention in various countries, you certainly can't say that Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan had good systems in place. Or were stable. Iraq was only pretending to be stable after the fighting stopped in 91, because the UN put in a no-fly zone to stop the massacre of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. Without that it would have been an ongoing civil war. Well the Marsh Arabs would probably all be dead, but the Kurds had better terrain, organisation and weapons.
Re: What happens
For all International law can be an ass, I'm fairly sure this one will be covered off around safe protection for embassy staff and access by fire, rescue and safety officers to controlled areas. It would be kind of an obvious vector of attack otherwise.
Assange's position isn't covered by international law. The Vienna conventions, under which embassies operate, don't recognise the right of refuge/sanctuary/asylum in embassies. As I understand it, this is standard convention in South America, and some other parts of the world, but not everywhere, and so not covered by the international agreements that everyone signs up to.
Embassies have certain legal privileges and immunities, but they're also only supposed to use them for diplomatic purposes, which protecting Assange isn't. So there's an argument to say that Ecuador are in breach of the conventions, but there are no sanctions built in. However for us to storm the embassy would also be a breach of them. Stand off. There's a big fat grey area here, where diplomacy is supposed to work.
We apparently have a clause in our legal implementation of diplomatic rules that in extraordinary circumstances we can declare an embassy temporarily no longer one so the police can march in. This was after the Libyans allowed a bloke to shoot a police woman from theirs, and got the murderer out under immunity. Normally this needs the permission of the ambassador or government in question, such as when we stormed the Iranian embassy (with permission).
To use it for Assange would be obvious over-kill - and make us look really bad. So that the only realistic sanction we have would be to kick their embassy out of the country (virtually breaking off diplomatic relations), then wander in, and pick Assange up. Which would be more diplomatically damaging than simply doing nothing. But not break any conventions. Well, I say that, but even then the embassy is still their property, so technically we'd probably still be on dodgy ground going in. Though not in cutting off power, water and sewage services.
Final point. The embassy is UK territory. It's not Ecuador, it's under our law. It's just we have a law implementing international agreements on diplomacy that makes things complicated.
And in a few years when the tables have turned everyone who had a hand in keeping him in "prison"
That's Julian Assange himself. His current incarceration is purely voluntary.
shall themselves be in prison for ten times as long
That'd be a bugger for poor Julian. So he'd get 10 years in a small flat in Knightsbridge sleeping on a sofa to pay for the year he's already put himself through...
Re: My opinion......This author comes off as a spoiled teenager, because its everyone elses fault.
It's consumer advice. OK he puts it in a light, overly-cynical conversational style. But as a reader you're supposed to be bright enough to know that money isn't everything.
The question is, how do you get your fair share of the cash available. In most cases, if you don't ask, you won't get. Even if you do ask, you'll have to persuade the company it's worth their while to pay you.
Smaller companies are better here. You're usually not working for a faceless manager who's part of a faceless bureaucracy - but someone with power and incentive to treat you well. The downside is that they probably get to keep all, or a portion of, any extra profit the company makes, so every extra penny they pay you literally comes out of their own pocket. But there's a good chance theyWith larger companies your manager may want to pay you more, but not be able to - or may be able to but not want to. If you've got one that is paying you more, and training you, then you don't need to be reading these articles...
So I think Dominic Connor is providing a valuable service here. In an ideal world, everyone would be adult and sensible, and act in their long-term best interests, while also being moral, and treating people fairly. This isn't an ideal world.
In my case, I once got promoted to do my ex-boss's job. He left because they failed to give him the training they'd promised him, and it was clear that his career wouldn't move on any further, and in fact would go backwards as it was a limited and niche area. But actually they didn't promote me, they just handed me his workload. Then we had a long drawn out process where the carrot of promotion was held in front of me, but always just out of reach. So I was getting paid my old salary for my ex-boss's job. With the promise of getting it eventually. This wasn't them being totally evil, it was politics at the management level. On the other hand, I was being ripped off. And not getting the nearly 50% pay rise they owed me - and that it would cost them to get anyone else competent to to it. As happens, no deviousness was required. My boss understood my situation (and I think even genuinely sympathised). It wasn't personal. And actually the extra responsibility improved my chances on the job market. So I openly job hunted, and that encouraged them to employ me. Everyone was polite, mature and reasonable, management settled their bun-fight and it all ended happily. My obvious threat to leave gave my boss the power to get me hired, because my knowledge of a niche area was currently unique within the company. If my manager had been a bastard it would have turned out differently. He'd have recognised he needed me, and won his political battle. If he'd been an idiot, he might have got rid of me, as I'd "insulted" him by looking elsewhere, and cost the company money. His inability to get his wants past other management cost me real money (4 months of the higher wage I should have had - i.e. a bloody good holiday or a cheap-ish car), so it's worth considering how good your boss is at office politics, as well as how nice they are.
- 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
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- NSFW Oz couple get jiggy in pharmacy in 'banned' condom ad