62 posts • joined Tuesday 15th September 2009 12:16 GMT
Re: Missed the point
"No, I doubt that if i was on the receiving end of this that I would be gravely offended."
Do you think your opinion on that reflects that of general society, or do you fall well outside of social norms? Please use the given example as a reference. Don't forget that troll tried to be as offensive as possible. I would most certainly be most offended in that scenario.
So what do you propose? How should that be deployed? Do you really believe trolls would respond to 'advice' in threads they are trying to derail? I don’t think so!
"No, I just think some things aren't worth getting that upset about. It is, after all, just letters arranged in a particular order.
No, it is letters arranged entirely with the motivation of causing maximum offence, again and again and again.
Do you think desecration of a shrine, even an online one, is not worth getting upset about? As an example: would you or your mother really not mind if I rearranged the letters on your father’s tombstone to read something like "killed by AIDS from bum sex with his HIV+ son, ha haa" It's only letters after all - right?
"The world would be a much nicer place if people could accept that others have different views to their own rather than punching them, shooting them or insisting they be locked up."
Is trolling simply "having different views"? Perhaps you need to consider those examples again! Indeed, the world would be a nice place without the trolls, trying to get others to punch them!
Re: Freedom of speech v the law
Thank you. Your one word "yes" is clear enough". You should also appreciate that such an answer also negates the possibility of action through private law. My question had on association with private or criminal law; it was actually "without fear of reprisal or punishment:" (possible action through private law does not count as 'without fear of reprisal or punishment:').
So, to confirm my understanding: you really would allow, without fear of reprisal or punishment (in any form), people to desecrate personal online memorial and shrines even though they are being as nasty, persistent and personal as possible?
I've addressed the issue of private law lower down in this thread.
Re: Missed the point
Why go through the pain of private law? Have you any idea of how protracted/complicated/expensive these routes can be to the victims? Haven't the victims suffered enough at the hands of these nasty, persistent idiots? Why make the victims jump through hoops to stop something that is obviously idiotic, vile and waaaay oversteps reasonable social boundaries? And for what? To help defend the rights of hostile, anti-social f***wits intent on causing maximum possible offence and upset?
Re: Oh, really?
“ It is very easy for someone who has genuine opposition to a point being made being labelled as a troll - you yourself have come very close to this in your replies to some people who have been disagreeing with you. Indeed, if I were of the right mindset, I could refer to you as a troll here, since you are persisting in putting forward a view that - from the number of downvotes you have received - puts you firmly on the other side of the argument.”
Your logic is flawed. You have to understand how factors are influenced. For example, this forum is usually frequented by engineers and computer buffs, who on average, spend less time being social in the community (seriously, I think that’s a fair comment). So I would expect the populous here to be somewhat less sensitive. Also, I have repeatedly asked various posters if they believe their views (defending the trolling examples I gave) reflect that of general society. No-one has even tried to answer.
Also, again, I don’t believe I am even risking offence of anyone. Furthermore, I believe I have shown that my opinions have merit – I have positively contributed to the discussions, not disrupted them. So to even hint that I’m trolling is a bit ironic.
“Some examples - if I go to a religious forum and ask for reasons why people believe in God, am I being a troll?”
IMO: Of course not. People’s relationships with God can be very complex and interesting.
“If I go to a cycling forum and say that I think that cyclists are a menace on the roads...”
IMO: if you substantiate that claim properly (which is unlikely, but assuming you can), then no
“and should have tax and insurance like other road-users, am I being a troll?”
IMO No. I believe that argument has at least some merit.
“If I go to the Conservative Party forum and state that I think that they are an objectionable bunch, is that trolling?”
No if you can substantiate that claim properly (and perhaps you could if you tried)
“ In many cases, the answer would likely be Yes”
Evidently, not. Granted some are conditional, but that depends entirely on the sincerity of the poster.
“Perhaps you, because sites like that are essentially clubs for the like-minded, and dissent is regarded as offensive”
I really hope you see the irony of your comment: “puts you firmly on the other side of the argument”
Re: Freedom of speech v the law
Just to check:
Do you support the right to do these (below), without fear of reprisal or punishment:
Re: Missed the point
“why does what the majority want make it right?”
As I said elsewhere: would you prefer that kind of power to be in the hands of the few “idiot legislators and godlike executive powers”
"THE general public are very often totally wrong”
Indeed we are (even me :) ), but the legislators can be, not just wrong, but outright conflicted.
Moreover, governments seek to expand themselves, so I reckon if you left it up to the authorities, we would all have to surf with our real identities – just like China.
Do you really want to risk this?
Re: Missed the point
“I don't think my example was bad. It is a law that is based purely on causing offense. It would seem that a large proportion of the people in these countries agree that it's offensive.”
The potential for offence varies on a national basis.
“The first, ... It does not, in my opinion, warrant a criminal conviction.”
Possibly, but you do condemn it, right? It is causing grave offence (however you define it), right? Society should take steps to prevent this, right?
"The second ... it's easy to ignore a facebook group.”
What if the group was YOUR OWN, for your own child, as it was in one of the examples: “targeted Facebook tribute pages”
And it seems you are another who believes one should “roll over and give up”, is that correct?
"I've not, at any point, suggested you should roll over and give up."
Not you, but others have said it: "...get out of the blogosphere." "stay out of the playground."
Personally I find if you don't feed the trolls, they get bored and go away."
Then you've not encountered a real one; the nastier trolls create attention. Besides, trolls don't die, they go elsewhere for their attention.
To get to the point: are you actually saying society should not take any lawful action against these sickos?
Do you really believe trying to ignore these guys is the best way forward? Really? If so, do you believe the general public would support you on that?
Re: Oh, really?
“Perhaps the criteria for use needs refining, but there is law enough already to deal with internet trolls,”
Yes, laws already exist, but they are/were very difficult to implement and are a waste of police time and money. New laws will make the loss of the troll’s anonymity much more straight forward, then the existing laws can be applied for sentencing.
Yes, any such law would certainly need refined guildelines to ensure there is a generally accepted balance – which is exactly why there will be a public consultation (and IMO is the right thing to do, unless you want those in power to take those decisions for you) – which takes us back to my original point: the trolls are further pushing the general public to accept their giving up of freedoms and anonymities. You need look no further than the sick examples who targeted the recently killed police officers - there will be many more people who will very happy for *everyone* to lose their anonymity as a deterrence. You say there are a great many people who are “reluctant to see any legislation” (especially the trolls no doubt), but the fact is there is an increasing number of people who are now calling for such legislation, purely to kerb the activities of trolls – and right now, general opinion is swinging in that direction. I guarantee you one thing: nothing will not happen!
If you don’t want the legislation, then don’t be a tit! Surely it is as simple as that? Why does anyone want to troll anyway?
Re: Freedom of speech v the law
I haven’t stated or discussed whether or not those examples deserves jail time (my direct answer to that would be ‘probably not in those particular cases’; however, if there were elements of stalking or seemingly genuine threats then possibly). However, I am claiming that such behaviours must not be allowed and cannot go unpunished.
So, do you believe those examples show allowable behaviour? Do you defend them of condone them?
Re: Missed the point
You picked a really bad example: one that is invalid outside of this country and its laws.
I gave two very relevant/pertinent examples earlier:
Do you think the UK populous would generally be so agreeing to let these perpetrators go without taking at least some action against them?
Then you haven't listened either ;)
Yes, being offended is ususally a choice, but as I said earlier (timewise) in this thread: being deliberately offensive is also a choice.
Also, you didn't answer either of my questions.
Re: Freedom of speech v the law
How topical - here's another example:
So, would James 100, and the upvoters of his comment, say that no action was needed against that example of trolling?
Re: Freedom of speech v the law
At the risk of making things awkward for El Reg.....
I just want to check, and I would like those who upvoted you to answer too:
Would you have NOT acted in this case:
If 'not', do you think your opinion in this case reflect that of society in general?
Missed the point
You are right to say there is no reliable, foolproof test for the potential for offence. However, this completely misses the point.
The trolling that is being reigned in is really, really obvious attempt at strong and continued offence. Surely you don't need a test for the "X Factor" case", do you? Do you need a test for the 'Natasha MacBryde/Sean Duffy' case too?
Isn't it cases as clear-cut as those that people are concerned about?
Re: Oh, really?
How is it "irrelevant"? You say I have my "nanny state"; I said that I actively campaign against it. Then you call me a liar: "fictional events". Nice bit of trolling there!
"You'd be surprised what people are capable of when they get too much power at their disposal", which I why I call for accountability of those who abuse their unlimited freedom, before society demands that authorities take full control of the internet. Do you really still not understand this simple concept? Can you also see how it works both ways, and that perhaps the best approach is a compromise?
"Everyone else can leave those communities, too! " and the trolls will inevitably follow the posters to the new communities - unless you think they won't? So extending the logic: are you suggesting the sensible people simply leave the internet completely and let the trolls take over? Really? Wouldn’t it be better to simply not troll?
"Nobody has to kill him-/herself over a few words posted on a message board somewhere." Look up 'strawman argument' to see why your reasoning is invalid. (People can get offended and upset without getting suicidal). Are you really OK with the trolls who, purposely and needlessly, offend and upset people?
Do you really not understand the difference between "legislated" and "held to account"? People are already starting to be held to account for their internet trolling (excellent!), does this mean the internet is now fully regulated? If you think not, then you prove my point; otherwise if you really think so, try net surfing within China to gain some perspective!
So again: do you want to live in a world where people aren’t held to account for harm they do to others? Seriously? What do you think the rest of society thinks about that?
How do you not 'listen' (or whatever) to trolling? Don't you have to read something first to determine what it is?
Also, what if the trolling is on your own sincere website/thread, should you roll over and give up on that too and allow the disruption? If so, why?
Choose not to be a waste of life, people
Re: Oh, really?
To undo your pathetic ad hominem: I actually actively campaign against some aspects of what our government tells us (yes anonymously – I like this), which I suspect is more than you do. So no, I reject the ‘nanny state’. Perhaps you aren't trolling, who knows; this is the problem. This is why I don't bother posting so much these days, because it is difficult to know what comments are sincere.
Another example: I said “society” which you seem to have translated to “ruling class”, and yet you call me an idiot! Don’t worry, I’m not offended and I won’t try to fine/jail you for that.
“No one's forcing anybody to read anything posted online.” This runs exactly parallel with the comments from some of the summer rioters: “no ask for the shops to be placed there”. Great logic!
"recognized as a troll"; please, I'm a forum admin for a campaign website (yes, really). Trolls, as stupid as their behaviour is, are smart enough to know how to temporarily get under the radar; some are surprisingly persistent.
Your solution of appealing to admin doesn’t work. Many forums are not moderated; others have very lax, or even complicit, ‘moderators’. I have been on many forums and seen this for myself (cycling forums, oh wow).
I don’t want the internet to be legislated, and I certainly don’t want ‘god-like executive powers’ given to anyone. It need not happen if people behave!
Yes, I think everyone should be accountable for everything they do THAT AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE (I need to make this part clear in case trolls misrepresent). Anything less invites anarchy. Do you want to live in a world where people aren’t held to account for harm they do to others? Seriously? What do you think the rest of society thinks about that?
Zombie Womble: “So, you want people to be fined/jailed because you joined the wrong forum and didn't have mummy there to protect you?”
How antagonistic! It is also a silly strawman argument.
Also, trolls don’t have boundaries, in attitude or in forums, evidently!
A person does indeed choose to be offended. However, the offender also chooses to offend.
If the offender realises they are being offensive, then they deserve punishment. If the offender doesn’t realise they are being offensive, then they could well be sociopathic and need to seek help.
Anyway, why do people feel the need to cause offence? Is there really nothing better to do in life?
If society decides that an act is offensive, then it is an offensive act, regardless of what a few insistent individuals say.
I for one welcome the new accountability we have: we have the freedom to post whatever we want and we can do so anonymously, but a troll will be hunted and held to account if they overstep the generally accepted mark. It is either that or it won’t be long before the calls to totally regulate the use of the internet reaches a tipping point, then all of us will lose our anonymity and everyone will always be forced to be utterly polite. Left unchecked, trolls undermine freedom of speech.
Watch as the childish trolls downvote
If at first you don't succeed - cheat!
No-one questioned the record for decades.
Now history is being airbrushed, and only because the argument for AGW isn't strong enough.
To the Lohan team: an alternative to the GoPro
The GoPros ARE good cameras, but their physical profile could be a significant issue for this project.
I've used various cameras on my own planes. I eventually settled with the Foxtech HoryzonHD (also 1080P). The quality is a whisker short of that of the GoPro, the menu probably not as friendly and the buttons are impossible, but the profile can be made to be very minimal. This means considerably less drag and it is less likely to cause issues of balance. And it is lighter (and cheaper).
It might be worth a look.
Will it fire missiles ....
... if you give the commands in Russian?
Clint Eastwood whould be the perfect person to market this!
The same as the old logo ... but with all the creases ironed out ...
Shame the same can't be said for their software!
If you don't like what is on the TV....
... then turn it off.
If they don't like it then they can adopt other (existing) methods to 'protect' themselves; it's not difficult.
Why should a bunch of prudes be allowed dictate what the rest of the world cannot do?
600PPM is nothing
Our planet experienced full-on Ice Ages when there was 10-20x the level of atmospheric CO2 than we have today. Granted that was a very long time ago (think dinosaurs), but the laws of physics don't change over time.
Had anyone else made the link that the greater atmospheric CO2 allowed faster food production, which in turn enabled the survival of those immense giants? Does that hint as a positive link between CO2 and biodiversity?
Ask a AGW acceptor what their ideal level of atmospheric CO2 is. See if anyone is daft enough to answer with zero; plants, animals and humans would very soon become extinct. For anyone who says ‘leave it to nature’, see if they know about the steady trend of CO2 towards zero.
Not no impressive
For a sense of perspective: the really-red nosed Russian was less than 4x the UK limit. Of course that doesn't make it any more acceptable, but this event is hardly worthy of "epic". I'm sure many an El Reg reader has been drunker than that!
What is more interesting/disturbing is how Poland's DD limit is only 25% of that of the UK.
"Unlike active shutter specs, polarising glasses don’t fritter away luminance ..."
So the light from the left image is somehow converted to something useful for the right eye?
Passive polarised glasses DO fritter away light (I have a few of them, I can see the attenuation), but not as much as polarised shutter glasses.
Passive systems do kick butt compared to active ones, but not for that reason.
"It has nothing to do with scientifically."
The effect of saccades applies when you are reading static things like text - here the eye makes discrete jumps. This does NOT apply when following moving subjects (or viewpoints).
East examples you can try for yourself:
a) Read the text of this post - your eyes are jumping (the saccades).
b) Focus (and remain) on any one letter of this post and then rotate your head - your eyes track perfectly smoothly (no saccades).
4K is great...
... if you like watching fruit bowls or landscapes, with humungus 'depth of fields' (typical for HD demo videos).
For the rest of the TV or movie watching community, where moving subjects (and viewing angles) are the norm: a higher frame-rate would be a much more useful use of any additional bandwidth.
The argument that the eye does not benefit from higher frame rates is a moot one, especially when considering HD films. The higher the frame rate, the smaller the visible jumps between frames for moving subjects, resulting with a reduction of the loss of perceived detail.
(don't forget, the eye scans smoothly; it doesn't jumps 24/50/60 times per second when following moving subjects).
FPS freaks really were onto something (be it for the wrong reasons).
Fatigue and speed: the facts
Sleep Related Crashes account for about 25% of all fatal motorway accidents, rising to about half of all crashes (A roads and motorways) during the small hours.
(“Road Safety Research Report No. 52, Sleep-Related Crashes on Sections of Different Road Types in the UK (1995–2001)” ).
All speed factors together are a contributory factor for 14% of all motorway casualties (RCGB2008).
The factor of 'exceeding the speed limit' is generally 1/3 of all the speed factors.
There is clear scope for benefit by increasing motorway limits, not for reducing them.
Added to that is the displacement from/to less safe roads - a 'pull' towards motorways (the safest type of road) can only be a good thing. Reducing motorway limits 'pushes' traffic onto less safe roads, resulting with an overall increase of casualties across the road network (as well negating any supposed reduction of consumption).
Then there is respect for law. Making limits even less reasonable is a step in the wrong direction.
"As for speed cameras..."
Cameras have merely made important what is measureable, hence the undue focus on speed management and unnecessary limit reductions. It is well-known that those in charge of cameras have greatly over-exaggerated their effectiveness (look up: Regression To The Mean)
Cameras gather evidence of one specific technical infringement (without ending that offence) without accounting for any aggravating/mitigating circumstances; they can be useless at one time and be completely dangerously distractive at others. Also, they are good at that one thing only if the driver hasn't taken precautions to evade being traced. Cameras do not give any advice or promote good driving techniques.
Police detect and immediately halt all forms of illegal, dangerous and anti-social driving (and non-driving offences), as well as prevent evasion of justice, whilst applying discretion, and give advice if necessary.
Ask joyriders and boy racers which they prefer!!
Cameras HAVE displaced real road policing, therefore cameras have made our roads more dangerous than they otherwise would have been.
...can actually get worse the faster a lens is.
I have the Canon 85mm F1.2 II. It is great at F1.2, but the edges of photos are quite dark (when used on a full -frame body). Stop it down to F3 and the vignetting is totally gone.
The size of the objective is one of the critical factors affecting vignetting. It's like having an inappropriately sized lens hood, but very out of focus (as you might imagine for a fast lens).
Fast lenses generally are sharper where telescopic resolving power is needed (which does not apply to this camera). The effects of diffraction (blurring) at the telephoto end for compact hyperzoom (> x20) cameras are testament to that.
For this camera, the limited wideangle/telephoto range and small imager may render vignetting insignificant.
However, vignetting can actually be beneficial...
So much talk about HD....
... yet so little said about the quality of it.
I own the 5DII. I'm really not impressed by the 4.2.0 quality of the 1080P. Indeed the great majority of the imager is not used when recoding 24/30fps video - all those pixels can't be clocked off the imager fast enough. The camera’s 4FPS limit is a big clue!
Talking of pixels: the number of them isn’t critically important. What is indisputably crucial is the size of the imager - the bigger the better (more light, shorter exposure, less noise, shallower DOF, wider angles); the only downside is the cost (and the larger slower mirror).
The options beyond “full frame” DLSRs are sparse, so where else do you go from there?
In some ways more pixels would be nice (greater detail but only where lens diffraction and pixel density allow), but there are tradeoffs in terms of active area (the inherent gaps between pixels that waste light) and frame speed (reduced full-resolution shots per second, and poorer quality HD video), as well as pixel noise. However, the noise issue can be largely overcome (but not the gap problem) by binning pixels together during post-processing where desired, so replicating the noise performance of a low pixel count camera – the reverse can’t be applied!
To summarise the pixel count issue: right now there is no straightforward answer as there are too many tradeoffs.
Paris? She likes exposure, or to expose.....
"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!"
The average need not be the halfway/midpoint - that point is actually the 'median'.
There can be considerably more (or less) than half of a population above or below an average.
Most people earn less than the average wage.
Perhaps George Carlin was being cleverly ironic and no-one noticed .....
Welcome to Gamling...
Many folks had their funds confiscated without warning - OK that's not nice, but would one really expect the site to give prior warning such that the bot players can pocket their takings before being booted off?
These bot players took their chance and knowingly risked all (with their own version of "stealing") by cheating the T&Cs. They were unfortunate enough to be caught before running, hence they lost out...... and they were on a gambling site....
Oh the irony!
The precedent has already been set
IIRC, there was a case in the UK a few years ago, where someone did something like default on a CSA payment (I can't remember what exactly the crime was). His penalty was to lose his driving license - he was banned from driving, even though his offence had absolutely nothing to do with driving.
I'm not saying that it is right; I'm merely stating that the scenario you describe has alread occurred.
Compared to fatigued driving (mostly occurs during darkness), I would be far more worried about drivers driving with sunglasses in darkness!
Yes, RTM again, and again, and again....
I summarise from appendix H of the Four Year Evaluation Report, the one that was based on a three year study, the most comprehensive RTTM study of its kind - ever!
From the 216 urban speed cameras sites showing an AVERAGE 55% drop of KSI , only 10% of that (19% of that portion) is a genuine KSI reduction.
Now I'm sure you could show one or two sites where KSIs were consistently high beforehand (that’s what statistical distributions are all about), but the inescapable fact is over the whole system, the net benefit is a small fraction of what is claimed. It also follows there are some camera sites that suffer a far worse RTM effect.
Indeed initial work demonstrated that rural cameras suffered from stronger rates of RTM than these urban ones, but no quantitive work was ever done on those!
But there’s more.
I did also allude to ‘bias on selection’ (an effect independent of RTM), which could explain how ‘KSI incidents were consistently high for five years and dropped after cameras were installed’ even when installing generally ineffective/dangerous measures like cameras. All you need do is introduce a genuine safety measure at a camera site, which isn’t unreasonable considering the cameras analysed for RTM were URBAN ones (camera sites can cover stretches of road up to 5km in length).
A TRL analysis of various safety measures showed that treatments like pedestrian crossings/barriers, junction re-layout and resurfacing, lighting, etc, are many times more effective than cameras. So any camera site having one of these other treatments would also fit what you described; but still, all credit will always go to the “camera site” – as it always has done.
Why am I a ‘sheep’ when I am leading the arguments with something new?
The law is very clear with what speeds can be prosecuted for: anything over the speed limit, even 1mph. The 10%+2 is a regulation for automated enforcement (because machines do not apply discretion). Police can pull for speeds less than the 10%+2 if they feel there are aggravating circumstances (assuming they can prove the offence).
Cameras do not need warning signs - they never did!
85% of camera enforcement needed to comply with various regulations to enable netting off (15% of sites/time were exempt); so some cameras weren't affected by that policy, and others simply may not have qualified for cost recovery.
This scheme ended in April 07. Regulations such as signage are now defunct - all cameras can be hidden and made inconspicuous, without consequence.
There are plenty of hidden speed traps:
(Don’t forget you’re at an advantage because you know there’s a cam in each photo)
Yes, cameras gather evidence of just 1 technical infringement (folks who do +10mph on a clear motorway or dual carriageway deserve to lose 25% of their entitlement for 3 years?)which determined criminals easily evade anyway. Yes, traffic patrols detect and immediately halt all manner of anti-social, careless, dangerous, impaired driving – and they prevent circumvention of justice.
There is only so much budget to go around, and our reliance on cameras has seen traffic patrols substantially reduce – cameras have replaced tools that were far more effective.
Speed cameras are not effective. It has been long proven and accepted that cameras effectiveness is substantially overstated thanks to ‘Regression to the Mean’. The 40-70% KSI reduction claims you hear from the camera partnerships are greatly misleading; at best the figure for camera effectiveness is 10% (table H7, Four Year Evaluation Report), but even that’s not accounting for other factors such as ‘Bias on Selection’ (other safety measures installed camera site, which make the camera appear more effective than it actually is), and traffic displacement. Camera partnership folks don’t tell you that, they like you to hear that mystical 40-70% figure.
Some of the people who run RSS used to be camera partnership managers – go figure!
NiMH (and Li-Ion can) kick ass over alkalines
It is true that Li-ion AA are also capable of delivering great power with great capacity and low leakage. However, they are 3V cells and one of these must replace 2AA cells. This can been done (CR-V3), but some portable appliances that take AA cannot physically accept the Li-ion configuration. My flash doesn't.
Of course, this is an issue with the mechanics of the appliance, not the batteries themselves.
"..a mixed blessing" - the flip side
NiMH rechargeables leak away over months, not days (unless there is considerable standby drain from the equipment they are used in).
Newer NiMH rechargables are also low-leakage, which means they lose a small fraction of their charge over literally years. Sanyo Eneloop is one common example; they also come pre-charged.
NiMH kick ass over alkalines with high current appliances, such as cameras. A good 2.5AH NiMH will yield a good 2.0AH with a drain of 1 amp. Duracell alkaline equivalent (2.2AH) will yield only 0.7AH under the same conditions.
Prices of low leakage NiMH aren't as competitive as alkalines, but they are at least as good in every way and offer a sensible long-term investment (compared to hundreds of sets of alkalines).
3FPS: good, but with focussing between shots?
Does the quoted 3FPS include focussing between shots?
A great advantage of DLSR is that you can compose and auto-focus the next shot while the previous photo data is being read off the sensor, thanks to the separate AF sensor and mirror. This is a must for action shots.
What does this EVIL do? Do you have to wait for the previous photo data to be clocked off before you can compose and auto-focus? If so, run a mile! If not, EVIL will quickly displace real DLSR.