Re: Much as I hate buzzwords and compounds,
Cue mandatory "Broken Arrow" quote.
145 posts • joined 17 Dec 2009
Cue mandatory "Broken Arrow" quote.
... exactly how far the apologists will go before they accept that there IS a teensy-weensy little problem with IT culture.
Don't think I have ever, ever read so many absolutely idiotic ways of attempting to get out of one hole. This is worth remembering for future articles that make claims of the "boys are put upon!" variety. "Naah, it's just you malenazis trying to censor free expression!"
Oh, yeah. We're nearing adulthood here, without a doubt.
What - they'll bloody well be hired as programmers, thats "what".
I'm not sorry for the downvotes.
-a- There is no "Linux Desktop", only "What I want my desktop to look like". If you want decisions made for you, there are alternatives. Linux-with-a-GUI ain't one.
-b- Sensible replacement for Outlook? Mutt. No, thats not a joke. You don't agree? Thats ok. To me, mutt handles mail in such a spectacularly better way than Outlook I wince when forced to use the MS "mail client" (hello? Doesn't even handle adressing right?) You might be looking for decisions to be made for you again. See -a-.
Linux isn't, never was, and despite the work of Gnome et al, never will be a drop-in replacement for Windows. If THAT is what you want, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by looking elsewhere. Telling off DeLorean 'cause it's a poor substitute for your stationwagon isn't productive.
I'd hope you'd think first, check facts - something El Reg *did not do* - and then decide.
96% of the revenue is tucked away and not used. By law the Greedy Buggers(tm) don't get to use more than 4%. So we avoid the slash-and-burn of "conservatives" with grand ideas of statues and 8-lane motorways.
And that other sort which people think exists, who want to use cash on humans. Don't worry. We have none of those either.
Yeees, of course. Eich has a right to his opinions, but all the rest of us does not. Grand.
Ever BEEN on a plane?
Voice calls in that sonic nightmare matters not an iota. You need ANC to take out the screaming kids, snoring buffons, drunk iDrones, and nattering salespeople - sorry "stewards". Not to mention those humungous noise generators on the bloomin' wings!
Thinking that a phonecall which most people will try once, not hear a frak of what the other say and give up, require a LAW shows that someone need upgrade their government to v2.0.
It was "smygfilmat" - i.e. a hidden camera.
So anyone blaming the girl can fry.
Yeaah. 'ause what RMS looks like is THE important bit in all of this.
Sure. Glad we got that sorted.
He did say "blu-ray quality" not "lossy mp4 quality". Different beasts. BD quality with PCM sound and subtitles take around 15gB for 90 min. How far you can unlossily compress that .... *shrugs*
Get the Note 2, and install the free Grafitti keyboard replacement from, well, Palm ;)
Made SO happy, I know that much.
The cloud, yees. Like putting your RSS feeds in Google's Reader, yees.
Your data may be unimportant to you, but some of us have doubts.
And, just possibly, the GNU is wrong.
You can run Linux with non-GNU tools. Many do. So lets stick with what the people working on Linux think.
Yet you voluntarily ran software you didn't have to run. Get a mirror, mate.
"Sorry, but those clowns aren't singers."
Damn. Always fun to see someone with a universal, all-encompassing TRUTH in his/her pocket. We are HONOURED to have your fundamental understanding of who is and who isn't a singer shared with us.
"What's the problem here?"
Try applying the former part of your argument ("... Rewards can come in many flavours") to the latter part ("An awful lot of music production, CD and other merch manufacturing, packing, shipping etc... ").
How many manufacturers, packers, shippers, and so forth do YOU believe would volunteer their time and materials to get "valuable exposure"? If she, or anyone else, expect profession X to donate time, effort and material (yes, instruments get worn), then surely professions Y and Z should do the same!
No? There's the problem. The supporting musicians, who will get far less exposure than Ms. Palmer, can't pay their foodbills with differently flavoured rewards. I'm sure SOME can, and some probably will, but it's the assumption that they SHOULD which grates 'pon many.
Us of the all-should-be-free generation doesn't pay a living wage to most of the artists who entertain us as it is.
No surprise, really, that some of them get a little cranky when one of their own make the same assumption.
"So which copyright materials have TPB directly infringed by distributing themselves?"
"Clearly their 'crime' is to state where stuff, some of which rights owners don't want you to have, is made available."
"That's the classic case arguing for for limits of freedom of speech, but this isn't an issue of public safety."
Nor is it a case of free speech.
"It's really just a way of asking us to ignore the important issues in this particular case by puffing out a smokescreen isn't it ?"
The important issue in this case has been effectively ignored by people around the 'net for a long time ALL BY THEMSELVES.
Fact 1: TPB - the people involved with it - was not convicted for spreading copyrighted material.
Fact 2: They WERE convicted for knowingly assisting others in doing so.
In other words: what TPB did was link to material but, as opposed to others, refuse to REMOVE links when informed the material on the other end was in violation of copyright.
The way the case was handled, on the other hand, stinks to high heaven, but that's a different matter. Had the TPB Four, when notified of copyright violations, blocked the torrents in question they would have been in the clear. Now? Now they are considered to have willingly AND knowingly helped out.
So keep knickers untwisted, eh?
"No love for the N900(maemo) users? :("
Mmm-mm. Maemo on the N900 - best darn mobile computer I EVER had. Why Nokia didn't keep to that track, but do the hardware updates we now see I'll never grok (of course, it could NOT have ANYTHING to do with their new CEO. Of course not. We're not CYNICS after all)
But, then again, that IS why I got two of them ... and I've yet to find anything better. Yep, that's lookin' at you iOS. And Android.
"Apple devices are perceived as de-facto standards as media players and are now self-sustaining."
Luckily we have Bluetooth and A2DP. I'm not replacing either car or phone for the sake of Apple's infrastructure and lack of format support.
"Why do you think iOS is ugly?"
P'nally I couldn't comment, since I've never laid eyes on iOS.
Oh, I've seen loads of screenshots of the APPLICATIONS that run on it, but I've never seen the *OS*.
Pet peeve: people who comment on a tech site and can't tell the difference between an *operating system* and the *applications that run on it*.
"But an SSH server? What are you planning to do with your phone?"
"What I want to know is, can I hold it in my left hand without having to buy an "optional" extra case for it?"
The design is shit if your hand is small? Well, yeah, I could see how it would be innovative to have a design that could compensate for hand size ....
"Seriously - this is what they call innovation?"
Ah, but as we have been told - repeatedly - over the years, the "thing" with the iPhone is not the technology, but the design and userfriendlyness. (We need a Dustypuppy icon).
So you shouldn't look at the minor technology updates, but focus on the vastly improved design and userfriendlyness.
Mine's the one with the sarcasm in the pocket.
"But the whole idea of laws that are simply ignored and not enforced because they're stupid seems to be an impossible concept for UK civil servants and enforcement groups."
Oh, yes. Let's reinforce a culture in which un-elected civil servants can decide on their own which laws to ignore and which to enforce because said laws are "stupid". LET'S!
I can only hope this monumental example of stupidity is meant as sarcasm.
"They spent money to develop something and countless android companies just swoop in, copy it, sell their item for less and over take apple."
Ah, but that is the question, is it not?
Did Apple spend money to develop something, or did they just rip off those that came before? For example - as was pointed out: touch sensitive screen with grid of icons representing applications? Palm, for one, did it before and better than Apple. No patent should be allowed.
Besides, as a side note, it's impossible to mix up the iOS-only-app-icons-allowed with Android-widgets-and-apps-and-oh-myyyyy desktops.
"As parts of the specification mature, and implementations ship, the spec cannot be changed in backwards-incompatible ways (because the implementors would never agree to break compatibility unless for security reasons). "
The 'spec' has already broken backwards compatibility several times. More BS from a true master at the trade.
"Does this meal that the WHATWG will be creating a kind of bleeding edge specification which will make it into the browsers?"
Yes - and no. It means that browser vendor X will add new, shiny, fancy feature Y, the WHATWG will document it, and the other vendors will (likely) follow suit. After a while the W3C will add it to their spec, and it'll be formalised.
In the meantime vendors of, say, assistive technologies will run like mad to keep up, releasing new, costly versions.
Developers rejoice. Users? Not so much. Imagine it like this: you start building a gross of houses on a huge plain. The LAST house won't use the same power adapters as the FIRST house, but sooner or later ONE or the other of those plugs will get formally standardized.
Yes - both Swedish legal experts (one of whom is a judge as well) has made this quite clear. Under the EAW Sweden must ask the UK whether or not Assange can be extradited to the US.
A direct US<->Sweden treaty exist, which complicate stuff. However, that also pose the regular problems for our friends in the 5-gallon hats: first, they must charge Assange with something which IS a crime in Sweden (accepting documents from an informer is not), secondly they must not charge him with something he'll be executed for (espionage is PARTICULARLY complicated), and ...
The complications go on and on and on and on and we've not even touched 'pon the publicity shitstorm that would occur should they decide to break the rules.
'sex by surprise'
Known as "non-consentual sex" in Sweden and most other parts of the world, actually, but yes.
'Look up "temporary surrender". Sweden actually doesn't even have to ask the UK.'
The wobbly concept "temporary surrender" is defined in our old friend TIAS 10812, specifically Article VI. It state:
"If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a
sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:"
Notice anything peculiar? I refer my learned friend to Article 2, part 1. In addition, Swedish law explicitly forbids extradition in specific cases where there is a fear of torture, the death penalty, etc; and under some circumstances if it is a political crime.
Since some US politicians already HAVE called for the death penalty (for an innocent man, no less; let's not forget the 'unless proven guilty' here) it is not a politically popular idea.
'All that for an alleged minor offense that doesn't exist in the UK (in the whole world bar Sweden it would be called "lack of manner"), and doesn't carry prison time in Sweden'
I AM aware that quite a few people would like to see 'rape' not being an offense, but alas, it is, in Sweden as in most places. The penalty for this would likely be in the 2-4 year bracket. BS, in other words.
I am not, but these are:
It would appear that quite a few legal eagles agree with my take on it. Besides, you do yourself refer to Article 3 of TIAS 10812. Did you bother to read Article 2 which IT refer to?
This is simple enough, as you say: if Assange did something in the US that THEY consider a crime, but which is NOT a crime in Sweden, or is a crime but with a sentence of less than two years, it is NOT an "extraditable offense". Which Art. 3 refer to.
"I've no idea what the Statute of Limitations (or their equiv anyway) is in Sweden."
Between 10 and 15 for rape, depending on severity. See https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K35P1
"The Swedes had Nokia and Saab as US payments for support in the cold war. Now they don't exist anymore.... who is paying who?"
Uh. You DO know that Nokia is Finnish and that SAAB still exists? Are you simply trying for sarcasm, or are you this amazingly lacking in general knowledge?
Nokia was created in 1871 as a paper manufacturer. SAAB was created in 1937 to produce military aircraft for the Swedish armed forces (primarily). I dunno whether to laugh or swear.
"Once he is in Sweden, and when the US asks, the UK can (and will) just bend over and give consent."
First the US has to get a case. Then they have to ask - which they can't do while the current case is worked on - and then they have to get it approved by the Swedish courts. Which, for example, they can't do for anything resembling a political crime - nor, likely, for accepting information from a third party. Swedish laws in this area are solid.
Then the UK has to consent. Which you appear to believe is likely. Fair enough; I shan't rip you of your beliefs, but: if there is a case, Sweden WILL charge him. No-one has said he won't be charged. TRY to understand this. He is questioned FIRST, charged LATER. Right now no-one KNOW whether he'll be charged.*
Nor is rape a "minor misdemeanor" in Sweden. Clue, meet bat.
* It is unlikely he'll be charged. Most of those accused of rape are not, most of those charged are acquitted.
They "clearly said"?
Try this. See if that gets through: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/About-us/International-prosecution-operations/Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/
"Once in Sweden (note the limited use of the letter "e") the US can extradite him under one of several TIAS extradition agreements, not only *can* the US do this, the legalities would be water tight"
Except ... if he is extradited to Sweden, it is under an EAW. Which means the UK must consent to him being extradited further.
"But what would prevent the Swedes dropping/postponing their case if the US put in an extradition request on much more serious charges?"
Within the law, or outside it? As long as the case is ongoing, all other requests are put on hold. There's also grace periods after the case is closed, and so forth. IANAL. WITHIN the law he's pretty well protected.
Outside the legal system? Nothing what so ever prevents them from just shipping him off. Except, of course, the "whops, you broke the law in full view of the international media" bit.
I notice you know zip all about swedish law. A good place from which to comment.
As mentioned before: if you have sex, of whatever nature, with someone in Sweden *without their consent*, you are SOL.
Of course, it is part of the story that (a) only around 20 per cent of estimated sexual crimes are reported, (b) in 19 per cent of THOSE can you pinpoint an assailant, and out of THAT (c) 30 per cent are found guilty.
So yeah. Sweden IS a strange place - consent is considered VERY important, but the lack of it ain't.
Yes - and boy did THAT turn into a medial shitstorm.
Now you suggest they are going to break the law again, but this time in FULL VIEW of the press? Not in the dead of night at a tiny airport but smack bang in the middle of Stockholm with every blogger and journalist there is out for blood?
Oh, yes. Best conspiracy EVER, this.
"his is about getting him into a position where he CAN be extradited to the USA where he can be changed under USA law even though the 'crimes' (in the USA) for which he is accused are not necessarily crimes in other countries"
Why? Why go to all this trouble to make everything appear legal - as opposed to just bundling him away in the dead of night - when the final result will be plastered all over the media as ILLEGAL?
He's comitted no crime in the US which Sweden reckognise as such. He's not been asked for BY the US. Sweden can't extradite him without the *UK* agreeing.
So WHY? If this was a setup, wouldn't they at least make sure it APPEARED legal? If he is extradited to Sweden, under this EAW, he *can't automatically be sent to the US* - not legally. At the very least they are stuck with a total mess of a media circus.
So if this is a setup, it's the worst I've ever seen.
Swedish law is consent based. That means the victim doesn't need to be beaten half to death in order to have been raped. It's enough that she - or he - didn't consent to the act.
Not so bloody difficult, but you just HAD to bring up the feminist angle. The C' bit in 'AC' applies.
"Once extradited to Sweden several US/Swedish treaties can be used to extradite him to the US, which (I predict) will happen."
IF the UK consent to it, yes. As it is, Swedish authorities have publically stated that FIRST the US need to ask for it, then it needs to be evaluated against Swedish law, and THEN the UK must say yes.
So if both Sweden and the UK agree - and the US actually ask - then yes, he can be legally extradited to the Amurricans. But it ain't as simple as far, far too many people seem to think.
"Forget the scientifc principle if it concerns any sort of idealist matron."
"Equally, men don't have breasts" - apply scientific thought to that one, and get back to us on the result, please.
"... and have been traditionally been responsible for doing stuff outside the nest" - tradition is not, much to the sadness of many, evolution.
"So men have technology hardwired into their brains"
Eliza Murfey, 1870, patented 16 devices for improving bearings for rairoad-car axles.
Mary Walton, 1879, created a method for reducing emissions from smoke stacks.
Mary Anderson, 1903, invented the windshield wiper.
Randice-Lisa Altschul, 1999, a number of patents for a disposable cell phone.
Erna Schneider Hoover, 1954, created the computerized telephone switching system
Patsy Sherman, 1973, patent for Scotchguard.
Let's not even talk of Marie Curie, Grace Hopper or even Lady Ada.
Some men can't assemble IKEA shelves. Some can't change tires. To claim they have technology hardwired into their brains is to say some men are braindamaged.
Scientific principle my arse.
"Fix education so that kids get a good solid backgrounder in and feel for the hard sciences, get them to understand what it's there for and how it helps everyone"
Yes, well, no. First we need to fix society so it doesn't encourage parents to believe there is a car gene and raise their kids to fit.
'How about they call you at 02:00 in the morning because "the servers iz down". Are you supposed to say "nope, getting on with my life"?'
Then they damn well better have put it in my contract up front that, at 0200, *I* am the one they call to fix the servers.
Surely you grasped the point: it's not what you are HIRED to do which is a problem, but all the other things you are also expected to be in on - four hour overtime daily to get the badly mismanaged project (sorry, "badly mismanaged" is redudant) in on time, emergency call outs during the night to fix the webserver when you're hired to implement their new database, or the desperate mails during vacation time 'cause they don't want to spend money hiring enough people.
IF my contract state I am to be available at 0200 - and they pay the extra blood money - then I'll be there as required. If not I'll work the normal hours. That latter statement makes me an undesirable employee, I bet. Life, outside the hours the company pay me to work. There's the point.
"Surely you could turn that around again, why bother with crime and punishment at all, it hasn't solved the problem of crime."
Yes, well, you could say that, but before you do, why not take a very long, very close look at the number of crimes and the number of recurring crimes in countries with harsh vs. human justice systems?
"You seem to be saying that we shouldn't use the best deterrent, as it may not work for everyone? As I said, flawed logic."
When claiming my logic is flawed, it is not useful to start off by saying "you seem to be ... ".
What I AM saying is simple: if you ask any half-way sane person whether they'd be deterred from a crime by having their head cut off, or by being fried alive by electricity, they would very, very likely answer "YES!".
And STILL people committed murder in France, and still do in the US. The death penalty is not a deterrent, as it doesn't stop people comitting murders. Frankly I don't care for the touchy-feely idea that we should have "punishment X! That's how we've always done it!" if X doesn't do anything to fix the problem.
"And he will only get like what, twenty two years or something, for killing seventy seven and injuring scores more?"
21 years is the maximum possible prison sentence we can give him. Then we can ALSO hand him a "... but we'll have to evaluate you every fifth year after that, to see if you are safe to release first" deal.
That said, we need to keep "justice" and "revenge" firmly apart. What, except the cheering of a few bloodthirsty, will we - society that is - gain from killing off ABB? He ain't gettin' out again, so he won't repeat.
As it is we can pat ourselves on the back and go "Good on us, me old mucker! We've remained philosophically clean!"
I can live with that.
"If the death penalty is no deterrent, why did the murder rate sky rocket after the abolition, when it was in decline before it?"
Try turning it around. If it WAS a deterrent, why'd people still go and do it?
'cause people don't THINK before they react, and most murders are done whilst not thinking straight. Someone nicks your phone? You hit'im, and hit'im again and then you start thinking that the distinct lack of breathing in the bugger might mean you're up that particular creek and the boat is leaking.
Of course, you'd not do the jig for THAT, but rather we'd hang the woman who wait until the boyfriend falls asleep and THEN knives him, 'cause he's thrice her size and has kept her lock in and beaten up for two weeks. That's *premeditated* that is.
You missed the bit about wrongful convictions entirely, didn't you?
Oh. Was that meant to be FUNNY? Sorry.
China? 1.12 per 100,00 - if we can trust the crowd at Wikipedia.
So despite having (a) capital punishment, (b) really, really FAST capital punishment, it would appear that the Chinese - like most every other human - don't really consider the long-term effects of their actions.
It doesn't work, Stratman, no matter which way we turn the numbers. People simply don't stop to think before stabbing their mate after a drunken row. They don't much think before doing anything much at all. If they did, then the Chinese numbers would be 0.