Scum rips off wannabe scum.
9285 posts • joined 21 May 2007
"Because Israel is in a unique position to trigger a major war in the Middle East which could escalate to World War III....." I'm always amused by this naïve and very outdated claim. Please do explain who you think Israel could start WW3 with?
Iran? How? There is a big chunk of geography sitting between Iran and Israel, which is why Iran has to attack Israel via more local stooges like HAMAS and Hezbollah. Say Israel was to make a pre-emptive strike against Iran, the only way Iran can react is non-nuke ballistic missiles, maybe some biological weapons just as likely to infect surrounding Arab nations (who would not hesitate to strike back at Iran), and the predictable rockets from Gaza and Lebanon. Hardly WW3. And do you really think any of Iran's backers are actually that ready to put themselves in the line of fire? China is more interested in sorting their troubled economy and dominating their neighbours in the South China Sea without provoking an American response. North Korea? All bluster. And Putin's Russia is more interested in shoring up their Syrian ally to get dragged into a war with even Israel, let alone NATO. The tiny Russian expeditionary force in Syria is just large enough for swatting rebels but has been kept small enough not to really upset NATO, Turkey or Israel.
The Arabs surrounding Israel have failed in three major wars with Israel, they simply don't have the political stomach to go again to only benefit the Palestinians. Countries like Egypt, which was once the main force for attacking Israel, now find themselves bound to the US and partnering with Israel in containing Islamic extremists. Jordan is likewise, desperately trying to keep out of Palestinian affairs, being more concerned with the masses of refugees arriving from the Syrian conflict. The Jordanians are more than a little wary of refugees ever since the PLO tried to take over the country.
The Lebanon is still a conflicted mess with Hezbollah trying to shore up their support, support that takes a dent every time the Israelis expose just how forgone a conclusion it is that they can militarily dominate Hezbollah if they really want to. In the 2006 war with Israel there was never any real doubt, despite Hezbollah's many claims, that it was simply a matter of how much Israel would have to throw at the problem to reach the Litani River. And no WW3 erupted.
Syria is a nice mess as far as Israel is concerned - Assad's Syria stripped of chemical weapons, their military capability being ground down, and busy fighting for its own survival against Sunni jihadis that would otherwise be busy plotting attacks on Jews worldwide. And Iran tied up trying to send military aid to Assad that it would prefer to supply to Hezbollah and HAMAS. And then there's the festering ill will between Shia Iran and Sunni Palestinians that has seen HAMAS and PLO members turning up in Syria fighting against their prior allies Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. All pretty good news for Israel.
Israel currently has more than enough superior military muscle to face down even a combination of their neighbours should that unlikely scenario arise again, and there is no Cold War to drag either Russia or the US into any such fray. Putin's bluster does not extend to a real confrontation with NATO. When even neutral countries like Sweden openly debate joining NATO it shows how Putin has overplayed his hand and united his perceived enemies.
So, please do try and provide some argument to back your silly claim that Israel is "in an unique position" to start WW3. The reality is the rise of ISIS has meant the more likely world conflict will be a unified response between East and West against Islamic extremism, probably starting in Syria and Iraq and then extending to areas like Libya.
"....the vast majority of Palestinians would be happy to share access to the religious sites they have in common...." Not true. Sharing of the non-Islamic sites in the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank had to be forced on the Fakeistinians as part of the Oslo Accords. Despite treaties which bind the PA to protecting non-Islamic sites in the West Bank, Jewish sites are regularly vandalised, often by the Fakeistinian police supposedly guarding them. Christians are also leaving the West Bank in droves due to persecution. In the Gaza Strip, only religious groups recognised by Hamas are allowed to operate. Christian groups are only allowed to operate or worship in Gaza if they have Hamas's approval and pay the Jizya "infidel tax". The Christian population in the Strip is down to about 200 people, way less than 1% of the Gaza population, when they used to be 10.8%. Ironically, Islamic Hamas also try and ban Islamic groups they consider rivals. There are now no Jews living in the Gaza Strip, despite there having previously been a continual Jewish presence in Gaza City for thousands of years (they are recorded in Egyptian records from the times of the pharaohs, through Assyrian and Roman records, in Ottoman Turkish records dating up to WW1, and in British records dating up to 1948). All Jewish synagogues in the Gaza Strip have been destroyed. For a Jewish person to enter the Gaza Strip and openly declare their faith would be tantamount to suicide.
On the other hand, Israeli Arab Muslims and Christians can not only worship openly in Israel, their right to do so it protected under Israeli law. And the control of their places of worship (such as Christ Church, Anglican; St George's Cathedral, Episcopal; Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Greek Orthodox HQ and shared with other Christian denominations; and Al Aqsa Mosque, Sunni Islam - all in Jerusalem) are under their own ownership. Tellingly, the Islamic Waqf, which controls the Temple Mount, has used that control to block Jews access to the site of the Temple. So, no, the Fakeistinians have shown zero willingness to share religious sites, and zero tolerance of other faiths.
"....They're mainly pissed off about things like being starved of supplies by Israeli sanctions against them...." The sanctions only apply to the Gaza Strip under Hamas, and are a direct result of Hamas's attacks on Israeli civilians. Hamas was voted into power in the Strip by the population because Hamas said they would not negotiate with Israel and wanted to destroy Israel, so the population of the Gaza Strip only have themselves to blame. In the case of the West Bank, supply is limited due to chronic cronyism in the PA. For example, complete control of the import licenses and sale of cement in the West Bank - vital to building new homes - is controlled by a single member of the Fatah party and his family, much to their own enrichment. In order to drive out competition, the family uses "useful idiots" abroad like you to put pressure on non-Fakeistinian cement companies (such as HeidelbergCement and Hanson) to pull out of the West bank, ensuring their monopoly. Just to make it clear, it is people like you that mindlessly rebleat propaganda that actually limit supplies and economic opportunities for ordinary West Bankers.
"....having land taken away from them...." In the context of the post-1948 wars, Israel was the victim of attacks by larger neighbours that had the sole intention of killing Jews and stealing their lands. Specific to the Gaza Strip, the Israelis withdrew and pulled out all the settlers for their own safety (including those living in communities from pre-1948) in 2005. It was vainly hoped by the Israelis that this would lead to peace in the south, but then Hamas got into power on the promise to destroy Israel. So, even when Israel gives up Jewish land the Fakeistinians still show no intention other than to continue trying to kill Jews at every opportunity.
The rest of your blather is just the usual empty propaganda. You really need to try some non-fictional reading for a change.
"....Luxembourg." None of Luxembourg's neighbours are technically at war with it, whereas Israel has both immediate neighbours (Lebanon and Syria) and more distant neighbours such as Iraq which are both actively hostile and who have made clear their intent to destroy the state of Israel. At one time or another (and often at the same time) every single one of Israel's neighbours has tried to invade Israel with the sole intent of destroying the Jewish state simply because it is a Jewish state. Luxembourg was continually at the mercy of larger neighbouring countries up until the EU was formed, a position Israel could not be reduced to as their neighbours have ethnic-cleansing as their goal. Unlike Luxembourg, which can hide behind the EU and NATO, there is no external party willing to put their soldiers on the ground to fight for Israel. Try actually thinking before making stupid comparisons.
"....Europe's leaders....." Probably because the majority of congress view Israel as a more reliable ally than the majority of Europe. Of course, there was also the fact that Israel had both the he will, independence and military capability to strike at the Iranian nuke facilities, which would have scuppered Obambi's legacy, whereas the Europeans were largely in favour of the toothless treaty.
"Come back dick...." At least "Tricky Dickie" Nixon didn't use the NSA for Watergate! So funny that all the Obambi supporters are trying to turn this thread into a rant against the Republicans when it is their Holy Leader that has been caught out! Obambi will try and dress it up as "protecting national security" but he requested the spying in the hope of protecting his all-important legacy.
".....but something happened there that made Assange absolutely terrified of Swedish law enforcement....." Not necessarily Swedish law enforcement. IIRC, the main reason for A$$nut's jaunt to Sweden was to pose as a columnist for a Lefty rag called Aftonbladet, the idea being that would give him the legal cover of being a "journalist" and protect him in some European states from prosecution for the WikiLeaks mess. All A$$nut had to do in Sweden was keep his nose (and dick) clean and he would have been laughing. But his ego got in the way. Originally, both the Lefty groupies involved only wanted him to undergo an STD examination, but A$$nut refused, and the rest is well-documented historical fact - A$$nut ran from the law in Sweden, said he would abide by English law and then ran from that when it didn't go his way. This has become such an ego-driven obsession for A$$nut that he has dug a bigger and bigger legal hole, and now he really cannot see beyond his own ego. Having to return to Sweden to be treated as a common sexual criminal, having his journalistic credentials rejected, and having to face his accusers, all that is far too much for A$$nut's narcissism. He already has a criminal history from Australia that he has tried to hide, he really doesn't like it when people expose his feet of clay. Hence his increasingly desperate attempts to evade proper questioning and the inevitable charges in Sweden.
"I'm drooling over all that HF radio gear in the background..." It looks like they have used one of the stills from a Bond movie (Goldfinger?).
"Which great world legal minds thought self detention was arbitrary...." Usual mix of academics and NGO luvvies (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/WGADIndex.aspx). A simple way to look at it is to understand that this working group came out of the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights that was supposed to investigate human rights abuses by dictators but became controlled by the same human rights abusing dictators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Criticism). A$$nuts hilarious insistence that their opinion is "legally binding" is further proof of how detached from reality he is.
"Only because germans called clunky, barely functional submersibles "boot" and murricans can't into translation....." Er, no. The distinction between ships and boats was a European naval creation from the days of steam-powered dreadnoughts. The Royal Navy took it to the extreme, declaring that only steam-powered vessels (such as cruisers and battleships) could be called "ships" and therefore have a name, whereas the smaller, petrol-fueled "boats" only got numbers. The rest of the European powers follow suited. Submarines had oil-burning engines ("diesels") and thus fell into the "boat" class. They were also discriminated against as old-style naval officers considered them a dishonest form of warfare. Nothing to do with the Yanks.
For an example of brilliantly understated courage and judgement, Roddick Lee Smith. A Flight Lieutenant with the RAF, he was posted from an instructing role to be B Flight commander for 151 Squadron at North Weald, 11 Group, in June 1940, roughly when the Battle of Britain was really starting to get intense. 151 was a Hurricane squadron and had returned from an eventful period fighting over France. Demonstrating his calm appreciation of the situation and lack of ego, Smith made two unusual choices.
Firstly, unlike a lot of officers joining squadrons back from France, Smith decided the men of his flight had a lot more experience of actual air fighting than him and actually listened to what they had to say. This unusual ability to put judgement before ego undoubtedly helped him later as a Squadron Leader, Wing Commander and test pilot (he was a colleague of Eric Brown's).
Secondly, he chose a slower aircraft to make it easier for his pilots to keep formation on him. Usually, flight commanders chose the best aircraft available as a matter of self-preservation. Smith chose to fly the only cannon-armed Hurricane MkI (L1759) then around, which had been tested by 151Sq but had since sat unused in a hangar because the pilots said the two cannon (in big pods slung under the wings) made the aircraft less maneuverable and slower. Smith's chose to fly it anyway as it meant sprog pilots joining his flight had an easier time staying with him in combat (sprog pilots that got separated from their comrades in the Battle of Britain rarely lasted long). Smith did this despite knowing that it made him an easier target for the German fighters and that the unreliable cannons meant he could be left without the means to defend himself. Later in the BoB he flew a second Hurricane MkI with four cannon, also the first of its kind, and provided copious reports back to HQ of the cannon's performance. Whilst much is made of the experiments with cannon-armed Spitfires in the safer 12 Group during the BoB, Smith's calm example has drawn little recognition.
For those that obviously didn't bother to read Tony Porter's report (including, it would seem, the article's author):
On page 11 - "....The use of ANPR in this way has proved to be important in the detection of many offences, including locating stolen vehicles, tackling uninsured vehicle use, solving cases of terrorism and major and organised crime. It also allows officers’ attention to be drawn to offending vehicles whilst allowing law abiding drivers to go about their business unhindered....." Oh dear, it seems he is not only very supportive of ANPR use but also of the database! It also seems to have been effective in all the uses cases denied earlier in the thread.
There's also another quote that completely destroys the paranoia about the system being abused at will - "....There are clear rules to control access to ANPR data to ensure that access is for legitimate investigation purposes. Members of staff only have access to ANPR data if it is relevant to their role and the majority of those who have permission may only do so for a maximum period of 90 days from the date it was collected. Some staff are authorised to access data for up to two years subject to authorisation of a senior officer....."
Read the report and try and form your own opinion.
Seeing as - yet again - you have failed to post any actual argument, I would suggest your time would be best spent trying to graduate kindergarten.
If I were called upon to mount a legal defence of the ANPR database against claims of "privacy invasion", I would immediately respond that cars do not have any privacy rights. Yes, cars. That's because the ANPR system records the registration plate from a vehicle and stores the number along with the location, date and time. The record sitting in the database does not contain any unique identifying data that ties it to a person. Instead, when an investigatory request is made for the vehicular movements of a person, the coppers go to the DVLA database to get all the registration numbers associated with a particular suspect, then search the ANPR database for instances of those numbers. So, no person's data included means no privacy invasion and no rights trampled. Enjoy!
".....village without a single CCTV camera, where there hasn't been a burglary or similar crime for more than 10 years.....' Actually that point highlights the fact that the local authorities and coppers have to show there is a good reason to erect a CCTV system, such as high levels of street crime. The fact that your village with no crime has only one camera just goes to prove that their use is not for spying on all, otherwise your village would be as dripping in cameras as city centers are.
"....I do always try to stick a middle finger up at the ANPR cameras on the ends of the major bridge I have to use several time a week.....it's a pinch-point....." So, despite the fact there are no other cameras in the area, destroying your cherished paranoid view that you are being spied on, and despite the fact that the pinch-point therefore makes a perfect spot for an ANPR camera to look for uninsured and untaxed vehicles, you persist in your childish views. How unreasoning and sad.
".....1) drive past an ANPR camera with a non-existent number plate
2) as 1 but with a car with a rotating number plate holder (I built one a while back)
3) with some mates, drive the same plate past cameras simultaneously...."
You may want to consider that all three are offences, plus possibly liable to a charge of interfering with a Police investigation if you are stupid enough to post your intent on a website (oh, which you did....).
"....Who in their right mind would use a car registered to themselves to commit a crime?
That is where your argument falls over...." Er, how? Every year the coppers in London alone stop dozens of vehicles owned by drug-dealers being used to transport drugs with said drug-dealers behind the wheel. You are crediting criminals with far too much intelligence. Fingerprinting has been around for over a century but dumb crims still get caught every day because they didn't wear gloves.
"....and you also fail on the 22bn records, why keep every single journey and for how long?...." Again, how? You are assuming every crime is noted in real time, whereas many crimes are actually discovered long after they were committed. A simple case would be of a body buried near a road which may be undiscovered for years, but the ANPR records could allow the authorities to look back and see all the vehicles that went down the nearest road for the period the body was most likely buried in, thus generating a list of possible witnesses and suspects. Want to pretend all crimes are discovered instantly?
"....I don't have paranoia I just have a view that the mass collection of information is not right...." So you have a view that you cannot support with any form of logical argument, you just maintain that it is "not right"? Yeah, that unreasoning fear is called paranoia, chum.
"....counter to the principles society has been built on....." Which ignores the fact that society is also based on the principles of protecting the public from harm and also of providing legal security through investigating crimes, both of which ANPR does aid. Indeed, in the UK the authorities are legally obliged to provide both to the public.
"....you don't need to know someones journey to know they are driving without tax/M.O.T./insurance, so why collect it?...." When someone has not insured a vehicle (or if they have declared it SORN), the coppers need to provide evidence that the vehicle has been used on the public roadway. The ANPR database can provide that.
"....I'm not going to downvote your post because that's childish...." Well, I am going to downvote you because I think you didn't really put much thought into your post (possibly due to the paranoia...?).
At least I see you didn't try and defend the "morality" angle. All I did was supply three possible "good" uses for ANPR and a database of previous travel, all you have done is confirm that those cases are valid, you did not supply three "bad" counters for the system.
"....How many multiple child abductors do we actually have in the U.K.? Not many in recent years...." So you can't pretend they don't exist, you just want to pretend it can't happen because it destroys your argument.
".....How many terror attacks in the last 5 years? 3...." Because the UK's coppers and spooks have been very good at sniffing out many jihadis before they can act. And, off the top of my head, the coppers did use ANPR to track terror suspects Junead Ahmed Khan (who planned a car attack on US bases in the UK) and Haseeb Hamayoon (who wanted to "do a Rigby"), arrested before they could act.
".....They don't need ANPR for that, they get it from phones. When was the last time you saw an accident then a sign for an accident and didn't come forward with information?...." Not much help putting a sign up if the witness doesn't travel the same road again - duh! And phones alone may not turn up every driver, whereas ANPR would. Oh, and how do they get the phones that may have been present? Well, they go check one of those databases you whiners keep moaning about! Double duh!
"....Another issue that you fail to address is that who in their right mind would use a car registered to themselves to commit a crime?....' Plenty of people, it seems. One of the major supporting arguments for the introduction of ANPR was that unregistered and uninsured drivers cost British car owners millions every year in additional insurance costs. The number of uninsured drivers has been falling in the UK as a direct result of ANPR (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/money-saving-tips/jessicainvestigates/10146140/How-many-uninsured-drivers-are-on-the-road.html).
"....I don't need a conspiracy theory wet dream I just need strange magical super powers called Common Sense and Logic." Looks more like desperate denial to me. That and a healthy dose of paranoia.
".....As for the morality of the scheme, are there any supporters?...." Trying to argue morality would be stupid as it would be easier to demonstrate possible "good" uses of the system than the paranoid conspiracy theorists' "bad" cases.
First case - think of the children - where the coppers are looking for a vehicle involved in the abduction of a child. Even if they don't manage to charge the abductor for the current case, being able to look back through the database would allow the authorities to see if the suspect could have used the same vehicle in the time and location of other child abductions. Are you going to try and argue it is immoral for the authorities to have a tool to help crack child abduction cases?
Second case - terror! - where every budding jihadi knows (thanks to people like Snowden) that he should take the battery and SIM out of his phone before driving off to meet his fellow jihadis. ANPR not only allows the authorities to do live tracking of suspects, but also allows them to go back and look for at where he was during those times when the suspect has tried to go off-grid. Of course, knowing that their movements can be tracked also has a deterrent value. Want to argue against the morality of tracking terrorist suspects?
Third case - witnesses - where the coppers can look at a particular stretch of road and time to find potential witnesses who may not realise they know vital evidence, or may not have realised they even needed to come forward to give a statement. It can also, of course, be used to disprove false alibis or validate real ones, such as when a suspect claims they drove off to place B when the crime was happening at place A. Want to argue against the morality of validating alibis?
That is three simple "good" cases, please do try and supply three "bad" cases that aren't just conspiracy theorist wetdreams.
""... its creation was never agreed by parliament; and no report on its operation has even been laid before parliament."...." Actually, that is complete cobblers. As with everything else the coppers having been doing which costs money (so, everything the coppers do, basically), the ANPR system has been subject to parliamentary reviews over the years and legal review (especially under the Con-Lib 2010 alliance, as shown here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK). Indeed, the coppers themselves have been obliged to keep the public up-to-date with developments (as shown here - http://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/taking-action/making-decisions/decisions-made/0262014-police-innovation-fund-201516-national-anpr/). So, the politicians of all major UK parties have not only been informed but have approved the development of the ANPR system and database.
So it seems that - as usual - you were just too busy to actually do any reading before bleating. Am I surprised you so eagerly fell for another scaremongering, click-bait article? This is my surprised face - not!
"....You seem to be arguing that Microsoft (rather than the OEMs) should have 'invented' the iPhone several years before high resolution (more than, say, 320x240) pocket sized fingerable touch screens could be manufactured....." Not suggesting, stating. I was at the launch for the original HP Jornada 680, which was pocketable (in a big pocket) and had a touchscreen more than good enough for a virtual keyboard. The first thing I asked them was if they could slap a GSM card into it, which for some reason puzzled both the MS and HP people present. They had thought of network cards but the idea of GSM in a small PDA just stumped them. "Why?" they asked, to which I replied that I could then dump my work mobile (a GSM-only Nokia 3110, IIRC) and just carry around a PDA rather than a PDA and a mobile. They were still stumped, so I pointed to the menu navigation key on the Nokia - "This is where the market is going, a phone with PDA capability, and when the phones get smart enough then I will stop buying a PDA." I don't think they got it even then, though maybe they were just complacent because they knew phone capability was on the WinCE/PcoketPC/WinMob roadmap.
"....You may note that WinCE had 42% of the US smartphone market in 2006. It seems that PDA/organizer format was what people _wanted_ at that time (and was able to be manufactured)....." Yes, WinCE organizers grew into phones, but they were undercut in the consumer market by phones that grew into being simple PDAs, such as the Nokia candybars. The iPhone and Android phones "won" because the consumer market grew to massively dwarf the commercial market.
The Nokia candybars did last a few more generations with gradually better PDA features like calendar, email, etc., but always suffering from a small screen and a restricted keypad. Sony-Ericsson tried to keep the candybar alive with smarter phones like the K600i, but the writing was already on the wall back in 1999. BlackBerry intro'd their first email pager then (IIRC), added phone capability in the 7000 series in 2001 (I bought a 7100 as a personal phone and ended up using it for work as well), and rolled up the corporate market. A real and proper WinCE-based smartphone didn't arrive until 2003, and a measure of how vendors like HP were still clinging to the PDA-first idea can be seen in that the five WinMob-based HP iPAQs released for WinMob2003 that year, only one had cellular built in. IIRC, the Dell Axim at the time didn't have a cellular version, and didn't until WinMob 5!
And BlackBerry did it without touchscreens, instead using the navigation wheel on the side of the device. If BlackBerry erred in one area it was that they didn't introduce a touchscreen until the Curve (2011?), years after other smartphone manufacturers had largely dumped trackpads and keypads.
The ironic bit is that way back in 1998 at that HP launch I was not the only one asking exactly the same question - "why no phone?"
".....You can't even keep your arguments straight....." Please go look at the organizers of the late 90s, they were clamshell "mini-laptops", not candybar phones. Where M$ (and the organizer vendors) went wrong was in trying to pursue the commercial organizer idea rather than the consumer smartphone idea. Even cross-overs such as the original iPAQ PDA phones were business-orientated organizers first, unlike the original HTC smartphones which were primarily consumer phones (and thus not as good at being organizers). Go look at an hp Jornada 680 (or the Psion 5 for a non-WinCE organizer) and try and pretend it looks anything like an iPhone or a Nexus One (actually an HTC device) - that is what the first generation WinCE devices I mentioned actually looked like. They have wide-and-short screens and keyboards. I can't help it if you're not old enough to have experienced them firsthand.
".....Yes, I know it is a waste of time discussing things with you because you always claim to be right even when you contradict yourself." Your constant denial of obvious facts is not contradiction, just your denial. I have pointed out the organizer roots of WinCE, and corrected your assertion that there were first generation WinCE phones, and explained the actual history of when WinCE (in the form of PocketPC and WinMob) did get phone capability but why the leading WinCE vendors were more focused on organizers/PDAs than real smartphones. Please go back and actually read the thread before your next attempt.
"......So they _did_ have "phone capability in generation one"." Generation one WinCE devices were organisers such as the hp Jornada and did not have phone capability. WinCE 1.0 was released in 1996, not 2002 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_CE), and the first phone-capable offshoot was PocketPC in 2000. WinMobile was actually the most popular smartphone OS in use in the US by 2007 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile) but M$ and the was too busy looking at it as a palm-held PC with phone capability bolted on rather than primarily as a smartphone, leaving the door open to Android and the iPhone.
".....Windows Mobile 6.x and Windows Phone 7 were WinCE based and had GSM. They didn't sew up the market." Because they put it in too late. I'm not sure if it was M$ to blame or the organizer vendors, but if they had had phone capability in generation one rather than waiting for generation 6 or 7 then they would have sown up the market. Interestingly enough, I only got interested in HTC devices because they did WinMobile (arguably the World's first Windows smartphone in 2002) long before they did Android (in 2009).
"....It has been "the year of Linux" for several years on the most personal of computers (Android phones and tablets)....." As a Linux supporter I have to agree that Android is miles ahead in market numbers, but who is actually making any money off it? Where is the Red Hat of Android?
".....Microsoft has had phones since 'Pocket PC 2000 Phone edition' of 2001...." Arguably before that, even. The original Windows for handhelds was WinCE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_CE) which had modem capability but not GSM. That developed into the WinMobile products where they seemed to tack on phone capability almost as an after-thought, being primarily handheld calendars and organisers. If they had put even basic GSM into the WinCE handhelds of the day then M$ would have sown up the market long before Android or iPhone even saw the light of day. Back in those days, the flamewars were between smug Psion users and "WinCErs".
"....Windows Phone 7 and 8 have had a decreasing market share and have not even matched that of WM 6.x...." True. I had (still have in a drawer somewhere) an hp WinMob 2003 phone which was my main work phone, but I skipped every version after that for Blackberry devices. The BBs were simply better work options as they had excellent email and document support. With the decline of BB I decided to try the alternatives (I am in the position to choose our work phones) - Android on Samsung and HTC, which I was already using for my personal phone; iPhone because Sales wanted a pretty toy to play with; and Win8 on Nokias. Surprisingly, it was the latter that won because it's tie-in to our existing Exchange/Windows environment was so good and it was simply cheaper than the other options to by and maintain. Android was my second choice but had too much tinkering involved (echoing my experience of trying to push the Linux desktop into enterprises), and the iPhone was not much short of a disaster. As a business device, I still think a Windows phone has a chance.
"Windows10 is the worst WindowsNT ever released....." Ah, an Apple user, perchance?
"....An unusable mess of an OS....." Bollocks. I have four units (two PCs and 2 laptops) at home running Win10 and all are stable and function perfectly, thanks, and plenty of work kit running with no issues.
".....It isn't a professional OS anymore. It isn't a gaming OS anymore...." I use it for both quite happily. Indeed, the Win7 PC I built and then re-installed with SteamOS has been re-installed with Win10 because Win10 has given a better and more stable gaming platform than SteamOS! TBH, I think SteamOS is not going to be ready for prime time for a while. In fact, I have had less issues with Win10 than I did with Win7 when it came out. True, I do not miss Win8.1, but I also don't regret upgrading any of my systems from Win7 to Win10.
Maybe you should actually try Win10.....
"I have a Win7 Pro SP1 64-bit...... It works and gives me updates..... never offered me an upgrade to Win 10...." Hmmmm. AFAIK, all full versions of Win7 are viable for upgrade to Win10. If it gets updates successfully it is either validating fine or is not going to Microsoft for the updates but some malware site! Did you install from a DVD that came with the "recycled" key or from known good media? If it is validating OK with MS but not offering an upgrade to Win10 then it may actually be downloading the upgrade anyway and will surprise you with a message at some point of "Click here to start your upgrade to Win 10!"
".....I found that the manager had plugged the UPS into itself....." Ah, the joys of "uninterruptable" power supplies! In days of yore, when IT budgets were a bit flusher, hosters used to wire up racks of "essential" kit with two UPSs, one for each side of the rack, and split each device so it had at least one feed from each UPS. That way, if the batteries in the UPS units started to die, you usually got a panicky call from the ops deck of systems browning-out before anything too bad happened (and no, they never monitored the UPS logs that actually warned them when the UPS batteries were dying!). Fast forward to the "optimised, efficiency-driven" today, and it's common for us to have one side of the rack off a mains loop and the other side on UPS. This almost guarantees that the UPS batteries will never be checked, and the first time anyone will think to check them is when the power goes and the UPS does not kick in, as (allegedly) recently happened at a well-known hoster in London.
"......Yes there is. There is the user who thinks her husband is IT savvy." Better yet, the newly-installed CIO whose hubby thinks they know IT!
A long time ago in a land (not so) far, far away, the CIO got his FOAD fund to fruition and made for the exit. The CFO took the opportunity to slide one of his evil minions, Darth Clueless, into the role in the hope of extending Finance's Dark Side over IT, and the minion relied on her hubby for purchasing advice. He worked for a well-known IT insultants in the City but not in a technical role.
This was the days when IBM had real problems with power in their blades chassis design, but Darth Clueless's hubby went with "no-one's ever been fired for buying IBM". The CFO was delighted as IBM were cheaper than the hp kit we already used, and no-one listened to the IT department's protests. Darth Clueless's hubby also advised that we could save money by putting less power sockets in each rack (have you guessed where this is going?). Cue the overnight install when the engineers wanted a rack socket so they could plug a strip in for their laptops, and had the bright idea of using "one of the redundant power leads" from the chassis running Finance's reporting apps..... No pretty graphs were available for the CFO's morning briefing. So, yes, as Darth Clueless found out, you can get fired/scapegoated for buying IBM!
"If only everyone was as smart as you are." Now what would really be worrying would be if we all had the same sense of humour! Then even you would laugh at you.
"People are idiots." The fact that it is a raging success on Apple's App Store would seem to suggest that it is actually a subset of people, namely those that willingly submit to the Appletax, that are the idiots in question. Of course, there has been considerable evidence that they are idiots for quite a while now.
"....if there are no plans to extradite Assange to the US then what harm would there be to sign a legally binding agreement to not do so during the duration of the rape trial?...." Because to do so would be a subversion of Swedish law, as Asshat and his lawyers well know. This is another one of the zombie myths that Assange fanbois endlessly repeat no matter how many times they are debunked:
Please read the above links and stop pushing zombie myths, they only make you look ill-informed and stupid (or, IMHO, like an Assange supporter).
".....It is not however clear to me why the criminal act should be judged to have taken place in the U.S. rather than the country he resided in while carrying out the alleged criminal activity." I would expect it is because the illegal activity was the viewing of copywrit material by people in the US, which MU enabled as a service for money. I also expect a charge of racketeering to be throw at Kim Dot Dumb because his emails and messaging seem to show concerted effort to organise the criminal acts (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Racketeering).
".....Dotcom et al are currently three more hearings away from exhausting legal recourse." Or maybe that's three more hearings away from a fast, fat-wobbling sprint for the nearest Ecuadorean consulate?
/Kim's coat is the XXXL one.
"....Harm, as defined by me, can be represented as damage to the political and social infrastructure of our nation....' So, as expected, a completely airy-fairy definition with no real-World effects and no way of actually being measured, but simply based on whatever paranoid conspiracy you want to baaaaaahlieve in. Good luck in proving that "harm"!
"....subversion of the democratic process...." Just because the Tories got re-elected? You really have to accept that not everyone (indeed, not even a sizable minority) shares your socio-political viewpoint, mmmkay?
".....and flouting of law...." Evidence of, please, in the form of court judgements. Or is that "flouting" going to be as much insubstantial and based on opinion as your claimed "harm"?
".....in order to achieve poltically motivated capital...." Blah, blah, blah. Sorry to break it to you but the aim of all politics - right, left and center - is to gain political capital!
"....You know, like the harm described in this very article, wherein a successive cabinets committed actionable crime, implementing mass surveillance programs from 1999 onwards, without legal oversight or the consulting of parliament...." You really do have problems reading round that chip on your shoulder! Please read the article again, it makes clear that the powers were given to the spooks by the politicians and they were kept informed of it as the politicians changed. You also have failed to show any impact on any of us by the "spying" you claim we are all subject to - surely if there has been some great and dastardly conspiracy in motion for decades there should be some actual impact on the general population? But you cannot show any.
In short, you have defined "harm" as whatever upsets your delicate political sensibilities and then shown no proof of even that! You fail again!
"....Please give us your definition of "harm" in this context...." Since it is you and the rest of the herd that have been insisting we have all been "harmed" by "all-encompassing and random spying" I would say it is actually up to you to supply both a definition of said harm and proof that it has actually occurred. Personally, I have seen no "harm" of any definition.
"..... Various people have shown various forms of harm arising from the governments action (and inaction), but none of these seem to fit your rather singular definition." No they have not. The most recent I can think of that you and the rest of the herd were bleating about was the use of anti-terror powers by the Scottish Police when investigating the leaking of case material to a journalist (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/25/police_reckless_for_using_terror_powers_on_journo_says_iocco/). This was (a) a very specific case looking at a single target's metadata and not the all-encompassing "spying on all of us" blather you have been passing as fact, and (b) not actually shown to be illegal, and (c) not a random spying act on an ordinary Joe Blogs but an investigation of a possible criminal matter (leaking of criminal case material in breach of the public's trust) with the assumed participation of a serving public servant (the cops on the case). Please do try again.
"Seems he doesn't want to come out and comment on this one...." Oh I did, it's just they're letting Jezza Crobyn's Fan Club moderate this thread, so commonsense was immediately censored upon posting.
".....Well, MB? What you got this time for us to downvote en masse?" Sorry but shouldn't you lot get just one down-vote between you all seeing as you all only have one spoonfed "opinion"?
PS; - show me the harm!
"Clearly the facists won the war after all....." So you missed the bit where New Labour were in charge for the majority of this program?
".....too little oversight...." Not only does the article point out that ALL the powers were given to the spooks by the politicians, but that politicians were informed as they came into power (as shown by Nick Clegg's story from the article). Oversight has been in place from the start and the politicians in power have been fully complicit, which means you can stop blaming the spooks and go blame New Labour if this was news to you.
".....Both can sell an entire, branded package to a customer with complete end-to-end support. This is very similar to Apple....." Yeah, now where did I recall another closed-garden vendor that liked to pretend to be the enterprise Apple? Oh, that's it - Sun! And that's didn't exactly work out too well, did it? Oracle have since bought the Sun hardware carcass and closed-garden disease and are busily bricking themselves away in a corner.
".....supply a complete working system including hardware to the customer....." Or, sell a number of options for either parts or the whole system, with testing and support for the integrated whole based on best practices developed in the labs. For those that don't understand the IT market, there are very few true "green field" opportunities where a company is willing to either start from scratch or throw away all they have already invested in and start with a clean slate, which is what the all-in-one approach really requires to reach the scales to generate enough profits. More often than not, you will see lots of enterprises with mixed platforms and lots of individually-budgeted projects running on top of them. If you believe that cloud has (supposedly) created the abstract platform layer, it begs the question why would anyone buy Dell or CISCO's all-in-one offerings? They are more likely to want either edge solutions or tech to sit on-top-of the cloud. HP already know this because they tried it in the early Noughties with their original converged offering (the "pre-cloud cloud"), which (IIRC) had an underwhelming three enterprises willing to tear out everything in their datacenters to go with the new model. Instead, hp broke the converged offering into modules and concentrated on offering as many (often competing) solutions from as many vendors as possible, all neatly integrated and supported and managed by hp software. HP's willingness to jump in bed with anyone, even avowed competitors, made us joke it was the "all-in-whore" approach!
".....HPE seems to be going the route of a VAR when that may be a bad bet....." Pretty much what Sun claimed. To pretend there is no innovation in the hardware and software HP sells is to try and ignore such market successes as HP's complete domination of blades. Dell really does need to diversify, they're doing a better job of it than CISCO (who look very vulnerable seeing as they seem to be still predominantly reliant on over-priced networking kit), but HP already has, and HP has done it without alienating any of their partners. How long Dell can do the same with VMware in the same boat is going to be interesting to watch.
".....I would also expect their pricing to higher than Cisco and Dell when one steps back and looks at the entire picture..... Why? After all, costs reduce with scale, and the reason Mike Dell could afford to buy Dell is because they have been losing market share for years. CISCO have not managed to diversify out of networking and their share of the server and storage markets is miniscule. Please do explain why HP's approach will somehow make them more expensive than either?
"I was going to explain but life is way too short....." COUGH*bullshit*COUGH! You could just type "has TOR been cracked" into Yahoogle and find any number of simple explanations you could have cut'n'pasted. Too much of an effort or were you too busy retreating at speed?
Seriously, did you read the article? The whole TOR system relies on numbers of relays to hide the traffic, but if you can fire up thousands of server instances you can own TOR, a capability easily within the reach of many educational institutions, let alone the NSA. And that's before we look at the smarter tricks they could play with the backbone.
"....it's not really...." Ahem! Dread Pirate Roberts would probably love to post a rebuttal -
"....And would those same self-righteous cowboys develop one of the most effective underground resistance movements ever to help bring down the invaders of their country?...." Sorry, but you've swallowed too much of the post-War Allied propaganda that was meant to relieve the French of the shame of 1940 (and their complicity in sending gypsies and Jews to the ovens). The majority of French people gave a Gallic shrug and continued as normal after 1940, whilst the south went one better and created the Vichy regime. Apart from the effective part of the Resistance being completely down to the work of Britain's intelligence services, there were two parts to the Resistance - the Gaullists, who did the majority of early work; and the Communists, who sabotaged French efforts to re-arm before the War, then sat on their hands (and in some cases worked with the Nazis) on the orders of Stalin in 1940, and later spent more time plotting the Communist take-over of France rather than fighting the Nazis. The Resistance is much lauded but the RAF's Newchurch Tempest Wing alone destroyed more trains and vehicles strafing in the single month of May 1944 than the whole French Resistance managed between 1940 and 1945.
Well of course it's good they're not going to limit TOR seeing as it's already owned by the Five Eyes at will! Blocking it would just choke off a useful source of intelligence.
"So Comcast are using data that they know to be incomplete and likely incorrect....." You would have to show they deliberately used incorrect data, otherwise it is just an operational error. My own experience is that I have never come across a major database of any form that didn't have some incorrect "good" data buried away in it, and size just makes matters worse. Typically you relie on scripts to run through the data and validate it as using human eyes would take far too long and miht not actually detect the error anyway. The problem with incorrect "good" data is that you usually have no way of knowing it is wrong until someone external complains about it. The good news is it swings both ways - a friend (allegedly) got his Internet and TV free for almost a year because his provider forgot to update the modem number on his account after they swapped it.
"....Comcast had the MAC address of another customer's router associated with this guy's account...." Which is not impossible. Many of the billing systems used by telcos will happily let you assign two or more MAC addresses to an ordinary consumer account because they wrote the software for business users which may have many routers and MAC addresses associated with one business account. Once it is in the billing database and classed as "good" data it takes an actual human being to go through and find the double entry - not likely if you have millions of subscribers!
Another possibility is that the account had two MAC addresses because there was an original modem which was replaced, either due to a technical problem or a contract upgrade. In the case of a tech issue the original modem may have been repaired and re-issued to a new owner, and old modems that come back from upgrades may be re-issued to a new account. In either case the old modem's MAC address should be removed from the original owner's account, but if the MAC address is not removed from the original account the new user that got the repaired/re-issued modem would get their usage billed to the former owner (or Comcast might bill both owners!).
My advice would be to query any bill for exceeding the cap even if there is a chance you might have actually used that much data.
Title says it all.
Henceforth to be shortened to putants in Europe and poo-pants in the US.
"....make sure the Computer Misuse Act is used against VTech...." Sure, but that would be pointless as the Act mentioned regards unauthorised intrusion, not poor IT security, so VTech would walk away untouched. What are required are legally-enforced corporate laws for minimum levels of IT security, including regular penetration testing, across the EU. I'm sure it will have the security insultants salivating at the idea but it really is long overdue, and I also predict some companies will work round it by siting their IT overseas where there would be no requirement to meet the law's standard. Maybe as part of the law they could include that companies have to display their compliance notification on their websites. For too long the EU's debate on IT security has been fixated on people's rights (and the politicised ranting against the US) and has ignored the legal punishment of those that don't secure data in the EU.