1480 posts • joined 5 Mar 2010
I don't know, why not issue a FOI request to ACPO.
Oh, hang on, they're not bound by FOI, as they are a private company - see my point above ^
would imply that this is in someway unplanned. It's all *very* planned, believe me. The UK government has concocted a fiction that "private" companies aren't covered by the ECHR, and therefore can do as they please. So the government can outsource it's obligations under the ECHR to a private company, and then hold their hands up and say "nothing to do with us, guv".
Eventually, the ECHR will wise up to this, and there will be a very clear ruling that any agency that acts on behalf of the state is bound by the same rules. Which explains this current governments obsession with trying to leave the ECHR.
Does anyone remember when ACPO was allowed to ignore a FOI request as they are a "private organisation" ?
FWIW the Yanks tend to be much tougher on this.
Hmmm, and this from a administration
that is going after bullying websites ?
Oh, where is the app ?????
That can store WiFi login details, and *automatically* (presumably from a user-defined priority list) log you in when in range.
On a recent train journey to London, I had access to Wifi at the stations, on the train, and in a coffee shop on the way to the office. 4 sodding times I had to type my email address/login details in.
Maybe this is the biggest driver to actually *paying* for LastPass. But ideally, a dedicated app which allowed you to prioritise your free wifi points is needed.
@Nigel 11 - Area 667
The neighbour of the beast ?
So they admitted 2000+ cases
presumably these are the ones they could be caught out on anyway.
I wonder what the *real* number is ?
While another more pointedly said: "selfish *unt."
Succinct. Punchy. Unambiguous.
I had this weird flashback to a "serious" social networking site.
Mensch-on anyone ? ----------->>>>>>>>
Thank you, I was missing my fix of Private Eye Pseudo Names ...
No problem ...
just define "social media" ?
Not so simple now, eh ?
Basic tort law ?
Surely an innocent commercial website that can demonstrate a monetary loss would have standing to take the ISPs to court for damages ? I would humbly suggest on a basis of negligence.
Assuming a high-profile win, with lots of zeros attached, then I can see blocking going the way of the dodo.
Of course the ISPs may then have standing to sue the people who provided the dodgy information - more for incompetence.
When Big Dave was wibbling on about blocking a few weeks back, I suggested that ISPs would be forced to up their prices, to cover snafus like this. Which will kill it dead.
IANAL but I am sure the word missing in all of the discussion was "authorised". It's authorisation which defines the legal/illegal nature of the act.
Taking electricity you have paid for ? Authorised.
Receiving radio waves intended for entertainment broadcast ? Authorised.
Inducting electricity without payment ? Not authorised - jail time.
So on the face of it, receiving radio waves to *power* equipment is outside of the implied license granted by the broadcaster that their transmission was only intended to be used for reception in playing a show. However, that said, laws should be practical, and trying to prosecute - especially when any quantifiable losses are likely to be measure in nanopounds, doesn't really seem to be a happening idea.
A classic example of just because you *can* doesn't mean you *should*.
Re: No such thing as bad publicity?
Can they export *that* ?
If so, I for one would sign up in an instant. As indeed I suspect a lot of UK citizens with. And pay for it.
I wonder how Big Dave would spin that - a clear demonstration of people not trusting the uk.gov ?
Where's Dave ?
Surely this is something self-styled internet protector of children, one right honourable (well, he's a right something) David Cameron should be addressing with some sage announcement ?
the main bulk of my torrenting/nzb-ing, isn't to get stuff "for free". It's to get stuff like CSI which is delayed by weeks or months. Although the fact they are ad-free is an added bonus.
Problem is I consider I pay Virgin enough already, otherwise I'd happily pay (say) £5/month to some sort of hub service (a la the PRS) to divvy up amongst content providers.
Re: Nokia Lumia 620 ...
It wasn't the phones performance I like ... I was just saying that WP8 is pretty good that's all. I can see it gaining ground.
Nokia Lumia 620 ...
My work recently issued one of these to replace my HTC Trophy ... and must say, it's actually quite good. Something very crisp and sleek about it, compared to the wifes HTC Wildfire.
Was impressed that there are a few more apps than with WP7 too.
My prediction - one to watch.
At a recent strategy workshop
One of our IT directors repeated the statement that his operation were considered "low cost" as a badge of pride. A claim that other IT directors took as being a positive. Until it was distilled to show "low cost" meant not a penny for innovation, R&D and anything else which wasn't BAU.
Re: So I can pay by paypal
I suspect the situation and/or user they are targeting is the sort of person who carries a mobile, but not a wallet/purse/credit/debit card.
Re: This is working as intended
I think the issue is one of *scale*. There's a world of difference between having unrestricted access to a machine (e.g. if you have stolen it, or the owner is absent for any length of time) and having a couple of minutes while someones gone on a comfort break.
That said, you should *always* lock your screen when away from your desk. I've known some firms mandate this and discipline people if they leave their screen unlocked.
and no mention of the ring wraiths in the animated "Lord of the Rings" of the 70s ?
I recall at the time being very spooked by them ... such lifelike movement in a cartoon.
in the 21st century ? Really ????
Worked with a chap who was looking for a new job on the QT. Registered with an agency, whose first action was to email his CV to our company as a speculative punt. MD called him in and said "if you're not happy, you can go now" and fired him.
Re: "on every device"
Kindle e-ink readers have a browser. Are those covered ?
We have plenty of laws, we should try enforcing the laws we already have properly before creating more of them.
The problem is parliament (sees it's) job is to make laws. And given how many MPs have come from the legal professions, it's obvious that's what they will do: Make laws.
Curious as to how they'll try to spin this ...
Especially since Cameron made great play of being a really "in with the geeks" Tory, by appointing Jimbo in the first place.
And as for that Perry ... it really does seem she only opens her mouth to change feet.
It would be funny if we weren't paying for it.
If YouTube is anything to go by ...
*Paying* for content, means a search for (example) "Dynamo:Magician Impossible" would actually return as the top result "Dynamo:Magician Impossible", rather than a load of kids in their bedrooms with webcams telling us "how Dynamo did this trick".
I mean have you searched YouTube for music lately. Almost any song title will bring up someone warbling away, killing the original.
When the history of now is written, someone will highlight the irony that loads of people giving their "gift" away for free (down with the man !!!!!) drove the rest of us to *pay* to avoid them.
Reminds me of the old Alexie Sayle line
There's an 50s revival going on now ... whole familes trying to live on 8 quid a week.
How many of those XP machines
are - like mine - virtual machines on a Linux box ? Totally bulletproof (as long as you run from the Day0 install image).
Re: Simple Answer
The answer is simple, use either of the examples above of leaving earlier, getting paid for the time spent, or making it really quick.
I'd guess it would become self policing. If the employees are being paid for the time spent checking, the time spent checking will be as short as possible. Of course if the *employees* are paying for it, then it will become as long as possible.
Re: Shame their first recourse was "the law"
I am against it, because Apple are making their staff pay for *Apples* problem. Apple are free to introduce the security measures they feel appropriate (Clearly those security measures haven't gone as far as making an unsold/unactivated device inoperable) but they can't make the staff pay for such measures (with their time).
Personally I am against companies who want to own their employees - and the US leads the way here. Rafts of companies testing employees for alcohol, and inviting ones "with a problem" to "address the issue" or get a new job. If *my* employer want's to mandate what I do outside the office, they can pay up or shut up.
I had an interview for a US owned company* that included tobacco testing in their contract. Positive and you are disciplined. They only hired non-smokers.
*Kalamazoo for doubters.
Re: Shame their first recourse was "the law"
Alternatively, how long would Apple continue with this policy if the checks started taking hours rather than minutes ? After all, the security guards have to be paid for the time they are there. If these checks started costing Apple $200 per shift rather than $20, they'd get the message.
If the staff banded together, and agreed to suffer a little extra pain, for collective gain, they could *easily* win.
The problem is anything which looks and sounds like collective activism in the workplace in the US is regarded with deep suspicion as "socialist". You know. Like universal healthcare.
Luckily some of us did study a bit of history, and know the sacrifices our ancestors had to make to give us the conditions we have today. It would be a poorer world if they had decided against acting because it might "cost a few minutes".
Shame their first recourse was "the law"
Because there is so much fun, in an Ealing comedy way, to be had here.
Imagine *every* employee turns up with a bag with hundreds of dummy iPhone/iPads/iPods inside ?
And of course bags containing fermented Norwegian fish products ...
On a more prosaic note, could the staff and management not discussed this and come up with a solution ? I mean of the top of my head, how about secure lockers outside the stock area ? I.e. what any other company would have done ?
Re: Quantum coherence
Except for MPs, where you might get the arse instead.
In the novel ...
The first chapter is taken up with this very debate. McCoy worries if the "McCoy" post transporter has a soul or not. Spock finds such worries illogical, while Kirk has to go and meet the Umdorian ambassador in his quarters. Meanwhile Scotty points out that the soul is - by definition - indestructible, so McCoy should quite bitching like a girl, and get the next round in.
Re: "Spock must die !"
AIR it was because they were taken by surprise, given the anti-Spock a chance to swap ?
"Spock must die !"
Clearly no real trekkies here, or you would recall this novel (by James Blish, it was the first non-canonical story to be published, I believe).
The plot centres around a Klingon operation to neutralise the Organians, by cloaking Organia in a tachyon field. They reason (correctly as it happens) that since Organians are beings of thought, they exist as tachyons. Therefore the tachyon field will constrain them, meaning the Organian Treaty can't be enforced.
Meanwhile, far, far away, the Enterprise is safe from the war the Klingons are starting, and pondering why the Organians haven't interceded. They decide the only way would be to visit Organia. Unfortunately it's light years away, while the transporter only has range of 16,000 miles.
Luckily Scotty has an idea about modifying the transporter to use tachyons. This results in a detailed description of how the transporter currently works, with a whole slab of philosophising thrown in for good measure, to loop the narrative back to the opening chapter where McCoy is grumbling that he's is reality "dead" because the transporter has dissembled him and ressembled him, and therefore he isn't the same person.
Spock is chosen to be beamed to Organia. However when the transporter is energised, the tachyon cloak (which the Enterprise crew are as yet unaware of) reflects the beam, and a *duplicate* Spock is created. Unfortunately for the crew (but fortunately for the plot) Scotty had to shield the transporter pad with some protective material which just just happened to be opaque. So they couldn't tell who the original Spock was. It then transpires that the reflection process resulted in an "anti-Spock" whose mental functions were opposite to the real Spock, and whose motivations are to *aid* the Klingons, rather than the Federation. Of course much hilarity ensues.
Hows that for a precis of a book I last read 25 years ago. Did I leave anything out
Swipe to unlock ?
Mrs Pages Android HTC Wildfire has an option to unlock it with a series of swipe gestures. ....
A fellow juror was alerted when he made a comment involving a fact that hadn't been presented in court. That juror contacted the judge who quizzed the original juror who admitted it, probably thinking it was "no big deal".
Re: Why we have juries ...
And presumably illegal for you to research the fact that you can
not yet. But *if* we had a decent civics curriculum for our citizens, this should be very high on the agenda. It's a landmark in British jurisprudence, and something that sets British justice apart.
There is a quote, maybe from Edmund Burke, that a jury is it's own parliament, and the first act of any tyrant wishing to rule Britain would be to abolish juries, as they would be doing annoying things like acquitting innocent people, or acquitting where laws are unjust. Which, incidentally, why we no longer have the death penalty. Juries were becoming much less happy to convict if the accused would be executed ... the Home Office realised if they didn't act, eventually a murderer would go free.
Re: Why we have juries ...
It's rare for the court briefing to actually tell the jury they can decline to return a verdict.
A litigant in person can, although judges *really* don't like it, they can't stop you.
Anyway, fuck that. *I* would place my (not guilty) vote, and explain it to the rest of the jury.
Why we have juries ...
also - and worrying no one here has mentioned it - juries can judge THE LAW too. Google "jury nullification".
If you take that away, then you'll just have professional judges who will apply any old law.
There are a few laws in this country that I could not in all conscience send someone to prison for. And that is an absolute right any juror has.
Re: Not you as well.
Trolls = annoying, offensive but legal
Criminals = criminals.
The beauty of a *good* criminal justice system is it recognises that a criminal act is criminal, regardless of how it's perpetrated. Thus we have a law which says it's criminal to kill someone. Simples. No need for a list of methods of killing that are illegal.
Why did El Reg headline make me think Blackadder ?
"So, you think there's a big market for snot coloured jewellery ?"
Does MS publish stats on Bing usage ?
I'd be curious to know if they either surge or slump, given this news.
I'd like to say I'd boycott Bing, but since I never used it anyway ....
Hmmmm, real tin foil hat time ...
as alluded to by ShelLuser, I wonder if the real endpoint of this fun is to be able to ban ad/pop-up blockers ? That seems a much more rational reason than the guff spouted by Cameron.
And can we know what's on this blacklist ?
Or do we need a website where people can register terms that they have seen bring it up ?
Before Alan Turing - why not Ada Lovelace ?
or Linda Lovelace - either works for me
I wouldn't trust *any* ISP
my filters are set in my router. My responsibility.
One a serious note, with all of this heavy lifting being put on the shoulders of the ISPs, can anyone suggest the possible timings of:
1) Price increases to compensate them
2) someone suing an ISP because little Johnny saw a nipple, and their parents "thought the filters should stop that".
following on from 2, are we going to have a court case where it's decided the filters aren't 100% reliable (in which case (a) why have them and (b) how much more of a tit will Cameron look then) or that the ISPs are responsible and are liable for compensation (see point 1 above).
- Breaking news: Google exec veep in terrifying SKY PLUNGE DRAMA
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Google CEO Larry Page gives Sundar Pichai keys to the kingdom
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? SKYPE has the HOTS for my NAKED WIFE