* Posts by NumptyScrub

590 posts • joined 18 Mar 2010

Page:

Firms will have to report OWN diverted profits under 'Google Tax' law

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: I love how the tax expert deliberately misses the point

Which is exactly why I find his statement jarring; if current tax strategy is already defensible then reporting yourself is not an issue, and if current tax strategy is not defensible (aka illegal) then your employees are already supposed to report you because "business ethics".

He's attacking the part of the legislation that changes nothing, rather than the bit where they want a percentage of monies that are currently left untaxed. Which is odd, and leads me to suspect that the bit adding new tax is actually full of holes and this is an attempt to distract people from it.

The more things change, eh?

0
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

I love how the tax expert deliberately misses the point

Roy-Chowdhury said: "It's a bit like reporting yourself to the police and then having to defend yourself."

He added: "It seems strange that multinationals would have to report themselves and the the onus is on them to defend their [tax activities.]"

That's the whole point of the legislation; to ensure multinationals have defensible tax strategies, rather than, say, indefensible ones. Or in other words, if you don't think you can defend yourself successfully upon being (self) reported to the police, then you should change your tax strategy to one that you can successfully defend.

7
1

Wanna buy a dot-word? If you want a .pizza the action, now's a chance

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: hmm interesting domains...

Yep, for a measly $180k (or whatever the price was) you can attempt to own .fu2

I don't think the fee is refundable if they decide not to grant it though :/

0
0

Uber? Worth $40 BEEELLION? Hey, actually, hold on ...

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Maintenance

They won't repair themselves but if your taxi driver repairs their car you probably should be looking for another taxi driver. (Why would a qualified mechanic be driving a taxi?)

I think you overestimate the complexity of vehicle maintenance, and underestimate the background of some taxi drivers. Fixing a wonky Windows install can be more hassle than a full fluids change, and stripping and rebuilding an engine is actually quite straightforward, if time consuming.

1
0

Review mass-snoop laws regularly, says RIPA daddy Blunkett

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Oh dear

And yet you all still doubt the worthiness of the resources spent on anti-terror measures. What better evidence can there be of their efficacy?

Without publishing details of all the attempts that have been stopped, (something that the security services refuse to do), it's the same efficacy as my personal anti-supernova measures, which prevent our local star from going supernova. You don't want the local star to go supernova, so continue to fund my patently effective, trade-secret anti-supernova measures. 5 million a year is a paltry sum to pay to prevent supernovae :)

26
0

Orion hacker sends stowaway into SPAAAAACE

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Boys and their toys -- in spaaaace

The dangers of one stray double quote :'(

2
0

Feds dig up law from 1789 to demand Apple, Google decrypt smartphones, slabs

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: UnfunnyScrub NumptyScrub

Oh Matt, I'm not the one posting blatant ad hominem attacks, am I?

"......Contains only supposition or strawman arguments....." Actually it only contains mocking of your blinkered outlook. TBH, I'm not really surprised you missed that. I note you don't want to post a counter to any of the articles I linked to, is that because you now are forced to admit that paedophiles were not 'imagined up' by The Man just to oppress you?

I'm not the one making any claims regarding the existence (or not) of paedophiles, you are attributing an unstated (and untenable) position to me just so you can attack it. I know they exist, and I am happy to state categorically "paedophiles are a real thing that really happens and has been happening for several thousand years". It's no excuse (IMO) for increasing the sentence for keeping your mouth shut to longer than aggravated assault, though. There is literally no point "countering" articles you posted when I agree that paedophiles exist, is there?

".....I said that RIPA s49 was extended to 5 years "because paedos" and the link above corroborates that assertion....." What, you're still trying to ignore that the Act specifically mentions terror? The Act itself (see here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III/crossheading/offences if your blinkers allow) specifically links to the Terrorism Act 2006 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/contents).

Nice to see you also managed to somehow miss my very next next sentence when you claim I am "ignoring that the Act specifically mentions terror". Well, it specifically mentions national security, which does technically cover terrorism alongside other, less terroristy things like espionage and treason. However you seem to be ignoring the bit where you stated it was not extended for child abuse cases, yet your link shows clearly that the extended sentence is for child abuse cases as well as national security. It's fine, this is clearly an emotive subject for you so I'm happy to overlook that and focus on the facts :)

And rebleating Benjie Franklin again? Seriously, you need to get some new material as your whole comedy routine is getting staler than Michael McIntyre's. I suggest you spend less time ovinely absorbing righteous froth sites and read up on a Leftie like Ben Elton, who is original and funny even when speaking absolute tosh (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vaXis4wi78w). Or is Mr Elton too old and no longer considered 'hip' by today's fashionably faux outraged youth?

I'm well aware of Mr. Elton, thank you very much. I just don't agree with much of what he says, even if it was vaguely amusing at the time. I do however strongly believe in personal responsibility, something which has fallen very much out of favour recently, but is encompassed in that quote from B-Fran (or whatever bastardisation of his name the current generation would come up with). I do not require wrapping up in cotton wool and 24/7 surveillance to be safe, I am responsible for my own safety. All of the community are responsible for the safety of the community, and pretending otherwise is idiocy.

"....Are you really so desperately scared of terrorists and paedophiles?....." Well, not paedos as, unlike you (going by your posts), I am well over the age of consent. But, having seen first-hand the effects of terror, having actually visited many parts of the Middle East over an extended period, and being able to read grown-up news sites, I am concerned at the threat of terror. Don't tell me, I have to now include a list of terror acts as you now want to insist terrorism doesn't exist as well?!?

I lived through the various IRAs bombing London from the 70s onwards, and yet I hold the views I do. People act like terrorism is a new thing that we need to start responding to, except it has been going on for thousands of years. The point of terrorism is to cause terror; if you do not let it terrify you, it ceases to be effective. If the community as a whole refuse to be cowed, then terrorism loses its point.

I refused to be cowed by the (p/r)IRA then, and I refuse to be cowed by IS or Al Qaeda or whoever the muppets du jour are now. Doing it my way requires no extra powers for security services, it just requires the public to take responsibility for themselves and for their community (you do not need blanket communications surveillance if members of the public are reporting dubious individuals to you, you can then obtain valid surveillance warrants using existing due process). Depressingly, people these days seem to refuse to take any responsibility for themselves or their community, and instead demand that someone else do it all for them.

If people would just man person the fuck up and take responsibility for themselves and others, we wouldn't be in this shit in the first place :(

0
1
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: NumptyScrub

The five years only applies to terror investigations (even complete idiots (IMHO) like Christopher Wilson only got six months).

From the first paragraph in this linked article:

"Refusal to comply can result in a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, or five years in cases involving national security[1] or child indecency[2]"

Oh, and because, of course, paedos don't exist, right? They were just made up so The Man could 'oppress' you. And even if the did exist there was no chance they would use computers to exchange evidence of their illegal habits, or 'freedom-loving' systems like TOR, and no way they would ever use encryption in an attempt to avoid discovery of said evidence! No, Comrade, you've hit the nail on the head - paedophiles are just a lie to oppress Those Who Know The Truth!

Contains only supposition or strawman arguments. Come on Matt, you can do better than that.

Even your fellow tinfoil-wearers are not denying paedos exist, use encryption and do use TOR:

And an ad hominem attack to finish. How quaint.

To sum up, I said that RIPA s49 was extended to 5 years "because paedos" and the link above corroborates that assertion (it also corroborates your assertion that it was extended "because terrorists" when it mentions national security). I never said paedos do not exist.

Are you one of those people who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety? I'm not. I'd rather have the right to privacy, and allow terrorists and paedophiles the same right. Because until they have been convicted of an act of terrorism or paedophilia they are innocent and should be afforded all the same rights as any other sentient being. That's how "innocent until proven guilty" works. Some guilty parties get away with it in the absence of proof, but it was decided that this was preferable to innocent parties being punished for acts they had not committed.

Are you really so desperately scared of terrorists and paedophiles? Cars are more dangerous, they kill and injure more people each year than terrorists and paedophiles combined. You should be campaigning for stricter government control of cars and 24/7 surveillance of drivers if you want to make the UK a safer place for everyone. ;)

1
1
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

But unlike Russia, China, and a few others (including some we think of as democratic) the US, and I think other Five Eyes governments, do not restrict the use of cryptographic systems by citizens and are unlikely to do so going forward.

No they don't stop you from using encryption, however at least one (the UK) has made it a criminal offence to refuse to decrypt on demand (including being unable to decrypt on demand), with a custodial sentence. The original RIPA section 49 offence stated "up to 2 years", but there has been talk of increasing it to 5 or more years maximum "because paedophiles".

So yes, I can use encryption on an Apple handset, and yes, I am criminally liable if the UK police force cannot decrypt that content on demand. We're degrading back to the "guilty until proven innocent" days.

2
1

Solar sandwich cooks at 40 per cent efficiency

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Warning Words

Why bother? Well, if it works for 12 hours a day, that could work out at a 50% reduction in fossil fuel use. Of course, if you're denying that the consequent CO2 emissions are having a damaging effect on the climate, I can see why that question might cross your mind. Otherwise, the answer is obvious!

Apparently around 50% of the experienced warming may be due to a 60 year cycle of ocean currents trapping and then releasing heat (accelerating the warming for 30 years, and then decelerating warming for the next 30 years). This would suggest that some of the assumptions made regarding the relative effects of certain mechanisms (like the actual amount of warming due to the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2) may be in error, and should be revisited.

It would certainly have an effect on the numbers if, for instance, the overall warming due to atmospheric heat capture (including the effect of increased CO2) is only 50% of that measured increase, and stored heat in the deep sea is responsible for the other 50%, which would appear to be what that study is suggesting. And it would have to be around that 50% figure, if the cycle reversing (and the current switching to storing rather than releasing heat) can completely negate any increase (like the 10+ year hiatus we are experiencing) even though CO2 emissions are continuing unabated.

Of course these are all still theories, and only time will allow us to test predictions and further refine them based upon the feedback of subsequent measurements. But it does shed some small doubts upon the "obviousness" of the role atmospheric CO2 is playing on global temperatures. It does not appear to be as large an effect as some people have assumed, if it can be entirely negated by the action of polar currents.

2
6

Do you remember mid-1970s fears of global winter?

NumptyScrub
Silver badge
Trollface

From the linked article (emphasis mine):

Rapid warming in the last two and a half decades of the 20th century, they proposed in an earlier study, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface.

So, the current models that attribute most (if not all) observed warming to increases in atmospheric CO2 are out by quite a large amount. Maybe the models need to be revised and the current "+4C by 2100" predictions recalculated? Possibly once the newly calculated predictions are in, we should reassess policy as well.

Or am I being too scientific on what is, demonstrably, quite an emotive subject? ^^;

0
0

Man asks internet for $1k for pebbles. INTERNET SAYS YES

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Soap stone

Gall stones, for the unmitigated gall.

5
0

Sick of the 'criminal' lies about pie? Lobby the government HERE

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: @ Numpty Scrub

I wasn't complaining about horsemeat per se, merely about the fact that the horsemeat scandal showed that you couldn't trust industrial pie or burger makers.

Horsemeat is fine, selling it as "beef" was the issue. I did get a bit narked at all the sensationalism from some quarters alleging that it was unsafe for consumption "because horsemeat" though. I'd much rather have horse burger than anything with MRM "beef" in it, even if it can technically claim to be 100% "beef".

Crocodile is the oddest I've ever eaten, it's like a sweet chicken. Wasn't sure what to make of it ^^;

3
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: @ I ain't Spartacus (let the flamewar begin)

And that's where I wholly disagree with you that outsourcing pies to other people was ever a good idea (as proven by the UK horsemeat scandal)

Oi, cheval is pretty damn tasty. As is kudu, bison, wildebeest, and many other animals we don't normally get on UK shelves. I understand people being unhappy about not getting what they thought they were buying, but "horse" as a meat is perfectly edible :P

On the subject of using AMR or MSM product in pies I wholeheartedly agree with you. You serve the good stuff as steaks, the mediocre stuff (and the good parts of offal) cubed in pies and casseroles, and the leftovers for sausages. Some bits should just be left as waste products though ^^;

10
0

Jacking up firearms fees will cost SMEs £3.5 MILLION. Thanks, Plod

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Why do they think gun licencing should be done on the cheap?

Please don't get upset by the point I'm about to make - think objectively, not subjectively.

A substantial proportion of the population has no interest in firearms and has concerns about people who seem to get pleasure from handling lethal weapons. Would you be surprised that many are suspicious of the psychology of such people, especially those who seem to enjoy killing things "for sport"? Many of us wish to be protected from such people and would expect that the cost of licencing for such a hobby be fully borne by its participants, if not taxed penally.

You present a subjective, emotion laden argument there. It's a shame you asked us to evaluate it objectively, because it's damn hard to objectively evaluate a subjective opinion. You provide no corroborative facts on how large this "substantial" proportion who have no interest in firearms is, you make a suspiciously ad-hominem looking attack regarding "the psychology" of people who wish to use firearms for sport (without providing any corroborative studies on shooter psychology), and you provide no figures on the percentage of people who "wish to be protected from such people".

So, objectively, that appears to be the presentation of a personal opinion, devoid of any scientific backing for any of the points made. You may want to rectify that before re-presenting it as an "objective" piece.

How about we go back to your car analogy?

In the UK, cars kill far more people each year (1713 in 2013) than guns (58 in 2010/2011), this is from observed data (rather than opinion). However, drivers are not required to provide multiple character witness statements from friends before they are considered for application, they do not have to renew their license every 5 years, and they do not have that license taken away permanently if they are ever convicted of any violent crime. All of those are applicable to a firearms certificate.

I would suggest that, from a public safety perspective, all those measures and more should equally be applied to driving. I drive, and I would fully support regular re-examinations, police powers to drop in unannounced and check the roadworthiness of your vehicle (like they do for the security of firearms safes), and driver licensing fees increased to cover the cost of running the DVLA, so taxpayers who do not drive are not subsidising drivers. I regularly see dangerous, idiotic and frankly life threatening behaviour on my commute to and from work. People exiting motorways from lane 3, people proceeding at 45mph on 30 limit residential roads, people driving through red lights because the fact that they are running late is more important than the safety of pedestrians. I am quite frankly appalled at the state of driving in this country and I would argue that it is far more important to deal with than the demonstrably less dangerous threat of gun crime.

1,700 deaths on the roads compared to 60 deaths from firearms; more than one order of magnitude difference.

1
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: @AC No sympathy @Tony Green

But I guarantee that if more people in the UK had more guns, then more people would get shot by guns in the UK.

Citation needed. Go talk to your local firearms officer (the police officer responsible for local firearms grants and enforcement, rather than an armed response officer) and ask them for the stats. In the UK, the firearms used as part of criminal activities are overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) illegal firearms.

People don't go through the process of applying for a shotgun or firearms certificate just to get a gun to commit crimes with. Those people instead talk to Big Dave at the local dodgy pub and pay well over the odds for a knackered old revolver. The people who do go through the legal process to obtain firearms, do so because they have a sporting interest in shooting at paper, metal or clay targets; it takes far more effort to obtain a firearms certificate (including going through the vetting process) than it would to obtain firearms illegally.

I do not believe that an increased interest in, and participation on, legal shooting activities would cause more people to be shot on UK streets. I do not think there is a correlation, and I certainly do not think there is causation. If anyone has information to the contrary I would be extremely interested to see it.

0
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: No sympathy

Since what the plods currently get to charge for processing a firearms certificate is much less than what it actually **costs** them to process it, the public is subsidising gun-owners. Who generally tend to be people like the landed gentry and others who are far better-off than most of us.

From the article:

Your correspondent took that one apart earlier this year, noting how South Wales Police admitted that administering the grant of a firearm or shotgun certificate cost just £68. Not quite the £196 figure the Association of Chief Police Officers was bandying around at the time.

Although ACPO never did explain how they arrived at £196, it's notable that as soon as the £68 figure became public knowledge they immediately stopped talking about the higher number.

So please, provide corroborating figures for your cost-based argument, which you'll note was actually dismissed as part of the article you are commenting on. If you have information that would prove the claims that it does cost £196 to process applications then by all means speak up.

So perhaps it's no bad thing that they should actually have to pay enough so that we don't have to feather-bed them?

"Based on the assumption that there will be 714 grants and 938 renewals each year" (from the article) even if we are subsidising them to the tune of £150 per grant / renewal (based on the discredited £200 a year figure) that is still a grand total of £250k per year. Local councils spend more than that each year maintaining children's play areas (353 principal authorities would have a budget of <£1k per year to cost less than the alleged subsidy on firearms administration). If you take the smaller figure of £68 per year, then based on those renewal assumptions we are subsidising a whole £30k per year.

Spread that between 25 million taxpayers, and at worst it's a whole penny each. Now do the same sum for those aircraft carriers we bought that can't even carry aircraft (£4 billion total) and let me know how you would prefer your tax revenue to get spent. I'd rather it went on perfectly legal activities that citizens have a right to participate in, personally. :)

3
0

High Court: You've made our SH*T list – corked pirate torrent sites double in a day

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: alternatives

How many times is this going to be used to justify using illegal actions because WHAT I WANT MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE?!

I hear paraphrases of that all the time, from politicians and security service agents. We have clear laws on, for instance, wiretapping, which are ignored time and again because what the NSA want must take precedence. What GCHQ want must take precedence. What Theresa May wants must take precedence.

We, the people, are simply learning by observing. Funny how that works out, isn't it?

11
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: alternatives

When I'm paying to watch something, why should I be bombarded by adverts for stuff I'll never buy anyway?

If Google, Facebook, and Twitter have taught me anything, it's that if you are being bombarded by adverts, you should be getting the content for free (because you are the product). That's how it now works here in internet land.

Maybe it's time we point this out to the MPAA?

4
0

Oh BOY! The MICKEY MOUSE Apple Watch is no heart-throb

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Still not convinced by the crown

Would you rather own a Porche or a Ford?

I'd take a GT40 over a Porsche Boxster any day of any week, although I'd struggle to choose between a Mustang GT500 and a 911 GT3 RS (you can keep the Cayenne and the Boxster thanks).

I also can't see the point of paying the premium for a Breitling or Patek Philippe when a top of the range Casio G-Shock can do much the same job for 10% of the cost. I see the appeal, but it is in brand only; you wear it because it is a Breitling, not because it is chronographically superior to cheaper watches.

I know a few people who like chronographs, and unless I am mistaken, the yearly servicing cost for a Breitling will get you a brand new mid-range Casio that you can then discard 12 months later for a new one.

I am the polar opposite of the target market for the Apple Watch ^^;

0
0

Sharing Economy sharks need love, cuddles and SUBSIDIES – UK.gov

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Oh my $DEITY

You may wonder how someone with such a deep conflict of interest ended up figureheading a government “independent review”. In what way is Ms Wasskow independent of the sharing economy?

A BiS spokesperson told us she isn't; "independent” now means "independent of government", and not, as you might think, someone who is independent of the subject area on which they are reporting.

It's official, we are all fucked. This has been confirmed by an Independant Review chaired by me, so I should know.

8
0

I'll be back (and forward): Hollywood's time travel tribulations

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Groundhog Day

Elaborate...

Isn't it, though? :)

4
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Looper

actually looper made no sense at all to me... the scars 'appearing' when the time traveller would remember all that... and just by being captured could be prevented from jumping back and escaping....

Those are all references to the causality paradox(es) due to time travel. The time traveller has already experienced reality one way, and in travelling back is changing (attempting to change) how that "reality" plays out, so their memories are necessarily false; what they remember is exactly what they are trying to avoid. In looper I think they mention headaches at one point as a cover for memory rewriting itself (because causality) the same as a scar they never had when they jumped back, suddenly appearing when their "current" self gains the injury that they never received in their version of history.

When considering causality violations due to time travel, the 2 ends of the scale are a pliable reality that allows time travellers to affect it (meaning causality necessarily gets broken as hell and you have magic appearing scars and disappearing limbs, and people disappearing up their freshly murdered grandfather's vas deferens), or that reality is fixed such that nothing time travellers can do can change anything (meaning that Fate is predestined and immutable), because it has already happened because they already came back and changed it before they decided to come back and change it. Which makes time travel irrelevant to the plot, because anyone travelling in time is basically running on autopilot and can only do what they are fated to have already done when they did it the first time.

That second option also pisses all over free will and suggests that the entire history of the universe is pre-scripted, so I don't really like that one. It also doesn't work well with quantum electrodynamics, you'd have to be a total bastard to script a fixed and immutable universe where even basic particles act like they just don't give a fuck about rules.

I'm also not a big fan of the Trousers of Time, but it has a little more credence than the Immutable Fate depiction, at least IMO.

1
0

'Snoopers' Charter IS DEAD', Lib Dems claim as party waves through IP address-matching

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Blind leading the blind

A good few child porn cases already dropped through the net because the prosecution couldn't prove "beyond doubt" exactly who was using the computer at the time. How is this going to help?

Easy, they do it exactly like the law that required you to incriminate yourself for motor vehicle infractions; the driver (owner of the connection) is automatically held responsible unless they grass on someone else.

Thereby solving several issues at once; the cost of a proper investigation is no longer required, they just need "went to IP address 21.22.23.24 which is Joe Bloggs" and bingo, you are guilty until proven innocent. Conviction rates skyrocket, politicians get to grandstand about how they made a difference, G&Ts all round :)

0
0

Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: reducing energy consumption

For all your intellect you're still in the tiny minority of educated minds who don't swallow the climate change thing, despite the...y'know...tons of evidence?

There is a significant difference between agreeing that global temperatures are increasing (a trend in the observed data), and agreeing the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for the majority of the increase (a theory to explain the observed data).

If I recall correctly, the current models / theories don't support the observed decade+ hiatus in increased temperatures, correct? If so, that would suggest that the model is inaccurate, and needs to be revisited. That's how science works; you make a theory to explain observed measurements, and if it doesn't properly predict things then you tinker with it until it does. Sometimes you need to throw the whole thing out and start from scratch, because some of the initial assumptions turn out to be incorrect (like atoms being a hard billiard ball with electrons embedded in the surface).

Generally though, what I tend to see are an awful lot of people who are overly invested in their favourite climate model, to the exclusion of actual science. Anyone who would state "it doesn't fit observed period X but the rest of it is sound" is arguably not being scientific enough. If it doesn't fit observed period X, then it needs to be changed so that it does fit observed period X. If it cannot be changed so that it does fit observed period X, then it is arguably unfit for purpose as a scientific model.

It is highly unscientific to base policy on a prediction of between +2C and +4C by the end of the century, if the model failed to account for a decade of no observed warming. If the model actually does account for a decade of no warming then please let me know, as I will support it 100%.

3
1
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: reducing energy consumption

So, this article makes clear that according to these well respected Google engineers, man-made climate change is real and a 'massive' danger.

Interesting.

Don't forget the renewable energy part.

According to these well respected Google engineers, man-made climate change is a clear and present danger, and renewables are a complete waste of time and money that would be better spent elsewhere.

I'd like both parts to be taken into account when asking for policy changes to be made, please :)

14
3

Anonymous ‪hacks the Ku Klux Klan after Ferguson‬ threats

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Not that I'm upset the KKK got taken down, but aren't the protesters themselves terrorists just as much as the KKK? They threaten violence if the cop isn't indicted. How is that NOT terror?

Be wary of thinking too hard on this subject, lest you suddenly realise that many "just" and "righteous" violent acts are in fact also terrorism. Terrorists who are on the "right" side are usually referred to as "freedom fighters", but they are also terrorists.

For instance, civil wars are practically the definition of violence in order to enact political change, and thus any side participating in a civil war is (in my opinion) by definition a terrorist organisation. I am of course including in this both the Confederacy and the Union, as well as the Cavaliers and the Roundheads (in the English Civil War), alongside all other civil war factions worldwide throughout history.

It is an unpleasant thought, now that we have tried so hard to equate "terrorist" with "evil", but IMO it is an inescapable conclusion. In some conflicts, the terrorists will always win, because all sides are terrorists. ^^;

0
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Similarities

If you stick with just the "they have an extremist worldview and threaten any who oppose it, they act on those threats and sometimes act without first threatening on the presumption that the warning is ubiquitous and obvious..." then it equally applies to most security and intelligence services. I know it sounds exactly like GCHQ to me :)

They don't wear masks though, they are instead covered by the Official Secrets Act.

0
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Terrorists?

Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

"The cyber dust-up follows the Klan's distribution of flyers threatening "lethal" force against protestors in Ferguson, whom the white supremacist group characterised as terrorists, Raw Story reports."

Errrr...

40
2

FORGET the CLIMATE: FATTIES are a MUCH BIGGER problem - study

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Muscle, not fat

Most of these people are obese, and some may even be morbidly obese according to their BMIs.

It is an epidemic ^^;

0
0

'How a censorious and moralistic blogger ruined my evening'

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: "In defence of Uber..."

I hear Steve Ballmer may be available, for the right price. ^^;

3
0

Bang! You're dead. Who gets your email, iTunes and Facebook?

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: why bother

My brother is under strict instructions to set the homepage on all of my kit to a script that randomly loads Goatse, Lemonparty, Tubgirl, 2girls1cup, or 1man1jar*

I want my legacy to continue after my death ^^;

* None of these terms should ever be googled. If you intend to google them anyway, ensure you have adequate stocks of mind bleach prior to doing so.

1
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Apple's view

You own the physical book, but not the copyright on the content within it. You can read it, you can let others read it, but you can't copy it or republish it in any way. You can play a CD for personal use, but you can't copy it for your mates or broadcast it in public.

You also have the right, in the UK and US at least, to reassign your rights to the content to another person, aka reselling or gifting the book or CD, even as part of an estate upon death.

If I can bequeath my stack of CDs to a loved one upon death, which were only ever my right to listen to the content therein, then how does that differ from bequeathing my iTunes account (and the rights to listen to the media therein)?

18
0

After USA FREEDOM Act's failure, what's next for mass surveillance?

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Well...

If you add up all the deaths from every terrorist attack in the last 10 years, are they more or less than the deaths from every motor vehicle accident in the last 10 years? I will go out on a limb and claim that motor vehicles are more dangerous than terrorism, without actually doing any research into it.

The US Intelligence Services demand the right to ignore the US Constitution, in order to protect you from something that potentially kills and injures less people than texting while driving.

If you support the PATRIOT Act because it protects you from terrorists, which of your Constitutional rights will you willingly sacrifice to protect you from the far more pressing threat of "other drivers"?

13
1

Webcam hacker pervs in MASS HOME INVASION

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Obligatory xkcd reference

Adding uppercase, numbers and other characters to "correct horse battery staple" increases the entropy even further, though. Even just adding caps and common substitutions adds 4 bits per word, meaning 60 bits of entropy instead of 44.

260 is 36,533,877 years at 1000 guesses per second, rather than 550 years for a "mere" 44 bits of entropy.

Using multiple words is (as demonstrated) far more effective than a single word, but you should always be using multiple character types if you want to maximise entropy on a password ;)

0
1

UK urged to stop bigging up startups, feed 'growing' firms

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: I could start my business in the Dales

I need to put my programmers in London since I need a base of 10Million people to find 20 c++ programmers.

Why not use a base of 60+ million, and take programmers from anywhere in the UK? It means you could find 120 C++ programmers, if the going rate is 2 per million people. ^^;

If you restrict yourself to the population of London, then you are of course going to be geographically restricted to London...

0
0

Shoot to THRILL: Assassin's Creed: Unity and Halo: Master Chief Collection

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Dear Mr Reviewer.

"Because 24fps is good enough for movies without noticable flicker?"

To be fair, that's most likely interlaced, effectively (visually) doubling the frame rate.

I'll even do the math for you, it looks like 48fps, a lot closer to that 60fps everyone is talking about.

I downvoted this, because you appear to have forgotten that pre-digital, physical reel film projectors are not interlaced, and ran at 24fps. You also appear to have confused framerate and flicker rate; films being shown at 50Hz 1080i have a 50Hz flicker rate, but only a 25Hz framerate. If your HDTV is displaying a game at 1080p/60 and the game is running at 1 frame per second, you still have a 60Hz flicker rate, but it is most assuredly not 60fps.

A smooth, persistent 30fps (married to a display running at a multiple of 30Hz) is perfectly adequate to fool the human eye into seeing smooth transitions. What most people moan about in gaming is variable framerates (which can be jarring) and/or tearing from not having VSync enabled (which can also be jarring).

Complain about Unity or Halo having variable framerates and I will agree wholeheartedly. State that 30fps is unacceptable for a smooth gameplay experience and I will just as wholeheartedly disagree; a persistent 30fps is absolutely fine as long as it stays at that rate and there is no tearing.

1
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: I cannot read anything about HALO,

Sure a handful of very vocal Xbox One owners will proclaim this to be the savior of their failed console, but it won't stop the Xbox One tank-a-thon.

It's the developers releasing buggy, half-assed games that are the issue here, and I'm seeing that trend on multiple platforms including Sony ones. Played Watch_Dogs recently? ;)

0
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Dear Mr Reviewer.

To be fair, IIRC every Halo was capped at 30fps on release on their native consoles, so running at 30fps will be an "authentic" Halo experience.

What is surprising is no mention in the review of the matchmaking issues; friends of mine have waited 10 minutes or more to get into a match online (Halo 3 and Halo 2), and this is not an isolated experience, if the tirades on the internet are anything to go by.

1
0

Mastercard and Visa to ERADICATE password authentication

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Dubious, philosophically speaking

Looks like some people believe that it is nature, rather than nurture, that defines us. ^^;

I agree that I am the sum of my experiences, however :)

1
0

SAVE ME, NASA system builder, from my DEAD WORKSTATION

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: I did this last year with Scan / 3XS

Cant believe the price of cases these days - i just stuffed all my new gear into a really old box.

The expensive ones can last forever though; I'm still using a Coolermaster ACTS case I bought over 10 years ago. Cost me £70 at the time, but I can't complain about the longevity (the fans are still originals too, which is even more surprising).

We bought several systems from them in January and I was very displeased. Many of the parts I had selected for a personal development machine were not available (nothing unusual they just didn't have the stock), the person who phoned me was not able to recommend a suitable replacement and the order took weeks to be built and shipped. Despite telling them I wanted to RAID the drives they supplied a non-RAID capable motherboard. Then after less than 6 months one of the hard drives died. Thank god for backups.

I can only speak from personal experience, the 2 DoAs I've had were replaced by return post. I will admit I have only purchased parts though, so I can't comment on the prebuilt systems. I've always preferred to put the buggers together myself anyway ^^;

0
0
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: I did this last year with Scan / 3XS

Go on , Cadmonkey, give us the rest! Did you get one of those CAD video cards that cost more than my car? and can it play crysis?

U jelly bro? I thought that was suprisingly restrained myself. I've been using Scan for bits for a couple of decades now, so I can wholeheartedly recommend giving them a look next time you go shopping for an upgrade. The 2 RMAs I've had to deal with (out of maybe 18 years) were promptly and courteously dealt with, and they are the first place I look when the mood for some new toys takes me.

If you just want computer porn, a friend pissed away most of a redundancy package on a watercooled 5GHz i7 with 32GB DDR3 (2400) RAM, dual Titans and RAIDed SSDs. It can nearly play Crysis at max settings o.0

(I was very jelly)

0
1

Sky: We're no longer calling ourselves British. Yep. And Broadcasting can do one, too

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: So does this mean

Seriously you think approx £240 a year is good value for entertainment? I wouldnt pay that unless it danced around a pole on my birthday.

£240 is peanuts; if you include the cost of the internet connection and XBox Live, you barely have change for 2 XBox One games. For a whole year.

If you have no TV, or computer, or console, or internet connection, then you could use £240 to buy around 20-30 books, aka 2-3 a month on average. I could just about squeeze by on that (I can finish a standard paperback in around 1-2 weeks).

You could do pretty well on £240 if you only play RPGs; that would get you a good few dice, plus stationary supplies (pads, pens, folders, gaming mat etc.) and have enough left over for a few models and official game system handbooks / modules.

I do all of the above, so I potentially spend £2400 or more a year on "entertainment" when you include internets, TV subscription, PC games, console games, books, and pen&paper RPGs. That's ignoring incidentals like beer, snacks, and travel expenses (when gaming at a mates house instead of mine).

I wouldn't spend £240 on a pole dance though. That's a waste of money ;)

5
2

Cybersecurity? Nothing to do with us, mate – Google and Facebook

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Once again ...

Cybernetics

1
1

The Pirate Bay co-founder exits jail, now, er, free to eat vegan food

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Does he actually *want* to remove copyright?

Well, until all the other nations of the world got sick of Sweden ripping off all the content generated by their citizens.

Doesn't seem to have hurt China or Russia that much, and they are infamous for bootlegs. If anything it shows that content producers will actually adjust their distribution model to try and compete; R5s (aka Russian region DVDs) are often released early to try and combat the flood of dodgy cam rips burnt to DVD and sold on the streets.

Unless you're suggesting that while Russia and China are big enough to get away with it, the US might invade Sweden "because piracy"? I'd say that would be an extremely long shot, although given the fiascos in Iraq, Afghanistan et al. I wouldn't necessarily put it past them :/

3
0

Lindsay Lohan ignores El Reg's tender twitterly advances

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Don't mention the PANTS, it might scare her off ^^;

0
0

Bloke, 26, accused of running drug souk Silk Road 2.0 cuffed by Feds

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Mmm...

Where's Keith Moon now? oh he's dead.

Same as other big wealthy drug users, Kurt Cobain, Brian Entwistle....

Where is Mick Jagger now? Oh he's alive. Same as other big wealthy drug users, Johnny Depp, Kate Moss, Drew Barrymore... drugs don't necessarily kill you. I've heard hospitals even use them a lot on patients to keep them alive; morphine is a controlled substance with a long medical history.

Where is Winston Churchill now? Oh he's dead. Same as other influential role models, Ghandi, Albert Einstein... death is inevitable. Developing far-reaching physics theories, or preaching tolerance and non-violence, will leave you just as dead as shooting your own head off with a shotgun like Mr. Cobain (he did not die from controlled substance abuse, he died from suicide, which can kill people who have never even seen a controlled substance).

Until then you're not free to do whatever you like since it has an impact on your health meaning (at least in the UK) a cost to the state for fixing your fried brain.

Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol is only trivially controlled (age limits on purchase, but no limits on amount purchased) and is not considered a "controlled substance". Alcohol costs the NHS (the UK health service) over a billion pounds per year.

Over a billion pounds a year to combat the damage done by a completely legal substance that is ubiquitously available here in the UK. How can you reconcile that with the view that controlled substances are controlled because of the damage (both individually and to society) that they cause? If that were truly the case then ethanol should be a Class A, surely?

7
1
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Whoops !

It's convenient they found the server that was presumably only accessible via Tor, isn't it?

It is impossible to run a marketplace without traders and customers, so you are going to have to tell someone about it. It is simply a matter of time before the details will end up with law enforcement, either through someone squealing as part of a plea bargain, or through an undercover op inadvertently getting an invite (some of them are crafty buggers).

Sure, potentially the entire TOR network is compromised, but IMO it is far more likely that human error is the culprit, because that takes far less effort.

2
1
NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: Mmm...

I haven't heard of a lot of junkies being able to support their habits for long out of their own savings and incomes, y'know?

Keith Moon immediately springs to mind, although anyone on this list also qualifies.

Had you forgotten that drug abuse is just as rife in high society, or do you conveniently blank that fact from your mind and assume any "junkie" must be living in squalour and stealing to feed their habit? Investment bankers do coke, barristers can be alcoholics and CEOs can have big opiod habits. Remember to line them all up and strip them of their civil rights* while you're out ridding the world of evil junkies. ;)

*It is my considered opinion that anyone who calls for civil rights to be removed for a particular group, does not understand what civil rights are or what they are for. If you are seriously advocating that "junkies" should have no right to safety or right to life, then all you are doing (IMO) is showing your ignorance and bigotry. Don't worry, I will still fight to the death to ensure your own right to safety and freedom of expression, because I firmly believe these are inalienable rights for all sentient beings. :)

11
1

HOT YOUNG STAR about to GIVE BIRTH, long range images show

NumptyScrub
Silver badge

Re: This is what happens

Ah yes, that self-evident truth that "if you don't tell them about it, they'll never work it out for themselves".

One has to wonder which miscreant decided to inform my 2 guinea pigs though, I have studiously avoided the subject whenever they were in earshot >.<

17
0

Page:

Forums