Feeds

* Posts by NumptyScrub

507 posts • joined 18 Mar 2010

Page:

Mine Bitcoins with PENCIL and PAPER

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Other fun tasks!

quote: "- Why not write a manifesto detailing how an anarcho-capitalist society will work in practice!"

Answer: they already are. Most capitalist societies are de-facto anarcho-capitalist, it's just that one group ("government") has the largest collection of paid enforcers and can thus exert influence over the general population under threat of violence. Note how another group ("criminals") refuses to subject themselves to the rules laid out by the first group and wilfully ignores them, even knowing the consequences will be violent.

Or had you never thought of it that way? The continued existence of criminals shows that all societies have not (and apparently cannot) force people to conform if they do not wish to conform, and thus all societies are at least part anarchy. IMO, anyway.

quote: "- Work out why scams proliferate in the world of Bitcoin, but make sure the existence of the scams >really< show Bitcoin gets stronger!"

Scams also proliferate in the world of money. Actually, scams proliferate in any field where something of "value" exists, whether it has an intrinsic value or has value as a barter token. Any argument regarding the existence of scams affecting the usefulness of Bitcoin as a whole is equally as applicable to USD or GBP (or gold, or camels).

Since we have been using barter systems for hundreds of years, and people have been scamming for hundreds of years, I would conclude that the existence of scams is generally not considered enough to preclude their use. I would assume that this would also hold true for Bitcoin as it has for all of the other barter systems we have in place.

4
0

Renault Twingo: Small, sporty(ish), safe ... and it's a BACK-ENDER

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Nobody will buy the smaller engine

quote: "Normally rear wheel drive is better in snow

Say what??"

Tyres, tyres, tyres. I understand your incredulousness regarding RWD in snow, however the drivetrain is less important than the snow:car interface (aka tyre) as far as available traction is concerned. FWD just means you understeer when you lose grip at the drive wheels, RWD will oversteer when you lose grip at the drive wheels, and AWD might do either depending on how the center differential is set up to deal with loss of traction at one axle (some vehicles have a front bias and thus tend to understeer etc.).

The most important part of driving in the snow is driving appropriately for the conditions, but a close second is using snow tyres. Thinner tyres are "better" (unintuitively) as they concentrate the vehicle mass on a smaller area, allowing the sipes on the tyres to bite better.

I ran my Shogun in RWD mode last winter, as the comedy 30" M&S (mud and snow) tyres were gripping fine for the speeds I was comfortable doing, and thus I never felt the need to switch to 4WD mode. A work colleague even ran his XKR with proper winter tyres (Bridgestone Blizzaks IIRC) and also had few issues, although I'm pretty sure he also uses different wheels to ensure he can get tyres that actually fit ^^;

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Reanult has a problem, called 'marketing'

quote: "A 1 litre lugging round a giant lump like the Mondeo? Can you say over-strained???

Doubt any of these new Fords will reach double figure birthdays before their owners are faced with costly engine repair/replacement bills."

The Mk III Cortina (circa 1970) came with 1.1l to 2.0l engine options, and according to that page it had "98bhp". I suspect that is the output for the 2.0, so it was significantly outclassed by the current 120bhp Ecoboost lump with only half the displacement (but with a turbo).

If the Ecoboost is designed for reliability at that boost level it'll be fine. I drove the old 90bhp diesel Mondeo, and it was slow but usable, with 120bhp you'll get a bit more poke along with the commensurate drop in economy if you have a heavy right foot.

I have a 160bhp 1.2l engine that is >10 years old and still running fine, and I know people with 400bhp 2.0l engines that have hit 100,000 miles without breaking. As long as you use and maintain them properly engines don't normally go bang, and passenger car engines are designed on the assumption that drivers won't reliably do either.

YMMV of course :)

1
0

Kenyan court case could sound death knell for mobile money

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Of course not. However, note that M-Pesa was already competing with banks and apparently winning, so now banks are trying to claw back the lost custom. Custom which the banks refused to serve in the first place, because they couldn't see an easy profit in it.

Interesting turn of events, really :)

13
0

Infosec geniuses hack a Canon PRINTER and install DOOM

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: My reaction...

psDooM but for the print queue? Hells yeah :D

0
0

BMC Software flings patent sueball at ServiceNow

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Remedy v ServiceNow

Crappacino vs a cafe shatté, as it were?

0
0

Ordnance Survey intern plonks houses, trees, rivers and roads on GB Minecraft map

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: No Profit

Yep, Mojang has a decent revenue stream so I don't know where the idea of it not making a profit comes from. My concern is rather what on earth MS are intending to do with it, especially if they value it at $2.5b. I have a horrible suspicion we'll be looking at paid DLC replacing user mods, and in-app purchasing surfacing within the year, alongside a new-found platform exclusivity on Windows and XBox :'(

7
1

Will Europe's ISPs unmask anonymous IP infringers?

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: I'm confused (again)

quote: "There is a non-trivial difference. First, you can be compelled to hand over your encryption keys, but it requires a court order (not a huge hurdle, admittedly). And second, at least you know that you're being so required."

I linked Section 49 of the Act, have a quick read of it.

Here is the mentioned Schedule 2 authorisations which does mention a court order, but have a read of the specifics for data obtained under statutory powers but without a warrant where it clarifies that juducial oversight is not required:

(2)Subject to paragraph 6, where—

(a)the statutory power was exercised, or is likely to be exercised, by the police, SOCA, SCDEA, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs or a member of Her Majesty’s forces, or

(b)the information was provided or disclosed, or is likely to be provided or disclosed, to the police, SOCA, SCDEA, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs or a member of Her Majesty’s forces, or

(c)the information is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the police, SOCA, SCDEA, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs or a member of Her Majesty’s forces,

the police, SOCA, SCDEA, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs or, as the case may be, members of Her Majesty’s forces have the appropriate permission in relation to the protected information, without any grant of permission under paragraph 1. (emphasis mine)

So the police, SOCA, SCDEA, HMRC agents and all armed forces employees do not need a court order to demand disclosure, if they have reason to believe the information is important in detecting crime (section 49 3 (b)) and they obtained the information through the use of a statutory power, such as the seizure of a mobile phone after you were involved in a road traffic incident.

So you get rear-ended on the road, police look around on your phone and find an area that requires a password to unlock, you are required by law to make available all information on your phone or face a 24 month custodial sentence (5 years if the case is "national security" or "child indecency" related). They simply need to justify in court that they had reason to believe that the information they could not access could help them "detect crime". It is an edge case, absolutely, but it is also demonstrably completely legal for the police to do that should they wish to.

I categorically do not like the idea that I can be forced (under pain of custodial sentence and lasting criminal record) to make demonstrably unrelated (and innocuous) private information available when I have committed no crime, and there is no warrant for the procurement of said information. On a scale of Utopian to Oppressive, this is already crossing the line in the wrong direction, in my opinion.

1
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: I'm confused (again)

quote: "* Don't laugh - French law did make it illegal to encrypt data for many years."

Whereas current UK law just makes it illegal to not decrypt any of your data whenever they tell you to.

Same shit, different day ^^;

6
0

It's official: LOHAN's arboreal avoidance algorithm is PANTS

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Pint

Re: Blimey!

Standing upon the shoulders of giants, and all that :D

1
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: I'm glad that LOHAN has PANTS

Now we just need to make sure they stay up for the whole flight ^^;

5
0

iPhone 6: Advanced features? Pah! Nexus 4 had most of them in 2012

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

NFC gives me the same feeling as Wifi Protected Setup; my phone had it disabled within 5 minutes of turning it on the first time, like my router got WPS disabled just after I changed the admin password. There is without doubt a use case for the technology, and there is without doubt the potential for exploitation to gain access to the device; indeed my phone model was one specifically mentioned for an NFC exploit 2 years ago. In the fight between convenience and security, personally I normally choose security. If Apple succeed in making NFC far more ubiquitous, then expect far more people attempting to exploit NFC for personal gain :(

What surprised me far more was Apple deciding that the smallest model was going to expand to 4.7", IMO it would have been far more sensible to keep it at iPhone 5 size. Many Apple using friends liked the fact that their 3 / 4 was the size it was and did not like the idea of my jumbo 5" phone, and I now have to wonder what their next phone is actually going to be if their only Apple choices are now that size or larger.

4
0

What the BLOCK? Microsoft to gobble Minecraft-maker 'for $2bn'

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Absolute stark raving, swivel-eyed, dog fingering insanity

quote: "TWO BILLION? Two billion US dollars? Are you sure it's not two billion Zimbabwean dollars or something?

Nadella must be off his chump."

Ask Zuckerberg how much he paid for WhatsApp, on the back of less profit per year.

Either big companies are staffed with utter fuckwits (possible) or some purchases have other reasons than simple profit seeking (also possible).

Personally, I reckon MS have looked at it, and decided what Minecraft really needs is in-app purchases, and that they are just the people to wring every last cent out of it. I will now go observe a 2-minutes silence for platform-independent, independent games development :(

5
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Headmaster

Re: It was fun while it lasted.

quote: "I'm pretty sure you could use a nail as a lethal weapon, would that not be a death nail?"

Nope, that would probably be better referred to as a killing nail (like a "killing blow"). Although I've not heard the term before, I'd suggest a "death nail" might be a nail (toe or finger) removed from a dead person, potentially for commemorative purposes. Similar to a death mask being a cast of the dead persons face, used as an aid to commemoration.

Searching "Death nail quote" leads to an extensive list of pages using it (incorrectly) as a substitute for death knell. The one link I saw which correctly surmised it should be death knell then used "for all intensive purposes", (should be "all intents and purposes") so I am now officially a sad panda, dis langwij iz fuked innit :(

5
0

'4chan may be just a sysadmin who knows his way around', claims so-called expert

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Miley

I'm not saying her misdirection wasn't obvious, I was mainly taking the opportunity to point out that your statement context was implying "drug use" and "controlled substance use" were interchangeable. From a medical and scientific perspective, they should not be, or I'd have to put every person in this company into rehab for their caffeine habit, myself included ;)

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Miley

"Drug use" is such a perjorative term when it shouldn't be. I know so many people who regularly take drugs it's not even funny.

I used to use nicotine daily, although I gave that up a decade ago. I only take ethanol a few times a week (I can give up any time I like), although I will admit I am a heavy user of caffeine several times a day. It is practically impossible to live on this planet without taking something which classifies as a drug, especially given the availability of aspirin, ibuprofen and paracetamol over the counter.

If someone says they don't take drugs I usually just laugh at them, and when they look at me funny I point out that I'm a language pedant, and what they meant to say was "I don't take controlled substances". The vast majority of drugs are not controlled substances, and many are taken daily by people who vehemently "wouldn't do drugs".

2
0

Heavy VPN users are probably pirates, says BBC

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: BBC Worldwide

quote: "Drink-driving isn't a "criminal act of theft" either, does that mean it's OK?

The pointless argument about whether making an illegal copy is theft, or some other offence, is irrelevant. It's against the law, until and unless you get the law changed. Live with it and stop making specious anonymous excuses."

Actually the point being made, is that anyone who owns a car and is seen to be making frequent trips to the pub, should be considered a potential drink driver, and that there should be "mechanisms in place" to automatically determine if they were actually sober when making the journey. If those mechanisms cannot determine if the driver was definitely sober, then they should be assumed to be a drink-driver and the appropriate measures taken.

Guilty until proven innocent is just one part of this erosion of public rights, the other being the automatic, warrantless inspection and data gathering of all the driving public as a whole.

Presumption of guilt automatically makes it "to be avoided" in my opinion. Any system based upon a presumption of guilt inevitably ends up as Judge Death or some facsimile thereof.

9
1

Applelutely fappulous: Fashionistas bow down before the JESUS PHONE

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

quote: "I would say if you have people queuing outside your shops for weeks to buy the stuff you make, before you have even shown the world what that stuff is, it's a pretty good sign you're the cool kid already."

Food Aid vans. People will walk for days just to queue up for the chance of getting whatever random item is handed to them from the van.

Apple products are apparently less cool than bags of rice, using that metric. You heard it here first :)

3
1

California blue whale numbers soar to historical levels, say boffins

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

quote: "I appreciate that you can't just go around telling other sovereign nations what to do but some practices have global impact."

Of course you can, what do you think we start embargoing nations for if it's not failing to do what they are bloody well told?

If we can walk into a sovereign nation and uninstall their current government because we don't like it (invisible WMDs notwithstanding), then a show of force regarding whaling is small fry.

0
1

Alien Ninja Fembot Pirates vs the Jedi SAS Chuck Norris startroopers: RUMBLE

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Special Circumstances?

GSV Sleeper Service in the configuration from Excession.

That stunned quite a few ROUs into silence ^^;

0
0

Huawei 'beats' Apple to bag sapphire smartie bragging rights

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Obligatory link to the Macdailynews story covering LG's issue with the original iPhone design. As long as Huawei have got the ok from LG for making a phone that is mostly screen, with rounded corners, they'll be fine :)

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: How tough is it in real life?

Some people report sapphire "glass" on watches remaining blemish free for decades under robust use, although others have also had them scratch within years. The Mohs scale has corundum (sapphire and ruby) second only to diamond for hardness, so I'd be comfortable stating it should outperform any type of silicon oxide glass for "toughness" when used as a device screen covering, although some people do appear to have a knack for scratching pretty much anything.

1
0

Vote NOW for LOHAN's arboreal avoidance algorithm acronym

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Hang on

My original reply was simply an attempt to align his excellent suggestion closer to the known LOHAN parameters regarding undergarments. I'm giving him full credit on that one :)

2
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Hang on

I blatantly plagiarised Sir Sham Cad for mine, if it gets any votes then add them to his total to work out if he should get the stickers :)

4
0

Jimbo tells Wikipedians: You CAN'T vote to disable 'key software features'

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: salaried employees

quote: "Back when I was on Windows, this is years back, I reinstalled my workstation - no domain bs for me thank you ... same username & password on the local workstation than on the domain, never had a problem."

So you replaced a centrally managed domain, with a locally managed domain. I can see several drawbacks and practically no advantages to that approach. The fact you never had issues with domain password expiry (aka "security best practise") regularly causing you to have to change your domain password on a colleagues machine, and then update your local domain account to the same password, suggests that a lack of understanding of Windows domains may have extended to that company's support staff as well.

If I came across a similar situation professionally the result would not have been the same. Potentially it could have ended up with you getting the config and tools you need to do your job, assuming you raised your concerns early (before wiping your machine) and corporate policy was flexible enough to allow me to address your concerns (e.g. providing you with a *nix install instead). As presented, it would probably have ended in a disciplinary, because thinking that you are more important than corporate security policy rarely ends well, in my experience.

5
0

Not even CRIMINALS want your tablets, Blighty - but if that's an iPhone you're waving...

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Meh

Re: Stating the obvious

quote: "c) iphones are very popular amongst the kind of demographic in the UK that would do daft things like leave their mobile unattended in a bar

I don't think that last one is even theft, it is wealth redistribution by lack of intelligence."

Taking something that belongs to another person (whether by force, deception, or opportunity), that you do not have their permission to take, is still theft.

Just because most of us would expect it to happen, doesn't make it any less a crime.

1
0

GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Unhappy

Re: Why it could or couldn't

quote: "Next up is the law around the intended use of the photographs. If it is reasonable to believe that the photographs might be of use to someone committing acts of terrorism, the photograph is illegal. It doesn't matter whether the photographer is a terrorist or whether the photographer knows any terrorists, it is enough that the photographer intends to publish the useful photos on a website where terrorists might be able to find them, for example posted on a website visible to the general public."

That sounds like it potentially covers every photograph on Facebook, Instagram, and Flickr that shows a location inside the UK. Is there a government department that I can send every single photograph I take inside UK borders to, so they can pre-check and vet each one and let me know which ones won't be useful to terrorists and thus won't open me up to prosecution for terrorism?

Obviously photos inside/of Tube stations are going to be illegal (Tube bombers can use those to plan more Tube bombings), as are photos taken inside/of airports, and I'd probably include schools, shopping centres, High Streets, and any places where enough members of the public gather and are thus potential bomb targets. Also, some people I know may or may not be important enough that they could be considered targets for kidnapping, so I'd need guidance on those even if they are taken inside my own house.

Man, it sounds like I need to just stop taking photos, because if any found their way onto the internet I could be in some pretty hot water :'(

1
1

BBC: We're going to slip CODING into kids' TV

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Oh crap.

Small children have been happily destroying important and/or expensive things since the invention of small children. I was an utter nightmare once I worked out what screwdrivers did ^^;

The only winning move is to put everything important out of reach (high shelves, or preferably locked up in a verboten area like the "study") until some semblance of "adherence to rules" (aka trustworthiness) emerges as they get older. This varies by child, so you'll have to make your own judgement call there.

17mo is definitely too young to be trusted with kit that isn't at least IP57 certified, drool gets everywhere ;)

10
0

LOHAN wrapped in vinyl as Kickstarter campaign hits £18,000!

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Happy

Re: But...but...aww s'not fair!!!

quote: "All the tankards have gone before we even got to see a picture to see if we even wanted one!!! {sulks!} You could have left the books closed on that one until the sample pictures were published!"

as of this typing:

£70 = tankard plus tshirt (36 of 50 left)

£120 = tankard plus the chance to hurl abuse at Lester in person and/or buy him a pint (20 of 25 left)

Much more expensiver than £40 for just the tankard, but still available if you have the funds :)

0
0

Top beak: UK privacy law may be reconsidered because of social media

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: He wha?

quote: "You deliberately mischaracterise the remarks, and it has nothing to do with celebrity or politicians.The point is , is that recording devices are so ubiquitous and social media makes it very easy for ANYBODY to be a "journalist"."

So, the remark I am mischaracterising:

"If I want to do or say something which I am only prepared to do or say privately, then it is an interference with my freedom of expression if I cannot do it or say it because it will be reported in a newspaper"

Implying that a voluntary refusal to act, because of a perceived chance of it being reported, is the form of the alleged interference with freedom of expression. You are actually still free to do or say it, but it is fear of the consequences of people finding out that restrains you.

This statement is not referencing things that have already been said or done coming to light, it is referencing things that do not get said or done because they could come to light, and equating that to a violation of freedom of expression. "I cannot express myself, because I do not wish for other people to learn how I expressed myself."

The vast majority of laws are prohibitive in nature, and the fear of the consequences of acts which contravene those laws is supposed to be how we keep society in check. It seems strange that Lord Neuberger is comfortable with "fear of the law" as a valid deterrent to action, but believes "fear of publication" is a violation of his basic rights.

Or am I the only one that put a crime in as his "do or say something" to see how the statement read, and immediately saw it as untenable? "If I want to fiddle kids, which I am only prepared to do privately, then it is an interference with my freedom of expression if I cannot fiddle kids because it will be reported in a newspaper" just doesn't work, does it?

0
1
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: He wha?

Came here to make that same point. If you are "only prepared to do or say (it) privately" then don't do or say it in front of journalists. If you are prepared to do or say it in front of people who may be (or may forward that information to) journalists, then it is not being done or said "in private".

0
9

TROLL SLAYER Google grabs $1.3 MEEELLION in patent counter-suit

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Legal term?

Muphrys Law proves itself to be a universal constant again, I see :)

0
0

'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: So basically...

"I do not want to get into the specifics of any particular policy. Nonetheless, it’s worth restating that I believe Robert Mugabe is a tremendous partner. As a member of the board I am completely aligned with that view."

Sometimes you just feel compelled to bite :)

2
1

Raspberry Pi B+: PHWOAR, get a load of those pins

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: ElReg on the pulse as normal

Let me guess, was it on the 22nd July? :D

(doesn't work with American date formats thought)

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: XBMC & Media Hubs

quote: "At first I thought of the Pi as a solution looking for a problem. It's clearly found a niche for low power (both electrical and processing) projects, though I'm still not convinced it's the best option for the task it was originally marketed for - the revival of the bedroom coder and getting school kids into programming. A significantly more powerful version (quad core, more memory) would open up a whole load more opportunities."

A significantly more powerful unit would also incur a significant increase in base cost. The Pi was designed as a sub-£30 computer, primarily because that price point struck a good balance between kit capability and ease of finding the funds.

You can get some extremely capable miniPCs (e.g. the Zotac range or the Intel NUC range) but they are an order of magnitude more expensive than the Pi. If, as a parent, you can spare £300+ then get a miniPC for them to play with. If you can't, then £30 for a basic unit that they can still learn to use, and is a full general purpose computer to boot, is a bargain.

I used to bedroom code on a single core 1MHz machine with 64kB of RAM, and moved on to an 8MHz single core with 512kB RAM. Compared to those the Pi is a monster of a machine ;)

15
0

Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: The title is too long

I don't have any Apple devices and haven't purchased anything in iTunes, should I buy an iWatch?

I think the review nails it; a friend has the Glass (academic discounts FTW) and it's a nice piece of kit with a tiny, specialist use case. I cannot justify buying one myself because I'm also not invested in the Google ecosystem (never mind the current asking price), but they jumped at the chance.

It is cool to play with for one for 5 minutes or so though :)

1
0

Finally, a practical use for 3D printing: Helping surgeons rehearse

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Goth friends

quote: "And your brain casing replaced with a 3D printed copy?"

Titanium, for preference, since I don't think we've found any veins of adamantium yet. Although crystalline Carbon would also provide improved tensile strength over the original, I'm also pretty sure we can't 3D print it (yet), whereas we can with Titanium. :)

Some extra chiselling of the jaw for the replacement wouldn't go amiss, either ^^;

0
0

HUGE iPAD? Maybe. HUGE ADVERTS? That's for SURE

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

"We'll never make a 7" tablet" - Steve Jobs

iPad Mini with Retina Display

Anything is possible :)

1
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Backlash

quote: "I'd hope that even the most coke-addled advertising execs would understand that the last thing anyone wants is full-screen ads."

You're thinking like the product, not the customer. The first thing the customer wants is full screen, unskippable ads which you cannot mute, and which preferentially force the product to interact with them to ensure the message is received. The product should not be given the choice to avoid them, it defeats the object of advertising at them. Especially when you've gone to the trouble of datamining them to select advertising that they will find interesting.

Just look at the amount of websites that deliberately fail to work until you allow Javascript from multiple sites to run (so they can track you while they advertise at you), or services that require you to accept draconian surveillance of your activities to use them (so you can look at cat videos or your friend's baby pictures). The public are the last people that advertising execs pay any attention to.

12
0

The police are WRONG: Watching YouTube videos is NOT illegal

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Also there is apparently no law against

Wait, so if the curtains don't match the carpet that's now attempted rape?

I have been the victim of a serial rapist, and I didn't even realise it :'(

0
0

US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Jurisdiction?

The claim was raised by a UK citizen. This is a UK citizen claiming copyright of a work which was created in Indonesia, and is being published in the UK (via the internet) by the Wikimedia Foundation.

I'm not sure jurisdiction is as clear cut as you think it is in this case.

0
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

quote: "Are we really arguing about who owns the copyright on a picture of a monkey, taken by the monkey?

As if that's an important area of law that we need to nail down?"

If that photo of a monkey has earned you personally $10k in advertising revenue on a commercial site, and the photographer is claiming that you have stolen his work for gain, then yes, this is definitely an area of law that needs nailing down.

Interesting to see how this article reports he claims the photo was a selfie by the macaque. The other article, where I quite vocally supported him, was one which claimed he had framed and set up the shot, prior to giving the macaque the remote shutter release.

It can't be both, so which one is it?

0
0

True fact: 1 in 4 Brits are now TERRORISTS

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: ISIS

quote: "2. Terrorist are not bound by it and the playing field could be levelled somewhat."

Yes, because committing atrocities in the name of stopping atrocities has always worked out well, hasn't it? Not to mention that it's a perfectly stable moral platform to claim "well they did it first!" when asked why you've broken several international conventions on the humane treatment of people.

We have 2 choices here:

a) take the moral high ground, and show by example why we are right and they are not, i.e. not stooping to their level, and not giving in regardless of whatever atrocities are committed.

b) go full retard (as defined in Tropic Thunder) and decide that genocide of all Muslims is the only way to "stop terrorism", and carpet nuke the entire Middle East region into glass whilst sending all local Muslims to concentration camps (which were invented by the British, so it's not out of character for us to use them again). This will not stop terrorism, by the way, it will simply foster more radical hatred amongst the inevitable survivors, and push them to more horrific atrocities.

3 guesses which one I would prefer...

40
2

Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: corestore

quote: "So you have the barbaric and totally unjustified beheading of a reporter by an Islamist, simply because the reporter was a Yank, in a propaganda video that the Islamists want to have distributed as widely as possible, and your immediate response is to criticise the government's efforts to block their propaganda? You are seriously in need of a reality check."

Show me where in law it is an actual offense to watch that video, and I shall immediately shut up.

Letting people know about propaganda is one thing (although Streisand Effect, right?) but an official statement implying that simply viewing it makes you a terrorist is incomprehendably stupid. Nobody that far divorced from either reality or common sense should be in such a position of power in the first place.

They may as well have said that "making a cheese sandwich may constitute an offense under Terrorism legislation". It's as patently ridiculous and just as unenforcable, IMO, whilst also being exactly as true (for any given value of "may"). It's also just as damning of both the apparent vagueness of the existing Terrorism legislation, and the Service's apparent (lack of) understanding of it.

I'm going to make myself some cheese sandwiches for lunch tomorrow as a deliberate act of sedition.

You'll note that at no point have I condoned the actions perpetrated in this video. I completely disagree with the act and with the message it apparently portrays, and idiots like that have my utmost contempt. What also has my contempt, though, is the way that at least some people in the Service think that anything they don't like the sound of is automatically illegal, without any reference to actual legislation (and a complete inability to quote legislation to back up their previous statements). That, sir, is a fucking diabolical state of affairs (pun intended).

8
1
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

quote: "A very slippery slope to go down. No government has any right whatsoever to decide on what is acceptable for an individual should watch."

Child porn.

That's how effective the "think of the children" argument is. I'm conflicted myself; I agree that the passive act of viewing something should not be, of itself, an offense, but I suspect I would still be comfortable agreeing with a guilty verdict for someone who was found simply watching child porn, as long as it was beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to watch that content.

I categorically cannot agree that watching a video is terrorism though. The act has to be violent to be terrorism, and watching a video is not a violent act.

5
1
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Happy

quote: "It wasn't meant to be a cliché factory either....

New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."

Watching a video is not an act of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of violence directed against the state.

The word the Met officer wanted is sedition, which is an act of promoting or fostering discontent with the state in a non-violent manner (using violence makes it terrorism).

Watching a video is not sedition either though. You would need to promote or distribute the video for it to be an act of sedition.

For simply watching a video to be considered a crime under existing terrorism legislation, that legislation would have to be so very broad you could argue it was deliberately ignoring what terrorism actually is. What is the betting shouting "Allah won't like you doing that" at someone in the street "may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation" in the UK?

68
0

The agony and ecstasy of SteamOS: WHERE ARE MY GAMES?

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Some suggestions

A lot of my recent purchases have (or will have) Linux ports, and the day is slowly approaching that I'll not need to factor a Windows license in to the cost of the next big upgrade.

Having said that, an awful lot of the Linux games on Steam are the indie devs (not necessarily a bad thing) and a lot less of the major publishers. I should probably fire up Steam on the Mint box again and see how much is now available, hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised :)

(Note: I've got no need of Civ5 because Destiny is due to be my next major time sink)

1
0
NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Some suggestions

My main gripe is that of my 280+ title Steam library, maybe 35 are available on *nix. That's an even worse percentage than the 55->18 quoted in the article.

To be fair the 35 was a year or so back, when I only had 250ish games and installed Steam on my Mint miniPC just to try it out. But it shows that I am, currently, still stuck with needing at least one Windows box if I want to play the vast majority of titles I've already bought. :(

4
0

'Leccy racer whacks petrols in Oz race

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge
Trollface

Re: That's nice.

quote: "Can one of it's siblings get me, the wife & a couple of whippets, towing a three-horse-slant trailer (empty on the way out, full on the way back), from Sonoma to Solvang California and back in under half a day?"

It also wouldn't be able to replace my network of freight locomotives, and I couldn't use it in place of my hovercraft fleet either. When will people realise that electric racecars just aren't useful outside of a racetrack?

6
0

Cops baffled by riddle of CHICKEN who crossed ROAD

NumptyScrub
Bronze badge

Re: Dogs

quote: "My father taught me to never swerve for dogs because doing so you are likely to kill yourself or someone else in another vehicle."

In the UK you are required by law to stop and give details if you hit a dog, so I would need to stop anyway. May as well attempt avoidance if you believe you can do so safely.

I would however agree that there is no cause to unnecessarily endanger yourself or your passengers, if you do not believe you can perform an avoidance manoeuvre safely.

2
0

Page: