Re: Paranoid consumers and schizophrenic vendors
If they are like-minded it can only be because they have already been controlled.
166 posts • joined 24 Mar 2010
If they are like-minded it can only be because they have already been controlled.
I.e. ignores the leap second, and just treats it as time skew.
Rinse and repeat, Hey presto!!! Infinite storage!!!!
No, because the energy captured by the road results in a higher effective rolling resistance to the car. It's just a disguised petrol generator.
Just... morons. Like the "smart road" which harnessed the motion of vehicles to generate electricity...
Defamation cases can be cheap and easy. Bring them in person, and you can do the whole thing for a few hundred quid. Provided you win - If you lose you will pay the loser's reasonable costs which may be tens of thousands.
In any case Amazon will probably fold at the first pre-action protocol step: A letter to their registered office, noting the damages and threatening to sue if nothing is done.
You owe the bank $100,000, you have a problem.
You owe the bank $100,000,000,000, the bank has a problem.
The US national debt is a problem for China not the USA.
Just assume any crypto tool is an NSA honeypot - the use of which identifies you as a target of interest, even if they can't read it. Like TOR does. (Even though they can likely read that).
(Of course legitimate uses such as by lawyers and banks are anyway very interesting to the NSA and GCHQ. But if you are apparently just a Joe Bloggs using crypto... well, that's really interesting....)
Firstly: A member remains a member until his replacement is elected, (unless he has resigned, in which case he is no longer a member once parliament is dissolved).
Secondly, being a minister does not depend on being an MP. You might be a peer, for example, like Lord Adonis.
Add that to this:
The "safety" story is just the pretext to get the tracking kit (GPS + GSM) installed in all cars.
Every car will be tracked, and will with "appropriate authority" have the microphone activated remotely to listen in to the occupants.
Or since many cars are drive-by-wire now they can be made to steer, brake and accelerate under remote control, this system can be used for assassination as well, unless this unit is segregated from the EMS. Which it won't be.
The only important difference is between zero and one. Until any operating system can actually spend significant periods of time with no unpatched, in-the-wild exploited bugs, they are as bad as each other.
And "shoe in" for "shoo in"..
You shouldn't be putting your work password into anything not specifically authorised for work use, whether a device, app or website...
Also goes for LinkedIn stupid apps.
When's that getting updated?
I know routers weren't mentioned, but I'll bet they are vulnerable.
The doomsday clock is just grandstanding scientists annoyed that expertise in quantum physics and mathematics oddly don't translate automatically into hot chicks and political power.
And even then the sender has a contract with the ISP which requires the ISP to keep activity confidential. In what way does this mean there is no expectation of privacy?
"So you're basing this on a law that predates email?"
No, because email dates from the 1960s, and was used commercially before SMTP was invented.
I said "the legally mandated information can easily exceed six lines". Not in every case, but in an LLP with fewer than 20 partners all partners have to be named, as well as a service address given, which together can easily exceed six lines of 72 characters.
I never said that the long disclaimers seen were necessary, in fact above I have criticised them and proposed a shorter version for those that want one.
"By law"? What law?
I'd think full name, position, a contact phone number and a website URL is sufficient. That will easily fit into 4 lines.
By the Business Names Act, 1985. Unfortunately the law doesn't care what you think is sufficient.
No, you correctly note that the disclaimer can't form a contract, but a duty of confidentiality can also arise other than from a contract, especially related to receipt of information inadvertently. The case is Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd, 1968.
The common law equitable rules are essentially: that the information is not public; that it is not trivial and has value or the potential for harm; and that a reasonable person in the circumstances would think that there was a duty of confidentiality.
If, for example, someone accidentally emails you somebody else's medical records then I would say that all the above are clearly met, and you are under a duty not to disclose the information.
Again, if you receive an unsolicited CV from an agency, it will say in the disclaimer that it is sent in confidence, whether in those words or otherwise. You don't need to have invited the confidence for it to be a confidence.
And again, information may be legally privileged, and if received in a work capacity DPA rules may apply.
An email disclaimer may be technically redundant in many cases (though actually not in the CV case above) but it is a useful reminder to the recipient to have regard to the possibility of a duty of confidence, especially if - as Ben Tasker appears to - he believes that there can't possibly be one.
If you send it directly to their MX from your outgoing server, you are handing it off directly to their nominated server, which will be run by people who owe a duty of confidentiality to the recipient, whether as an employee or as a contractor like MessageLabs. There will be no arbitrary SMTP servers in between, only the ones the recipient has arranged for.
Only deep-packet inspection is going to read the message and that is illegal and more akin to steaming open the envelope than to a postcard.
Length: The footer must by law be included in most business emails, and the legally mandated information can easily exceed six lines.
If you send the message directly to the public MX, you have the same expectation of confidentiality as if you sent it first class to their mailroom. If you encrypt the connection using SMTP/TLS you have the same expectation of confidentiality as if you sent it to their mailroom in a locked container. Either way it is a pretty strong expectation of confidentiality. This is because confidentiality is a legal obligation not to misuse information, it is not primarily about technical measures but social and legal ones.
I agree that the legalese is often bullshit but that's for two reasons, neither of them being the ones you noted.
1) Confidential information often (usually?) remains confidential even if it is accidentally disclosed to someone who shouldn't have had it. That person will often also have a duty not to disclose the information e.g. under the data protection act if it is personal information, or on pain of contempt of court if it is to do with court proceedings, or under common law equity rules. In these cases the legalese is unnecessary. All they need to say is "This email may contain confidential or legally privileged information". Even that may be unnecessary depending on the circumstances.
2) If the legalese says "for the sole use of the addressee" then it is worse than useless because a) it is often not for the sole use of the addressee, and b) because if it is accidentally misaddressed it may not even be for the use of the addressee at all. All they need to say is "If you think you may have received this by accident please tell us so we can sort it".
However I am not a lawyer, and clearly there are lawyers who think long legalese disclaimers are necessary.
Correct, Business Names Act 1885, Section 4.
If you also want a disclaimer, this is the shortest one I have been able to come up with, feel free to use or adapt it:
Trading Name is a trading name of Trading Company Limited, 1 Main Street, Fairfax, FX1 1FX. Registered in England and Wales, number 11111111.
This email may contain confidential or legally protected information. If you think you may have received it in error, please reply to the sender to let them know.
Roger that. If they need fast data rates why can't that be an additional 4G/WiFi handset alongside the Tetra radio? Heck if you retrofit the Tetra with a Bluetooth modem the 4G handset can use Tetra for slow rate comms when the 4G/WiFi connection is unavailable.
What a lovely man :-)
It won't have an 'off' button but you can disconnect it if it is a discrete component, and if you own the car you can put a drill through it.
Don't be daft, it'll be illegal to tamper with "safety equipment"....
Why would people be looking for Jude Law with his kit off? Just not getting it. He's not exactly David Hasselhoff.
You will get mugged.
Like the pubs and bars of Europe in 1900. Say the wrong thing ("effin' government, hang them all") and you'll be spending some time awaiting trial...
The prosecution will be dropped of course. The process is the punishment.
Yes, it is interesting that they said it... The assault on free speech continues... never let a good tragedy go to waste...
Prove it isn't.
It's a US Department of Defense (Navy, then DARPA) project in the first place, so the default assumption has to be that it doesn't protect you against USG. And the NSA is part of the DOD and its chief is ... an Admiral of the US Navy.
And: Yes I think most anonymity services and software packages are honeypots.
Probably they aren't *all* honeypots, but who can tell which aren't? Surely the question is not whether they are compromised by government, but by which government?
And even those which aren't pwned by the NSA (or another agency - probably more than one), are effectively honeypots to the NSA because they can de-anonymize any real-time traffic just based on their overview of network activity.
Why not get your enemies to self-identify?
Here Enemies = Anyone who doesn't want to live in a panopticon.
No, nothing to do with businesses. This is purely an internal government accounting thing.
This guidance doesn't affect businesses at all.
The article is unclear, but this is talking about whether **government departments** can get a rebate for VAT paid on various purchases. Government "services" are not VATable so they are not able to reclaim VAT on inputs against the VAT they (don't) charge in the same way as businesses. The purpose of the rebate is to ensure that outside suppliers aren't placed at an automatic 20% cost disadvantage over using internal staff for the same job. I.e. it is not so much to encourage outsourcing, as to create a level playing field for it.
As such only outsourced services which substitute for employing internal staff are supposed to be VAT-rebate-able.
Hence bespoke software = Yes, renting Cloud Servers = No. Outsourcing systems administration ought to be Yes, but I haven't read the guidance. Of course cloud servers come with a sysadmin element, so if I was a supplier I would rewrite my contract to break that out as a separate purchase so as to remove the pricing disadvantage as intended by the rules.
(Remember VAT is paid on sales, but reclaimed on VATable inputs. So in net-net it is only actually paid on NON-VATable inputs, which are: Capital costs (i.e. profits/your mums pension), Staff costs (i.e. labour/wages), and Imports (i.e. foreign capital and foreign labour)).
Making a false statement with intent to obtain an advantage (or cause harm to another) is fraud, carrying 5 years in prison.
The lesser "pretexting" offence should only be used when there is no such intent.
No need for a change in the law, just proper prosecutions.
So we have:
* Consumers want (or ought to want) industry to compete to improve quality.
* As any fule no, industry doesn't like competing, they would much rather cooperate which allows them to keep nice high margins for delivering a poor service
* Industry certainly doesn't really want to build loads of sites - they would rather share.
* Currently not allowed to share as it is anticompetitive.
* Now government is telling them they ***must*** share...
Government ignorance? Or do they know exactly what they are doing? Economics is one of the things taught in PPE you know, along with politics.
Look for campaign donations, relatives on Telco boards etc...
OTOH, if they are sincere, we could have the best of both worlds with mandatory roaming with a mandatory high termination charge - which they aren't allowed to pass directly to the subscriber (i.e. can only charge the same as a non-roamed call/data). That retains the incentive to build while providing covering. Indeed, the higher the roaming charge, the more incentive to build! O2 could make a nice lot of money building stations in the Highlands for Vodafone users to roam to!
SSDs require power to be connected every few months or they start to fade. Here, we are competing with tape though.
So the purpose of the processing is to enable you as an individual to be notified of certain tweets, and for you as an individual to possibly do something about them? The Samaritans are doing the processing but only on behalf of individuals who want these notifications about those they follow?
Sounds like "Domestic purposes" to me, which is an absolute exception to the DPA.
Consider the Discovery then. Everything listed above, and a lot coming second hand onto the market now.
To date, Apple has not received any orders for bulk data.
So they've joined the inner circle, and are now voluntarily handing bulk data over, without being ordered to do so?
If you want to tighten up the warrant canary, you don't re-word it to be more vague, you add additional clauses for the other thinks you have also not done.
This is an ex-canary.
I think you mean the employees of IBM, Oracle, Red Hat, Dell, HP, Canonical, and the Linux Foundation etc who are paid to update the kernel (and the other essential parts) as part of their (paid) job.
Why? The BBC is full of adverts. Mostly for itself, but still.
Cos, you know, it allows you to store information in the depth of the media. Unlike, say, a four-layer DVD. Wait, what?
Or, you know, an stacked-die flash chip.
Seriously, holographic storage will take off never. It's a non-story and always will be.
It is so the great and the good can hide from us that they are neither as great nor as good as they pretend.
If in doubt, it isn't for your benefit.
"To me, this speaks volumes not only of how you view the world, but how you treat others and the level to which you are capable of dehumanizing others."
Um, yes. Because I view people as being capable of making up their own minds having listened to different opinions and decided who to believe, I am dehumanising them and I am a sociopath.
"This almost always works, when the craft is employed by a skilled practitioner. This is because our species is exceptionally vulnerable to emotional and instinctual manipulation. Rational thought and logic are still relatively new evolutionary adaptations and they can be easily overridden by emotion."
You don't trust people to decide what to allow into their own heads. So you want to try to control the process. That's what dehumanising looks like.
I think as a discussion this has gone as far as it can go without degenerating into those long usenet discussions where we each respond to each counter-point with two counterpoints, and post-lengths blow up exponentially until each reply takes a whole day and we both forget where we got to. Happy days, many an hour spent etc...
But this: If we are all being manipulated so our beliefs come from omnipotent/omniscient evil social scientists we need to be protected from, then where did you get your belief that that is the case?
"I checked out the studies". Did you? Did you check the press release matched the abstract? That it matched the conclusions? That they matched the data? "Of course!" Liar. Check one out, any one (I'll wait) and you'll find that at each stage you dig down from press release to the conclusions and find the effect is only 20% (p> 0.97, sample size 23), and brush aside a tear, then dig down further as the evidence gets weaker at every stage, and when you hit the bedrock of actual data and find it is composed of compressed college students average age 21 will you ask yourself "I wonder if this generalises to 48 y/o slaughterhouse workers in the Midwest?". You will not.
People can't be trusted to make their own decisions because the media manipulates them. You know this because the media told you. "But not Murdoch media" So that's OK right? MC Escher calls. He's ready for your close up.
"everyone, from politicians to advertising companies uses decades of research into psychology, psychiatry and social dynamics to ensure that they control how people vote, even when people are aware of the means employed to manipulate them"
So while most people are too stupid to see through this, nevertheless you are immune and your own support for curtailing free speech through the use of oppressive campaign laws cannot possibly be the product of the same types of forces? If you really take your own assertion seriously you should right now be disappearing "through the looking glass"-style into an MC Escher engraving depicting the Cretan Liar paradox.
Why do I think it is a left-right issue? Because you seem to want to use that (dubious, exaggerated, hyperbolic) assertion as an excuse to make people you disagree with shut up, by preventing them using money to reach an audience. Which is typically a left-wing preoccupation. "The poor still don't all vote for us, in spite of the welfare state! They must be indoctrinated by the Fox. Let's do something about it". No, they hate you. "But we keep offering them more and more money for doing nothing!". That's why they hate you.
* "Manipulate" is just a pejorative term for "persuade". Hyperbole.
* it isn't decades - it's millennia - the earliest extant academic work on the subject is 2400 years old. But pretend it is a new problem and you can pretend new measures are needed.
* control is an exaggeration. They attempt to persuade them to vote in particular ways.
* Commercial advertising however distasteful is trying to sell stuff not control the vote. Conflating two things only related by their methods not their objectives to make the problem look bigger. Hyperbole.
"Everyone uses what they know of human nature to persuade others to do what they want, and have done since time immemorial. Advertisers try to get you to buy stuff. Politicians try to get you to vote for them. Kids try to get out of doing their homework/get you to lend them twenty to go to the cinema. This sometimes works, even though people know that is what they are doing - and they do since they do it themselves."
Not much left after the nits are picked, is there?
First, I suggest you get a tissue to wipe the foam flecks from your screen. You are basically saying:
* Candidates can tailor the message and might be lying
* And people are too stupid to make simple judgements and need to be protected from deceptive messages
I agree with the first, which reinforces my point - if they lying or tailoring the message it is because they know people won't vote for a message they hate. So it in no way contradicts what I said. I never said it would be an honest message.
But if politicians are lying who is going to point that out when everyone outside the system is effectively silenced by campaign finance rules? When the FEC and IRS investigates genuine grass roots campaigns, with the connivance of BOTH big parties, to shut them down/shut them up?
But of course they are the campaigns of Conservatives (= free as in freedom = liberal from the latin Libre) whereas I guess you are a Liberal ( = free as in beer = socialist, from the latin socius or comrade). So that's alright. Free speech is only for Liberals! No Platform!
But clearly I am an uninformed rube.
(Is this a change in comments policy? Does this mean I get to call you names too?)
The unions are doing it. In the US, the Dems get masses of money from the education unions, police unions, and lawyers.
This will all pay for TV ads, leaflets, and annoying robo-calls to get your message across, but if the voters don't like your message no amount of repetition will win you the election.