Feeds

* Posts by Mad Mike

1068 posts • joined 30 May 2007

Page:

Lawyer reviewing terror laws and special powers: Definition of 'terrorism' is too broad

Mad Mike
Silver badge
Joke

Re: @LucreLout

@Lamont Cranston

"It'd be a terribly twee "revolutionary struggle" that never involved any "unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation"."

Sounds like LucreLouts 'freedom fighters' are actually just politicians. As they can't use violence, the politicial process is the only thing they can use!! I really don't like the idea of people like Cameron, Milliband and Clegg being thought of as freedom fighters.

1
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: I have argued for many years

@LucreLout

""Freedom fighters are simply people who commit terrorist acts, but you happen to agree with (or at least disagree with their opponents), whereas terrorists are those you don't agree with. It's about how it looks from your point of view."

If that statement isn't peak stupid, we're doomed."

By the thumbs up and down, I would say the statement is 'peak stupid'. Alternatively, the intelligent mind questions its conclusion based on the evidence before it.

" erm, no. South Africa calls Mandella a terrorist. He committed acts of terrorism. He was tried for terrorism. Convicted of terrorism. And imprisoned for terrorism. However much he may have felt his cause was just, he was still a terrorist. To his credit, he never denied being such."

Well, what a surprise. According to the 'tyranny' he was fighting, he's a terrorist. Think that actually proves my point as large areas of the world who opposed the apartheid regime called him a freedom fighter!! It's hardly surprising that the judiciary and legal system created by his opponents call him a terrorist.

1
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: When did Britain lose its way?

Yes, knowing that it was Hitler dropping all those bombs must have made it so much better than a terrorist doing it!!

Anyway, wasn't Hitler just a freedom fighter, freeing Germany from the unfair terms of the reparations claimed after WWI? Just depends on your viewpoint!! In Germany at the time, they believed they had been very badly treated after WWI and were suffering horribly as a result. Rampant inflation etc.etc., people dying of starvation etc. Hitler offered a way out. So, a lot of them took it. Were the conditions imposed on Germany tyrannical? Discuss.

The allies actually learnt something from this, which is why Germany was rebuilt after WWII and did not have to pay reparations.

1
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: I have argued for many years

@LucreLout

"The majority of blockades affecting Paestinians are not Israeli, they are put in place by other arab/muslim nations because they don't want the Palestinians migrating to their nation - largely due to racism on their part."

Ah, now I happen to agree with you somewhat. Egypt has a border with Gaza (for instance) that is very heavily controlled. If the Egyptians wanted to help the poor, downtrodden and abused Palestinians, surely opening that would help? Maybe, but it could also lead to an exodus, so they keep it well controlled. Egypt has also made a peace deal with Israel and to keep Israel onside tries to keep weapons out of Gaza as they normally end up being fired at Israel, prompting a backlash.

I remember an incident in the Kuwait just after the first gulf war, where a Palestinian was stabbed by a Kuwaiti. He was arrested (he protested much), but was released next day with no charges. Why? As the arrested man said........"But, he's only a Palestinian!!" The dead persons offence? To be in front of the Kuwaiti in a queue in a bank and refusing to stand aside!!

4
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: I have argued for many years

@LucreLout

"Freedom fighters attack only military targets, terroists attack civilians. It's extremely clear cut."

Absolute rubbish. From dictionary.com

freedom fighter

noun

a fighter for freedom, especially a person who battles against established forces of tyranny and dictatorship.

Nothing about attacking military targets here. This is simply your definition of what you would like a 'freedom fighter' to be.

You call Mandella a terrorist, but didn't he fight against tyranny against coloured people?

Freedom fighters are simply people who commit terrorist acts, but you happen to agree with (or at least disagree with their opponents), whereas terrorists are those you don't agree with. It's about how it looks from your point of view.

8
2
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: I have argued for many years

The problem they constantly try to get around is the thorny subject of intent. Possession of material likely to help a terrorist could be absolutely anything. Anybody got any fertiliser? That's bomb making material that!! The issue they need to deal with is proving intent. The whole problem and issue is around intent. Just about everyone has material that COULD help a terrorist. The issue is whether they INTEND to.

4
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: I have argued for many years

This is particularly true when you consider that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Murder is easy to define, but terrorism is not as it depends on your viewpoint. A terrorist murder is simply a murder by someone you don't agree with!!

12
3

MPs wave through Blighty's 'EMERGENCY' surveillance laws

Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Possibly Illegal Law

Do you really think politicians care about legal and illegal? You may have noticed a relatively recent (about 10-15 years) change towards laws which are retrospective. A lot of this was initially around financial matters, but it has expanded into other areas as well. It was always considered wrong to implement retrospective laws as the person being prosecuted couldn't possibly know it would become illegal at the time of the 'crime'. When this first such law occurred was a game changer, as it basically gave MPs the ability to make their past crimes legal and make anyone a criminal at any time for past actions.

A good example of this is the law around tax avoidance. Tax schemes that were perfectly legal (avoidance) were suddenly made illegal and the impact went back as far as HMRC wanted. So, people setup what were perfectly legal tax avoidance schemes in the past that have now been declared illegal and that illegality (and therefore punishment....fine, repay tax etc.) goes back to the start of the arrangement if desired. This is even though the law that made it illegal only came in later!!

0
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: So...

Neither politicians, nor GCHQ or anyone else wants this information leaked. After all, it's why government does exactly what GCHQ, MI5 etc. tell them to do. Anyone who tries to go their own way will soon have their records released (or what is claimed to be their records), demonstrating their 'interesting' hobbies.

1
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: unsurprised, but ...really?

"A nice crisp definition of "Western democracy". As long as it's called democracy, though, you do retain responsibility for it - all of it. Nice setup, eh?"

Not really. I mean you don't call those farces every 5 years a vote do you? There's a limited number of parties you can vote for that have any chance of making a difference. All these parties are pretty similar (see this law for instance) and all populated by greedy, self-serving leaders and their sycophants. So, do I really have a choice? I haven't voted in years, as it doesn't make a difference and is pointless. There's nobody who had policies I want and they don't do what they say when in power anyway. Same for all the major parties.

So, I don't really believe we live in a democracy. After all, you can call us a democracy all you like, but it doesn't make it true.

1
1

Seventh-gen SPARC silicon will accelerate Oracle databases

Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Resiliency Model

PS @Stretch.

I do appreciate that I'm talking about the server and not the processor directly, but bear in mind the attributes of the server are often at least partially driven from the processor. So features and limitations in the CPU (SPARC) design could well be causing some of the lack of resilience I have talked about. I'm still diving into it with Oracle and don't have full details, but some of the resiliency issues I'm investigating seem to be related to the PCI bus design, which is very CPU related.

0
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Resiliency Model

@Phil O'Sophical.

I do agree to a point. Not everything requires that very high level of resilience. However, as you rightly point out, most downtime is due to human and software errors. So, for those solutions requiring high levels of resilience, the last thing you want to rely when a hardware fault occurs, is software!! You're relying on one of the lowest reliability components to provide said resilience.

Anyone who has had any experience with clustered database systems will know how often the clustering doesn't work as expected or planned.

0
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Are these the SPARC or the T processors

@Fenton.

This is exactly surprising and has been known for some time. Essentially, the cache per core/CPU is nowhere near as big as competing processors. This leads to issues with cache flushing etc. when switching between threads and more memory access and therefore lower throughput. If you look at the Sparc M chips, they have higher cache levels at the expense of fewer cores.

0
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Resiliency Model

@Stretch.

Care to elaborate? Why does a comment about Sparc servers have nothing to do with Sparc processors. I'm confused.

0
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Resiliency Model

Before investing in any Sparc servers, I would suggest people look at the resiliency model and exactly what happens on certain failures. You might be surprised (just had my replies back from Oracle!!). What appears to be a resilient server looks like it relies quite heavily on the application configuration (i.e. Oracle RAC etc.) to achieve resiliency, rather than making sure the server can take failures.

I was genuinely shocked to hear what is considered acceptable for component failure according to Oracle.

0
4

UK gov rushes through emergency law on data retention

Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Can someone explain ...

@Titus Technophobe.

"Yes and no. My original explanation was lacking. What happened was that in the 1980s and 90s the security services had the capability to look at telecommunications metadata. With the emergence of the internet that capability was lost.

Much of RIPA and PATRIOT is extending the security services original capabilities for telecommunications traffic to include internet based communications."

Not true. The security services have been intercepting both metadata and the content of telecommunications for years, well over a decade. Today, they're doing the internet pretty wholesale as well and trying to get more and more as time goes on. The difference now is that they are being open about it, rather than covert as before. This changes the evidential status.

If you think RIPA and the PATRIOT act are about telecommunications only, or even mostly, you really need to read them. They go way further than that.

0
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Can someone explain ...

@Titus Technophobe.

"The main set of information reported as missing around 911 and 7/7 by the security services was the communications traffic from the internet. Much of RIPA or indeed the PATRIOT act seems to be intelligence services increasing the capability onto the internet very much in line with other telecommunications."

Ah. This is what they said, but is now known to be disinformation. A certain man named Snowdon (amongst others) has made it clear they did have the communications traffic and in fact, the content as well as the metadata!! So, this was actually the security services using an untrue excuse for missing them and turning that into a means of openly keeping this information rather than doing it on the sly.

In essence this has been acknowledged for years in some ways. The US Navy has a submarine specifically equipped for tapping undersea fibre optic cables.....USS Jimmy Carter. There were other subs before her as well. So, we need to realise the complaints from the security services around not being able to intercept communications are simply misinformation and not true.

"I too have been in the situation in mainline London stations ... but bear in mind at the time security services were intercepting communications and so on. How many more of IRA campaigns would have succeeded if these communications were not intercepted?"

Earlier you said the security services weren't intercepting the communications!! Here you seem to be accepting that the security services have been intercepting terrorist communications.

The reality is that this will give the security services no more information than they've had for years, maybe decades. The difference now is that because it is done openly rather than clandestine, it can be admitted in courts etc.

1
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Those aren't "arms"! *These* are ARMS...

@Tom Welsh.

You could well ask the question; who is the Department of Homeland Security protecting the homeland from? Is it terrorists, invasion etc.etc., or the population of the homeland? All this worldwide panic around terrorism and pedophiles is all very handy to allow governments to restrict liberty and freedoms, but is it simply opportunism at events, or something more sinister? After all, a lot of the threats we currently face were created by the USA. The predecessors to the Taliban were effectively created by the CIA to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In fact, a huge amount of radical Islam was created by the CIA and originally directed at the Soviets. Saddam Hussein was supported and armed for many years by the USA. etc.etc.

0
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Can someone explain ...

@Titus Technophobe

"Looking at ‘today’ this seems a much better situation than that left by the previous government. Suggesting that we do in fact live in a democratic society and tomorrow will take care of itself, surely ?"

I can't deny that it looks better superficially. Exactly how good the oversight will be is another matter. We don't just want an oversight body, but an oversight body that does it's job well and honestly and that's pretty unlikely. Do we live in a democracy? There are only three political parties with any real chance of getting anywhere; maybe four if you include UKIP. So, whilst we might call ourselves a democracy, I don't really believe in it, as there is nobody I want to vote for and I don't have the option of 'none of the above'. The country is run by people who have been shown to be corrupt, self-serving, greedy and generally of low moral stock. So, the UK is a bit like a company. In theory the shareholders can vote down things at the AGM (and other times maybe), but in reality it never really happens. So, if you really think your vote counts, I'm afraid you're pretty delusional.

"No I don’t mind them knowing that I went to see my mistress. I wouldn’t have been alone in having a mistress, and they would not have had any particular reason to examine the situation any further. The records of me going to visit her would have simply aged out of the system.

The same would also apply to the details of phone calls, emails and texts I sent to my mistress. Do bear in mind that this is traffic information, and it is entirely possible that she could have just been a female friend."

You will do when someone decides to use that information against you!! Give me £10k, or we tell your wife. Do this or we tell your wife etc.etc. Look back through history and no matter what purpose information has been collected for, it has ended up being used for nefarious purposes way removed from its original intent. If it were only used for the stated intent, that might not be so bad, but we all know about scope creep, both officially and unofficially sanctioned.

"A ‘dragnet’ implemented on communications traffic data. Data which would only be accessed on the basis of some other suspicion for both resourcing (i.e. doing much more is costly) and legislative (to examine contents would require further authorisation) reasons. It just doesn’t seem to worry me like it does you."

On the basis of some other suspicion can easily become 'just because I want to'. That's the job of the oversight and if you look back over time, you'll see just how good oversight normally is!! pretty damn bad. Look at all the quangos out there that are supposed to be exercising control and oversight over various areas and are actually doing nothing and being poodles? I assume you'll never complain about the size of your energy bill again as OFGEM (oversight and control) must be doing a splendid job!! Ditto for almost every other area.

"Indeed. Yet the mass populous complain bitterly when the police and/or security services don’t have or react to this information. I’m not saying that you are in a minority of one but you do perhaps have to respect the will of the masses."

A commonly held misconception. Generally speaking, the police and security services already had the information, they simply failed to put it all together. 7/7 is a good example of this. They already had information on several of those involved, yet didn't connect the dots. This sort of monitoring wouldn't have provided any more. Personally, I accept that no matter what happens, the police and security services can't possibly stop everything. I do accept that not everyone believes that and a reasonable number think perfection is possible. Take the murder of Lee Rigby. The people involved were already known.

As a society, we have to accept that unpleasant incidents will sometimes occur and perfect security isn't possible. The police and security services can no more stop every terrorist attack than they can stop every mugging or theft etc. We simply have to accept this and have a realistic outlook on what is possible. I remember tens of thousands of people walking through mainline London stations with me whilst the IRA bombing campaigns were going on. If you happen to get hit, that's just bad luck. We can do something to try and stop it, but perfection will never be achieved.

4
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Can someone explain ...

@Titus Technophobe.

It is today, but tomorrow??????????????????

Also, if you drive from one place to another, do you mind them knowing you've done it, even if they don't know why? What if you were going to see your mistress? Do you mind them knowing now?

I don't think directed monitoring under suitable oversight is the argument here. It's just the total dragnet being implemented. If someone is proven or even suspected to a reasonable level of being a terrorist or whatever, fine, monitor them. But, simply doing it to the whole population...............

As to this legislation arguably being better than the previous.......I agree. It does have more oversight (assuming that works properly) etc. However, it's a bit like saying being stabbed is better than being shot. I'd rather have neither.......

7
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: What The Fuck is happening in this country

@AC

Your fundamental error is to apply logic and sanity to the situation and then try to understand the governments actions.

People who go and fight in Syria may or may not become a risk when they come back to this country. All depends on individual beliefs and actions. However, the government is basically saying they are all risks and terrorists. This is nonsense. Sure, some may want to come back and bomb (or whatever) us, but just because one does, does not mean they all do.

When looking at all this, you need to look ahead a few decades and see where it is heading. Basically, the government and governing bodies of the UK are looking more and more like the Assad regime every year. Yes, big gulf at the moment, but the first steps in that direction, which are gradually being followed by more and more. After all, who would have thought a decade ago that people would be locked up indefinitely by a secret court using information not available (even after the trial) to the general public? Yet it's now happened.

This is all a slippery slope that only ends up one place. Look at all the tyrannical regimes of the past and note the gradual slide into the abyss. The continual increase in surveillance until you get something like the STASI. Locking people up for longer and longer on less and less information. Suddenly, secret courts appear etc.etc.etc.

9
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Can someone explain ...

If the data were only used for the purposes they've stated, then people might be OK with it. However, we all know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Also, scope creep is inevitable. So, if you allow them to start down this path, it is inevitable that the data will be used for far more than was ever envisioned and almost certainly for illegal purposes by politicians themselves.

After all, politicians have never broken any laws have they..........................

Expenses (where a few sacrificial lambs went before the court, but in reality, the majority of the houses of parliament should have been).

Buying peerages.

Perjury.

etc.

etc.

4
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: No problem for me then !

I think people need to understand they don't mean 'dangerous individual' at all, which would mean the individual is already guilty of some dangerous activity or at least suspected of it. What they mean is 'potentially dangerous individual', which effectively means everybody.

In essence, this is simply a case of laziness. If there was a process that allowed appropriate organisations to obtain a court order requiring these companies to retain individuals information (but only that individual), then this would be fine. The organisation makes a case before a judge (or similar) who decides if they have just cause and authorises the retention of the information. However, because they are lazy, that would simply be too much like hard work. So, they want everything recorded all the time for everyone and then they can look through it to their hearts content and not bother about showing just cause etc.

Of course, the big issue with this sort of information is the ability to trawl through it. At the moment, the implication is that the companies involved would hold the data themselves. However, what would happen if they were then required to hand it over to some government department that kept it. Data mining could then be performed to obtain lists of terrorist, pedophiles or any other category you care to mention based on say the sites they've visited. Of course, going to a site doesn't necessarily prove anything, as people sometimes go for a look. For instance, not everyone who looked at the terrorist handbook was actually going to make a bomb or whatever. But that soon becomes forgotten.

31
0

New MH370 search zone picked using just seven satellite 'handshakes'

Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: They haven't got a clue

"Finding what went wrong is the part of this search that would make the biggest difference for everyone not directly linked to the flight."

Totally agree, but how can they find out what went wrong without finding the wreckage and trying to get information from there? At the moment, they have no idea what happened. Plenty of guesses and conjecture etc., but very little real facts.

I don't think the issue is areas of the planet not surveyed and constantly monitored, but the idea that a plane (wherever it may be) can suddenly pretty much disappear. A few faint radar returns is all we know about. Most people would assume civilian airliners are constantly monitored and their position is known at all times. It's this that's worrying people more than not knowing much about the seabed west of Australia.

1
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: What about those black-box locator pings?

Interesting. Not sure why the original poster of this thread got 2 downvotes. Is it not reasonable to ask that question given the importance to the search. Maybe it's the slight hint at collusion etc. from the last sentence.

However, if the pings were the wrong frequency, why did the investigation continue with them for so long? Surely this would have been obvious early on and they would have been discounted and a large amount of time saved and the investigation could move onto better areas, maybe even with the batteries still running and pings still being produced?

4
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

They haven't got a clue

All the available evidence suggests they don't really have a clue.

They thought they'd got black box pings, but now seem to have discounted them. So, what were they? How could they not know they were/weren't from black boxes. Defies belief. The search area (caused by the pings) never did coincide with the expected location from the satellite information, so why did that not cause worries.

The area they're trying to search is so large, only amazing luck can possibly allow them to stumble upon the wreckage or black boxes. The batteries on the black boxes must have run out by now, so no signals can be expected from them.

Also, it all went very quiet, very quickly and the Chinese haven't been making anywhere near as much noise as one might expect. The whole of the known circumstances are weird to put it mildly. Information has been kept secret for periods of time. A good example of the US Navy searching the west coast of Malaysia when the investigation was insisting there was no reason to. Did the US Navy have information that hadn't been passed onto the investigation? Did the investigation have the information, but kept searching in the wrong place for some reason?

All through this, there's been a stench about it. The whole circumstances of the disappearance, the complete and utter incompetence of the investigation. It all really, really stinks. Air defence radars all over that area simply must have followed the aircraft. Any US Navy ships at sea nearby would have been tracking it. As the transponders were turned off, it would have assumed to be hostile by everyone.

So, do they really not have a clue, or maybe they absolutely know, but don't want to tell.

7
9

Kim Dotcom: You give me proof of govt corruption in my case, I give you MEELLIONS

Mad Mike
Silver badge

@Vaughan 1.

I agree with much of what you've said. However, at the moment, they seem to be going after copyright only and not pursuing the rest. Not sure why. If they can get him for fraud or tax evasion or whatever, maybe it could help bring these events to a close. They don't seem to be doing too well on the copyright charges. This is probably largely to do with copyright being a civil offence, which limits their options. If they went after criminal offences, their hands are less tied.

I guess only time will tell. However, at the moment, Dotcom is seen as a bit of a hero amongst the very large number of people fed up with the actions of the major studios and recording companies etc. A bit of your enemies enemy is your friend!!

0
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

I particularly liked the 'assault' on his mansion. It was pure Hollywood theatre!! I wonder who the studios got to choreograph the assault? Mind you, the camera work wasn't great and I would expect better from a major studio.

It's amazing how something that is actually a CIVIL offence ends up with all sorts of federal and state resources on it. The studios should simply sue Dotcom through the courts in NZ, which is the prescribed mechanism for this sort of offence. But no, they send in big guns and in doing so, almost make him into a hero.

Dotcom is definitely no angel, but compared to the forces lined up against him, he's really beginning to look like the whiter one of the two!!

4
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@AC

"Dotcom sucked out $175m of revenue and didn't pay a penny of tax. If he was a legitimate distributor of movies, music books etc he would have had to pay VAT, sales tax on each item sold.

(Yeah, I know Amazon doesn't. But pretty much everyone else does).

I love how the twisted fuckups here defend tax avoiders. Kim Dotcom could pretty much molest their sisters and they'd say, "Hey Kim, nice work. Sock it to the copyright man!""

Yet again, making up what was said. The people involved simply asked whether he had been charged. To my knowledge, he hasn't. They never said he had, or hadn't not paid tax, simply that it wasn't a charge leveled against him at the moment. However, other posters claimed it was a charge and have yet to come up with any evidence a tax evasion charge has in fact been made. So, at the moment, no matter what you say, Kim Dotcom is not charged with any tax offences.

3
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@Dr Stephen Jones.

It's a shame you can't reason beyond studios..........angels and Dotcom..........devil.

I can see there are all sorts of shades of grey and that both are neither fully angels nor devils, but somewhere inbetween. However, this level of reasoning seems beyond you. You see everything as perfect black and white with corporates seemingly white and anyone doing anything against them/opposing them as black. Basic binary thinking of the most limited nature.

I also explained to you why the difference you cite between evasion and avoidance is very blurred now in the UK at least. In the UK, if you setup something with the sole reason to avoid taxation (what would have been called tax avoidance), this is now considered evasion and illegal. A new law was passed by this government that brought this into effect and several people have fallen foul of it already.

For an example, see Jimmy Carr. He setup a mechanism that was prior to this law perfectly legal tax avoidance. It was a financial mechanism (involing the Channel Islands) with the sole purpose of avoiding income tax. I can tell you how it worked if you like, but I suspect it's beyond you. As it was determined by the HMRC that its sole purpose was to avoid income tax, this law made it tax evasion and therefore he got into a lot of trouble, has had to pay a lot of money to HMRC and took a lot of stick in the press. You could also look up Gary Barlow for another example of a famous name who has come a cropper on this one.

Indeed, the new law is slightly at odds with some other laws. There are special tax arrangements for people who invest in certain things, like films for instance. However, as these arrangements would be used solely to avoid tax, the new law could make them evasion!! Various tax laws are potentially at odds. Nobody has yet (to my knowledge) taken a case to the courts for a judgement and I suspect none will as the new law appears to be used only in selected cases.

So, if you're based in the UK and looking to try and avoid tax, I would suggest you contact an accountant first as your rather poor knowledge of the law around this would put you at serious risk.

If you read my post, I think you'll find that I acknowledged both evasion and avoidance and that they were different. I simply pointed out that the new law was making a lot of avoidance into evasion and therefore blurring the lines. Ask any accountant, this is the case. Of course, this doesn't match your binary nature where everything has to be either good or bad, so you made up what I said. Effectively, I was saying that avoidance is a grey area with the new law, but as grey areas don't exist to you..............

3
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@Busby

"Haven't seen that on the stories I've read about dotcom's legal woes. Have you got a link regarding charges he's facing for tax evasion as I understood all the legal issues were copyright related I didn't realise that he also wasn't paying taxes?"

Don't mistake the postings from a couple of people as being based on reality. I'm not aware of any tax evasion charges either, but I'm sure the authorities will chuck a few at him for good measure as well. After all, they got Al Capone under tax evasion in the end!! If the authorities decide they want to get you, the exact charge doesn't really matter. If they don't want to get you (too much influence/political donations etc.etc.), then there won't be a charge regardless.

3
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Both Sides Wrong

@AC

"Mad Mike gives us ... all the usual dingbat cliches.... but with added ellipses.... typed while Mike looks out of the window looking for MAFFIA agents.... and adjusts his....tinfoil hat.

Screwy punctuation is usually the giveaway of a nutter. Hey, Mike: did you know you can use full stops / periods *in the middle of a paragraph* and not just at the end?

The comparison with UKIP is very funny."

Apart from not having the guts to publish under a name..........

No argument, no reason, no logic, just abuse. Given the punctuation shown above, I assume you're not familiar with its use either!!

4
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Both Sides Wrong

@Dr Stephen Jones.

"You so badly need that to be true, to find moral equivalence between the two, it hurts."

I don't NEED it to be true. I'm looking at it objectively and I can see that Dotcom has some liability and may well have broken some laws. However, I can also see that the studios (of various natures) have also broken laws (but somehow avoided prosecution) and also have some very dubious business practices. So, given the studios relative size to Dotcom, in money terms, they're probably the bigger crooks.

Don't forget prosecutions rarely have anything to do with breaking the law. This is especially so in the USA, but is getting that way in the UK too. Companies do things that individuals do as well, yet the individual gets prosecuted, but the company does not......go figure. A good example if the Sony rootkit. If an individual did that, they'd be in jail. But Sony, not a squeak.

So, Dotcom is not innocent and I've never said he is. I'm just questioning the moral 'high ground' the studios claim to occupy and judging whether this is true or not.

5
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@Dr Stephen Jones.

Mmmm. Another rant and resorting to insults again. Just to fill in your obvious lack of knowledge of the tax system in the UK. ANY mechanism whose sole purpose is to reduce your tax liability is now illegal. Recent legislation made this change. So, the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is now more and more blurred. One could argue that many of the activities companies perform are solely to reduce tax and therefore, according to the law, are now evasion.

So, you're now claiming that film and music companies operate within the law. So, it was legal for Sony to dump a rootkit on my computer without any warning or anything? Just by inserting the CD? If any individual attempted that stunt, they would be prosecuted. It is illegal under the current law. So, how come Sony got away with it?

The music and film industry have beyond any reasonable doubt broken many laws, including computer misuse (see Sony above), cartel operations etc.etc. I'm not saying Dotcom is any better, but he certainly isn't any worse.

I think you also need to question why someone who was running a mechanism is being pursued in the manner, when others are getting away with it. Yes, he owned a file sharing site and may well have been aware of illicit goings on with the site, such as copyright violation. However, ISPs are providing the network and are perfectly aware that copyright violation is occurring over their connections and are doing little about it. So, how come one is OK and the other not? Either way, it's a facility being knowingly abused and the owner of the facility doing not a lot to stop it.

Difference is, ISPs are big business and bought themselves a law exempting themselves from liability, but companies/individuals running file sharing sites couldn't afford the bribe!!

8
1
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@Dr Stephen Jones.

"If something is too expensive then don't buy it, you asshole. Borrow one off a mate. Nobody makes you buy stuff. All round your argument is completely morally bankrupt."

What was your doctorate in? Calling people names? As a person of learning, you will of course know that resorting to name calling and insulting is generally a sign of having no argument or, at least, being unable to articulate it.

13
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@Dr Stephen Jones.

"That's a tax dodge. Everyone involved in making those movies got paid. Now tell me how much of the $175m in revenue Mega returned to camera grips, writers, composers, sound men etc."

What a funny comment. So, your holding up companies that paid camera grips, writers etc. and yet are yourself admitting they are tax dodging, which is a crime under new legislation in the UK. Very funny, really very funny.

So, you don't think that effectively stealing from the taxpayer is worth some criticism?

You don't work for them by any chance do you?

12
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Both Sides Wrong

This is really a case where both sides are wrong and have behaved very poorly.

Did Dotcom know what was going on with his website.....yes. Did he try very hard to stop it.......probably not. So, Dotcom holds a certain responsibility.

Did the studios etc. take gross advantage, start running cartels (against the law) and generally rip everyone off......yes. Have they obviously broken the law and got away with it......yes, Sony for instance with their DRM installing software on your computer without permission.

So, both sides seem to have behaved badly and should be castigated for it.

The big difference is that Dotcom may have made some millions out of it over a relatively short period of time. However, the studios have been making tens of billions over several decades and taking the p**s out of the taxpayer at the same time by pretending their films (even big box office smashes) made losses!! Not that they're alone in the corporate world on that one.

So, who is the crook.....both. Who is the bigger crook....the studios. Who's likely to get prosecuted and sent to jail for it........Dotcom.

Doesn't quite seem fair somehow. Whenever some people or corporations can flout the law at will and not suffer the consequences, whilst others do, you know your justice system is broken and a broken justice system is respected by nobody.

3
1

MIT boffins moot tsunami-proof floating nuke power plants

Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: @TRT

@AC

"True, but...

A: Not in the concentrations found in a Fission reactor.

B: Certainly not enriched."

True, but the sea has one great advantage. Over time (but pretty swiftly really), it churns around the globe and distributes any concentrations. This doesn't happen on land, so a much bigger problem. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's a good thing to dump loads of radioactivity into the sea, just that the sea is actually better at dealing with it.

6
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: I'm no MIT...

In reality, there's no shortage of nuclear power plants at the bottom of the sea (numerous have sunk in subs etc.) and there are even a few nuclear bombs (of various types) as well!! However, I do share your sentiments about 'unsinkable'. I guess it depends a lot on how deep the water would need to be to mitigate the Tsunami. As long as it isn't too deep, it could actually sit on the ocean floor.

4
0

Parent gabfest Mumsnet hit by SSL bug: My heart bleeds, grins hacker

Mad Mike
Silver badge

@obnoxiousGit

You're making the mistake of bringing reason and thought into the process. Mumsnet is a place to self-obsessed, hypocritical tyrants. That's why they think they have the right to dictate to everyone else and being listened to, even though they know little about the topics on which they speak. They're hypocritical because they think it's acceptable to call men c**ts, but say that to a woman and the world ends!!

It's really the online equivalent of a hen do or womens trip to see men strippers. They all egg each other on and it all gets rather extreme and they all think they're so hard done by. After all, the government simply must control the internet, after all, I'm a mother and have enough to do already!!

God alone knows why some men join. Maybe they're just trolling, I don't know, but the name says it all. Another example of why women can be as sexist as they like, but men would get attacked for doing the same in reverse. If I tried creating a fathersnet, there would be uproar about sexism etc.etc. Same as how you get women only gym sessions, but I've yet to come across any men only sessions.

11
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Oh, how terrible.

This is really terrible news.............my heart bleeds.

The only thing funnier would be if they found their way into the extremist list of websense and started getting blocked as such!! Given some of the clangers that have happened in the past in this area, it could just happen.

25
1

IBM was wrong to force UK workers off final salary pensions – judge

Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Read between the lines

As has been said, 'Shareholder Value' can be interpreted in many different ways. In fact, so many that the directors may actually do pretty much whatever they like. After all, you can always argue some sort of shareholder value. So, directors are in reality given almost total freedom to do whatever they like. In return, the shareholder can vote (at AGMs etc.) at regular intervals to change directors etc. if they wish to. One such reason might be that the shareholder does not believe the director is giving shareholder value. That's the risk the director takes in his/her decisions.

So, IBM directors could quite happily not have done this and accepted lower EPS for a quarter and simply said they thought it was right. It is then up to the shareholders to do something about it. They can vote at elections etc. or do things like sell the shares, where if enough do so, the shareprice will fall heavily. Of course, this affects the value of the directors shareholding, which is a primary reason why they don't tend to do anything that could negatively affect the shareprice. Given good shareholder returns will always tend to raise the shareprice as ROI is good/improves.

It has become increasingly common for the employee to be considered a resource and dealt with in a pretty poor way in many companies. However, if you look at history, you soon realise that treating employees badly often results in the company doing rather badly, as has been said in earlier replies. So, now, some more enlightened companies are beginning to realise that treating employees reasonably and doing things like honouring contracts is actually good for the business in the long run, even if the short term is affected. Additionally, more shareholders are realising this as well.

After all IBM and HP (both companies that have treated their employees pretty poorly in the past) are doing so well now? Both seem to be heading downwards rapidly. Even if they can keep shareholder returns good for a few more years, it will come to an end at some point.

22
0

Hyper-V telling fibs about Linux guest VMs

Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: It is the Linux manufacturers that lag behind... (Bollocks)

@John Sanders.

"MS Treats any non MS product like second class citizens."

To be fair, I'm not sure they're singling out non-MS products. They seem little better at supporting some of their own!! Maybe it's just general incompetence?

4
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

@AC

"No, the team writing the Hyper-V tools are up to date and are part of the Hyper-V team. It is the Linux manufacturers that lag behind in merging the updates to the Integration Tools into their releases. As it mentions in the Microsoft statement."

Unfortunately, you're making the mistakes of trusting what Microsoft says. Any virtualisation product that expects every client to always be at the highest level of integration tools is living on another planet. There are a huge number of reasons why this will never be the case. We have products that stipulate the exact version and patch levels that are supported as far as the O/S is concerned, so we can't necessarily just put higher versions of things like integration tools onto them. It breaks the application support model.

Also, why is this happening on Linux clients (or maybe non-MS) only? Surely, some people have run a Microsoft O/S without the highest/right level of integration tools? Wouldn't that get the same message? This all sounds very FUD like. Mind you, it's not really surprising. After all, if you buy a virtualisation product from a company that also sells O/Ss, what would you expect. A good reason to stay with anybody but MS if you ask me.

22
1

Say WHAT? ATVOD claims 44k Brit primary school kids look at smut online each month

Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: @Mad Mike .... When I was at school

@AC

"Yes. And if that had been your daughter, so would you have done ... Especially if she didn't want to go to school for a while after .... Would that be so hard to understand ?

Sorry, but .... needed saying ...."

Sounds like you're the kind of parent we need to deal with. It's happened and I didn't do anything than sit down with my daughter and explain the situation. Yes, I asked the school to keep an eye on it, but certainly didn't go in shouting and screaming and making complaints etc.etc. And in return, the school did a good job and appreciated my calm manner and conversations with them. In fact, it was them who told me about the 'other parents'.

2
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: And yet....

Another thumbs down!!

Presumably, we have at least one or two parents on here who don't want to exercise proper control over their children and to be held accountable for exercising that control.

Anyone who thinks they should be able to sit their child down on a computer on the internet and not control what they do in some way appropriate to their age has obviously abdicated parental responsibility and therefore should not have children!! Probably the same parents who abdicate parental responsibility onto teachers (and society in general) as well.

11
2
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: Does not add up!

"Adults can (hopefully) be expected to differentiate between pornographic fantasy worlds and real life. Teenagers with little of the latter probably not so much!"

This rather suggests that people believe teenagers suddenly switch from pimply teenager who needs to be controlled and protected from such things, to full adult with all the knowledge etc. required to act responsibly overnight!! Where exactly is the cutoff point between adult and teenager? In reality, it is a gradual slope and teenagers need guiding down it. A job for parents and parenting, not something to be ignored or handed over to some sort content monitoring system.

21
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: someone was spying on these kids ?!?!?!

So, they put something like monitoring software on various PCs in the home and monitor usage. This presumes the person logged on (if there's even a concept of logging on) is really using their own account. As the people being studied are children, I assume it's fair to assume the parents (and possibly others) have their passwords?

So, two questions come to mind. Firstly, what is the reaction of the parents when they're told little Johnny and little Alice are watching porn? (Father/mother looks embarrassingly to the heavens?). Secondly, when they look at the second tranche of data, is little Johnny no longer looking at porn as the parents are now aware? Even if they make the information anonymous, it makes clear suggestions as to peoples childrens usage, or does each parent assume it is other peoples children?

0
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: When I was at school

Yes indeed. I really am at a loss to understand how these figures are obtained and the probable margin of error in them. We all know that teenage boys will tend to boast about their antics and teenage girls will often downplay them. I would have thought that most 6 years olds would wonder what you were on about and would probably wonder what porn was if they found it. Probably think it's two people fighting!!

This is really all about adults putting their sexual beliefs and attitudes on people who don't have those thoughts at the moment. I always remember when very young boys in the playground would go round lifting up girls skirts (I'm talking about 6-8 years old). All they knew was that the anatomy was different. There was nothing sexual about it, as they were nowhere near old enough to have that sort of thought. Yet, when the parents arrived, some would go ballistic, screaming about sexual assault etc.etc. No, it's just kids doing what they've done for years. Nothing sexual about it at all. And you thinking it is sexual just shows how poor a parent you are (unable to put yourself in your childs position) and more to the point, how your mind works around sex.

11
0
Mad Mike
Silver badge

Re: And yet....

@Vimes.

Not sure where the downvote comes from.

Surely, parents should monitor and control what their children do in a manner consistent with their age. Therefore, if they're very young, the control and monitoring is high and becomes less as they get older? Therefore, I would have thought a child of 6 would be heavily monitored and controlled, especially in areas such as the internet.

If you failed to control your child and they ran into the road and were injured, I imagine people would be appalled and maybe social services involved if it happened enough. So, what's the difference with them being injured (albeit in a different way) through looking at inappropriate website content?

Maybe if parents took more responsibility (in many areas, not just internet), a lot of problems in society at the moment would reduce. Some children get taken away for what some people consider relatively minor 'offences' and yet they can't get taken away because their parents are allowing them to watch hardcore porn at the age of 6? Something wrong there.......

8
3

Page: