at least they aren't blaming poor Eve ....
204 posts • joined 24 Jun 2010
"Welcome to the internet of things... what could possibly go wrong?"
sorry, just wanted to repeat that :-)
half-remembered this, and found the quote I wanted:
Sir Humphrey: "Taxation isn't about what you need."
Jim Hacker: "Oh, what is it about?"
Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, the Treasury doesn't work out what they need to spend and then think how to raise the money."
Jim Hacker: "What does it do?"
Sir Humphrey: "They pitch for as much as they think they can get away with and then think what to spend it on."
Yes Prime Minister, broadcast Jan 86: heading for thirty years on, that show still sums up a lot of what is very wrong with the UK government's view of how to serve the public
"One foot in front of the other... keep breathing." - have you been talking to my running coach? ;-)
But - was thinking same thing. To get the thing to land at the barge, without sinking it, is a step, and not a small one.
(needs the appropriate accent)
(might be wrong, but was that Dave Allen?)
have an upvote, although I disagree with you in one respect: "That village idiot judge also needs debarring."
I disagree in that I feel the village idiot judge should be on an arrest warrant as well.
"Clearly there's room for substantial cost savings, quite apart from a deep need to remove whomever signed off on the use of so much Oracle from public service. "
It's not just they signed off on the use of so much Oracle, it's that they did so in an appallingly silly way. The first cost saving to cut is the salary of that person & everyone else who approved / supervised them
"Now, for VAT purposes, the place of supply is the customer's location.
If the applicable tax law is that of the customer's country, shouldn't the applicable copyright law also be that of the customer's country?"
Or the one that makes sense: if it's Value Added Tax, the applicable tax regime is that which applies where the value is added, and only that one. Copyright law of the country in which the IPR generated / work was created, and only that one.
have an upvote to counter the single downvote that's there at the moment ;-)
The balance of votes seems to suggest you may have a point ........
"There is a clear case for a limited and focused public intervention, on the Internet as in any other field of human life."
There are also clear cases for the EU Commission sorting out it's own existing policies, frameworks and organisational issues before it is allowed to even ask about doing anything new, let alone doing so without a direct "yes we want this" from the people for whom it is supposed to work.
Putting that to one side (and no that is not an anti-EU point, I believe it should be applied to all public bodies at all levels - yes, there is at least one daydreamer left in the world) then if it is indeed "limited" and "focussed", with a scope limited by statute along the lines of "if it is not written in the scope then it is not part of their remit and they do not look at it" (with suitably massive personal penalties for the individuals concerned if they even try to extend scope), then I'll happily look at that scope document before forming a view on whether what they want to do is actually possible. Right now we do not have enough information to know that.
It does not read like an attempt to censor the Internet, but neither does it read like an attempt to make that any more difficult than it already is, and it is already far too easy to get content removed without "due process" (to borrow a phrase), to snoop on things without warrants in the jurisdiction concerned, and so on.
" 99.7 per cent of aircraft were not delayed. Of the remaining 0.3 per cent, the average delay was 26 minutes."
I wish Southeastern could do that. Or manage to have only 0.3 per cent of trains only delayed by a mere 26 minutes .....
Oh, I forgot, they'll probably say only 0.3 per cent are delayed by the a mere 26 minutes. The rest are mostly delayed by between two and twenty minutes, or just cancelled, or they don't like running normal trains on Sundays, or some other reason.
Or "as well as", just in case?
would be good to see it, the amount of work put in to covering that case should be recognised more too. As should the sheer greed of SCO's representatives.
goods (tangible or intangible) are supposed to be able to cross borders within the EU, with no barriers to entering other markets. Requiring VAT registration in other markets is a barrier, requiring it at a lower threshold than in one's home market is a significant barrier.
it's a lot fewer police out there assaulting people who are bystanders (not going to repeat a previous post)
do you want a carrot? I might have some turnips / OK i'll have a carrot - hey, that's a turnip, etc
"I assume the users would just Google for the name of one of the big newspapers, find their website, and get their news from there."
Not if it ends up that the most cost-effective way for Google to ensure no mistakes is simply to block all access of elpais.es (and just to be safe 18.104.22.168/24 ?)
Has that Bobby Tables guy been filing flight plans again?
sorry that was a bit shouty. Not withdrawing it though, in hope that a Met police person sees it and actually cares what the public think.
"even private if you are the one who owns the private property"
Hardly worth trying to film UK police. They'll weasel out of any complaint anyway.
When you get four police offices, one of whom has just assaulted a friend but refuses to identify himself, and you put in a complaint, the other three say "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", regardless of any evidence or witnesses, and the Met say nothing bad happened.
having looked at that page, and also based on experience, you're right with respect to PHP but "generic" serving is typically faster with Nginx. Not always, of course. The best results I usually get are Nginx and Apache working together .... surprise surprise, horses for courses and all that ...
“There is a general agreement now that if you review regularly you can stop the dangers that people have identified,” Blunkett said.
There is a general agreement amongst, errr, me, that the person who steered RIPA through parliament should say "and it's all my fault" before criticising anyone else's use of his law
they probably discovered a few things, such as that if they work on their game on the Sabbath they have to be put to death (Exodus 35:2). Also, does Amazon's marketing team work on the Sabbath? "You shall kindle no fire throughout your houses upon the sabbath day." on top of working too?
Leviticus, is just too easy to have fun with .. even for serious drama's lighter moments
when a man from mars makes more sense than government procurement, you know a) it must be 2am and b) [see icon]
"Even if the law was to be approved; the evidence it produced would be circumstantial, at best,"
It's late but that's just made me think of a scenario:.
Prosecution: It was this IP address, so it was you.
Defence (carefully briefed): Prove it.
P: This IP address was allocated to your router at the time.
D: Not my router, mate, ISP gave it to me. Their router, I don't own it, or get any say in it's management.
P: They say this IP address was allocated to your house, and under the ConLabDem-sponsored "FSCK Freedom" Act that means whatever was done from that IP address was done by you.
D: Really? No-one at ISP has the brains to falsify logs then? Really? Let's ask them. One at a time. Call witness (one of ten thousand) ...
D: ok, so now we know the ISP employs a load of people capable of faking it. Who says i'm responsible?
P: Err, the Home Secretary
D: Right, let's have her/him on the stand next. This'll be fun.
P: Err .. err .. panic panic .. Crown Immunity
"And if I could specify a FAIL + ALE (As in I need a beer after this one...) icon in the future, that would be cool."
Have an upvote for the content, and a non-failed ale for the idea -->
i don't mind the steel framed glass clad ... might be just me but I like the contrasts. If I walk up the local hill, can look across the river over to a small forest of steel framed glass at Canary Wharf, but am looking through the trees and a thousand years of history.
Greenwich has a language school. It actively recruits overseas visitors, too .....
"I always assumed it was called the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act due to Yes Minister's Law of Inverse Relevance: get the difficult bit out of the way in the title" etc etc
As for this article, "However, Lib Dem leader and Deputy PM Nick Clegg rejected those plans. And yet, under his time at Whitehall, the exercising of RIPA provisions have mushroomed" - mushroom management being a speciality of both governments this century, even more so than the last one. First Blair showed how to do it, then Brown took it to a fine art; now Cameron and Clegg continue the trend. Keep the people in the dark, feed us crap - the Mail, Grauniad and Times have all been helping them out, and ironically damp dead trees help mushrooms grow.
et quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
apologies for misquote
I don't know if there is a "Not A Crime, But We've Riled Up The Proles, So Let's Make It A Crime Bill", but there is a "Not a crime if the council or police do it but it is if anyone else tries Act".
It's called RIPA.
I always assumed it was called the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act due to Yes Minister's Law of Inverse Relevance: get the difficult bit out of the way in the title, "it does less harm there than in the statute books".
In other words, if you intend to be an Act to be a free pass for the police etc to do whatever the **** they want, with no consequences of any note, then say in it's title that your Act regulates them.
"just demanding the extradition of the guys that hacked" won't be enough; they need to charge those who harbour the persons in question, AND all those who provide their legal cover - including any judge who implies that law enforcement personnel can break any law they like anywhere in the world, as long as it isn't US,
If US law does not apply to US law enforcement officers working overseas, just make that clear - and let other countries decide whether their own laws and/or protections should apply to US citizens (natural or corporate).
Catch 22, subparagraph (a)
"I figure that what they should do is get a warrant for hacking the server, and once they locate the server either the server is in the USA at which point the warrant still stands"
well, yes and NO NO NO ;) Find out where the server is, then apply for a warrant if it's in the US. Otherwise apply to the relevant jurisdiction, via diplomatic channels if necessary, proving that criminal law has been broken in that jurisdiction. Not US law broken, relevant law broken: no-one gave the US legal system legislative control of the world.
[replying to my own post - bad form, I know...] - making a valid point though :-)
I'd say to an extent it puts some things where they belong; security of customer data should at least in part be the responsibility of the customer.
not April 1st, is it?
"Apple said it wouldn't access any payment data" - yeah, right, and loads of brokers said clients wouldn't lose money with Bernie Madoff.
or if it gets halfway through the job & the driver decides to "phone home" to tell the printer company what you've been printing ...
Wonder how many people find The Shad, Indian restaurant. Also conveniently on Tooley St.
Complete coincidence, that name.
" This attitude of "we know best, to hell with laws and rules" " doesn't begin to sum up the sheer arrogance and extreme laziness of the Met. I recently had cause to put in a complaint against an officer who - while on duty in uniform - chose to assault a friend. He refused to identify himself in any way, and we were not given an opportunity to take a pic of him in uniform showing face and shoulder number. So the complaint included the fact that the officer didn't identify himself when asked for his name or rank, or make available the same information.
The Met response? As the complaint did not identify the officer, no meaningful action will be taken. "Sorry, we are too busy abusing our powers to actually investigate our own officers when they deliberately choose to put a member of the public in danger."
Anon because - no, wait, not anon. I -want- them to knock on the door for this one. ;-)
Good luck with the complaints procedure if your team choose to go that way !! (They need some new toilet paper at the local station, £5 to the El Reg Beer Fund if you get a meaningful response that results in published actions against named officers; will double it if those actions include any sanctions with any teeth - ie more than just being fired)
absolutely - the same as you get a refund on your TV licence every time they show a repeat.
". How is this "in general terms [...] painfully similar" to spending oil money to attract business? .... However, your analogy is preposterous."
It's as preposterous as calling John Law an economist (Wikipedia) or Gordon Brown an honest, intelligent and clever man (read Jonathan Powell's excellent book on Machiavellian politics if you think for one moment Brown was not a total *).
"Google was failing to comply with English (and EU) data protection obligations and weigh the public's right to freedom of expression to read those articles."
surely Google is only interfering with the public's right to freedom of expression to read those articles if it removes the articles themselves? Only an idiot - or a lawyer (there's an interesting Venn diagram project for someone out there) - would claim that removing an item from a table of contents or an index actually removes the item itself.
You're right about the politics, but sense when has politics had even the slightest connection with reasonableness? A reasonable person would not attempt to claim for mortgage payments on a mortgage that has been paid off, or £8k-worth of cleaning, for example ...
"soon to be a booted out MP or Business Secretary."
Can we have both please, in one easy to vote (out) for package? Damn, I live in SE London, not SW. Not that there are many other options to choose anyway.
Got to let him have his optimism about 10% of a £900bn market though - he's a LibDem. Take away his optimism, what's he got left? Self-respect and the knowledge he stood by all his pre-election promises? (Actually, that's prob true about all of them, so maybe unfair to pick on just Vince "It wasnt me it was that nasty Lord Oakeshott" Cable).
As for IHateWearingATie's comments about "south of the river (there be dragons etc etc) ", I should hope there are dragons here, and I know they will be welcomed as part of our openness to new ideas, diverse culture, and new things in general. Unlike in the Stalinist- and assorted fascist- supporting area north of here. :-)
"changes existing laws on the jurisdiction of courts and recognition of their rulings. "
Well, that will make lots of people very happy. Specifically the types of people who want referenda on EU membership should it try to change or extend it's "competences" - changing existing laws is definitely doing that.
Oh dear, more nutty politicians ahead ...
"and the people who most need to hear this simply aren't listening :("
Well, they certainly won't be reading this, at any rate ...
at least it's not from Brother .. telling them what you've made / printed and crashing your machine if you try to disable that ....