Re: Shame that they didn't...
One would hope that they put some logging in place on the C&C server to audit who connects, and when to trace those responsible for setting it up.
2180 posts • joined 20 Jul 2010
One would hope that they put some logging in place on the C&C server to audit who connects, and when to trace those responsible for setting it up.
I learned quite quickly when visiting Ireland, to take out €30 at a time. Find a quiet cash-point though if you want multiples, or risk the ire of any natives waiting behind you.
What I see here, is someone (who wishes to remain anonymous) who is the sort of person who likes to take offence on behalf of others. I've not read anything here that really warrants the sort of name calling that this AC is doing.
Nobody appears to be saying that people who don't look where they are going should actually be killed.
Most of us can tell the difference between a joke and seriousness, and even if we don't find the joke funny, or find it to be in poor taste, don't find the need to throw our toys out of the pram.
Nevertheless, personal responsibility is actually a thing. When someone walks in front of a tram because they don't pay attention to what they are doing it is their fault; nobody else's. They may end up dead, the tram driver will end up traumatised. This sort of safety measure (LEDs on a pavement) may make a difference, but it is a sticking plaster over the actual cause, which is a society in which the concept of personal responsibility is undervalued.
As I previously said, we used to have the Green Cross Code. We had 'Stop', 'Look', 'Listen'. We had the Tufty Club. What we are lacking is the modern equivalent. The problem isn't new - in the '80s we had people wearing Walkmans strolling into traffic, but seems to be getting worse.
Perhaps because we don't teach our children how to properly assess risk, so that they think that they are perfectly safe when bombing it along on the pavement on a bicycle, wearing headphones whilst texting, but are petrified with inaction when some criminal blows themselves up on a bus or in an airport. Most people don't understand that they are far more likely to die in a traffic accident than due to an act of terrorism, yet our governments have policies of spending the money where there is the biggest perceived impact. We fritter it away on security theatre in our airports that achieves little but costs millions, whilst omitting to run those public information campaigns that cost little, but actually educate people and save lives.
Anyway, I've wandered a little off topic - rather than being all high and mighty in a very self-important fashion, maybe you (AC) should accept that others are entitled to their sense of humour, even if you don't find it funny, and even if it is in poor taste. After all, most humour is in some way in poor taste.
It was called the green cross code, and involved educating people about looking where they are going when crossing a road.
Tackle the cause, not the symptoms.
And bring back David Prowse, although he's a little less impressive these days...
Only one of those things exists. "Ethical ad" is, to many people, an oxymoron.
Immediately brand anything that threatens your business model as unethical. Without any sense of irony.
Worst. Astroturfer. Ever.
Imbibed a pinch too much of the ol' nose candy, perchance?
Because the first observation I'll make is that it will heat up if microwaves are being bounced around inside it, and if operated in an atmosphere, the larger end will heat more air than the smaller end. Boyle's law can take over from there, producing a small thrust.
In other words, the reaction mass would be the air it heats up; this effect wouldn't work in a vacuum any more than a rowboat would.
Xenon is chosen because it is inert (neutral nitrogen is also inert, but tends to become somewhat more chemically active when ionised), is elemental rather than molecular (e.g. Xe rather than N2), so physicists can treat it more like an 'ideal' gas, it has a high atomic mass (131) as opposed to the molecular mass of neutral nitrogen (28), which is important because thrust is proportional to mass, and has a lower ionisation potential than molecular nitrogen (12.13 eV vs 15.58 eV), which determines the amount of energy required to ionise it in the first place before accelerating it as reaction mass.
Nah, that's just a small tesla coil inside a ball of inert gases. Pretty though...
The judge also forgets his John Stuart Mills when he dismisses parody as a possible source for truth.
Yes, but would you pay much heed to a man who, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy, was particularly ill?
The real bloody wars were about lucre/power. Religion was simply an excuse and I'm unsure whether the 'faithful' of the time believed it.
I've visited the Vatican, and there's plenty of lucre and power on display there. If the religions are seeking that lucre and power (and many organised religions appear to be seeking exactly that), and that lucre and power was gained through wars, then it appears to be a matter of semantics whether wars were fought for the former or latter.
(yes, that's scientology with a small 's', because it is not a real religion - or word for that matter according to the spell checker).
But it is a proper noun, even if it's not a proper religion, so the capital 'S' is valid.
Hail Eris on this Prickle-Prickle, the 31st day of Discord in the YOLD 3182.
Ah yes, it made me remember that I'm a Pope of Discordianism and that made me smile. You can be a Pope too - there you go, all ordained.
In most aspects, it is superior; the screen is much better, in terms of pixels and resolution. The camera is not quite as good. The battery is almost twice the capacity. Have a look for yourself:
edit - and £50 cheaper.
Did they even put in a micro SD card slot?
It took me literally seconds to google that, and yes, just like HTC's other recent phones, it does. Up to 200Gb supported.
Arsenic may be there forever, but plutonium (including the 'stable' isotopes) is as toxic as nerve gas, so I know which if the two I'd rather ingest.
dark web cannot be reached without the use of specialized software"
...called a "Web Browser". Examples include XMosaic and Netscape Navigator...
a professional organization representing approx. 179,000 teachers in Ontario, Canada
Not exactly relevant to the subject at hand is it?
I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to UK pension funds, as the article is about what might happen to UK companies. Pension funds in Canada have about as much bearing on the discussion as what sort of chocolate egg my niece got at Easter. I'm also pretty sure you would also know that, so what is your point exactly?
Big Pharma is a subset of biological sciences, which itself is a subset of science. Drug development is really science industrialised on a large scale, so the companies involved are necessarily large, in order to be able to make the gamble involved in developing new drugs (most of which never make it to market and if they do may or may not recoup their development costs). However, to ignore the other 99% of things that come under the umbrella term of science, and all the medical research done by universities and charities does them a great disservice.
This article seems to imply that 'science' means big corporations like GSK and AstraZeneca. To most research scientists, however, these companies represent business, not science. To present the impact to these companies of a possible 'Brexit' as the impact on science is misleading at best.
Handing over £11 in most parts of the UK will buy you three pints of session bitter, so the £1 coin is worth approximately three times as much as the threepenny bit was when it was withdrawn.
...or about the same in London.
I was passed a lead pound coin in some change once. It must have been almost two decades ago. Given inflation, the cost of the lead and gold spray paint, it probably doesn't make it profitable to pass these on any more anyway, and if it still is, the people making these are only going to need to buy some putty, and a can of silver paint for spraying the middles before they can start casting good enough fakes of the new ones to pass over to shopkeepers again. The whole counterfeit currency argument sounds suspicious to me...
Although the child benefit cost is around £11 bn and my maths may be a bit wrong, around 0.002% goes abroad, wouldn't it better to spend it on people who need it in the UK?
Sounds like it's not a real problem then. £31M might sound like a lot to you an I, but when we have a budget deficit of £69B, a number more than 2,000 times bigger, I think we can safely say it's not a significant issue when it comes to the UK's finances. We could probably account for that number if we wanted to, by making one medium sized multinational corporation pay their taxes properly.
Allowing UK child benefit payments to kids who don't even live in the UK
That's a new one I've not heard before. Is it the latest from the Daily Mail?
I wonder how many zeroes there are between the decimal point and a non-zero digit when we see what percentage that is in the relevant figure? I'm going to go ahead an guess that it's something like 0.0001% of the benefit budget. Can you quote the actual figure for me?
Trying to scare the population into voting in a particular way will not be well received, and could easily get lots of people to vote in just because of bloody-mindedness.
I hear lots of scaremongering from both sides to be honest.
Personally, I've lived my whole life in the EU and never had a problem with it. I have travelled to several EU countries, some richer than others, and can see that people everywhere are just that - people. I think we have bigger problems at home to deal with, like our own corrupt political system and island nation attitude towards the rest of the world.
The two cannot reasonably co-exist which is why so much of the ECHR is a problem when things that create rights such as "you have the right to a private life" is dropped into UK law where it is assumed that you had those rights.
Why is that a problem? At worst, it has no effect. That's not the case, however, because it does have an effect: It prevents our government from passing a law that takes away the right to a private life. Maybe this is why Ms May wants out of the EU?
"Qualified Economist". That'll be the 'science' where the economics teachers are still spouting the same theories that prevailed before the last crash which they didn't see coming and can't explain.
I won't argue the point that economics is a science, because it isn't. However, a qualification in economics qualifies one to be an economist (I thought I'd state that tautology to make it obvious). Our current Chancellor of the Exchequer has no economics qualifications; he did a degree in modern history and trained as a journalist. He has an 'O' level in maths. I'd be more inclined to listen to Yanis, especially as he appears to be more erudite in English than Gideon, who I'd love to hear interviewed on Greek television, in Greek.
Economics may not be scientific, but some principles hold nonetheless. Austerity being bad for a country's economy is one of those, which can be seen by the constant downwards revision of our country's growth.
@Boris - Have you been watching our government recently? Do you honestly think that they wouldn't try to take away several of those if they could?
Yes, we had freedoms before the ECHR. We had a big part in writing it to make sure everyone else gets those freedoms too. Being a signatory to the ECHR means we get to keep those freedoms even when our own government tries to remove them.
Might I remind you at this point, that the government we have now bears little resemblance to the post-war ones that drafted the ECHR. Our current government is on the record as stating that they wish to withdraw from the ECHR and replace it with some nebulous and no doubt poorly worded 'Bill of Rights'. Might I also remind you of the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". If we withdrew from the ECHR, but not from the EU, we would still be subject to the ECJ, which - tada! essentially enforces the ECHR, so in reality withdrawal properly from the ECHR would also require withdrawal from the EU.
Now take a look at those members of the Tory party who are anti-EU, and look at their stance on Human Rights. It doesn't fill me with confidence, and the thought of relying on their good nature for the rights that the whole of Europe (and the rest of the world) had to go through a long a bloody war for doesn't fill me with glee.
In reality, leaving the EU would also mean one of two things regarding all the regulations and trade agreements we inherit from that body:
1) Re-negotiation. How do you think that will go when we try to re-negotiate trade deals with the EU as a whole? What bargaining positions do you think we would have against the rest of the EU? I've not heard a good answer to this from the anti-EU crowd other than "scaremongering", which is the logical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la.
2) Keep the same regulations. Fine, but don't expect to have any influence on them, or their enforcement. "Dictated from Brussels" is exactly the argument given for leaving the EU, but in this scenario, this is what you would get (as opposed to being in the EU and actually having representation in Brussels, assuming your local MEP isn't one of those UKIP ones who takes the money and doesn't bother to sit in the EU assembly. You only have yourself to blame if you cry about lack of representation and then elect someone who has stated that they'll take the seat but not represent you.)
Nobody is claiming the European system is perfect - no political system is, but as the saying goes, "It's better to be on the train pissing out, than on the platform pissing in". Resorting to rhetoric, accusations of scaremongering* and name-calling doesn't strengthen the argument for standing on the platform getting wet.
*The only actual scaremongering I've heard is the anti-immigration stuff we've heard for years about immigrants coming here and taking our jobs. I've never met anyone who has lost their job to an immigrant, but oddly enough I have met plenty of hard-working individuals from Europe (and other parts of the world), who make a net contribution to the British economy. We see large numbers quoted in the right-wing press (I think we all know which publication I'm talking about here) in big headlines exactly designed to scare people. In reality, most immigration is a positive influence on national productivity, and pushes up standards of living.
To help put in perspective the relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the ECHR places not only obligations but protections on its signatories.
If we were to leave the European Court of Human rights (confusingly, also known as the ECHR) without leaving the EU, the ECJ would still be able to impose the restrictions of the ECHR upon us, but without being signatories, we would have no recourse to the convention ourselves.
On the other hand, if we were to leave the EU, we could also leave the ECHR. This would then mean that our citizens would no longer get the protections from it in the UK. We would be relying on our government to provide legislation to re-implement those protections.
I'd recommend everyone go and read the Convention, at least in summary. These are the protections it gives us. Think how our Gov't might subvert one or more of these with their own weasel words:
- Right to life
- Prohibition of torture
- Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Dept of Work and Pensions I'm thinking of you).
- Right to liberty and security
- Right to a fair trial
- No punishment without law
- Right to respect for private and family life
- Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
- Freedom of expression
- Freedom of assembly and association
- Right to marry
- Right to an effective remedy (the right to be heard under the provisions of the ECHR)
- Prohibition of discrimination
- Prohibition of abuse of rights
There are also some provisions to restrict or reduce these rights in time of emergency, etc. in article 15, and to restrict the political rights of aliens in article 16.
Exactly, and AFAIK, being an EU member prevents the Tories from taking away these rights from us*. For now.
*The ECHR isn't an EU body, but the ECJ is, and this gives 'special significance' to the ECHR, which basically says that ECHR rulings should be obeyed. Withdrawing from the EU would mean withdrawal from the ECJ, and therefore the end of this obligation. An obligation which most people who actually think about it, believe to be a good thing.
It will result in "The Greek Model" of an economy. Mark my words now.
I'm half inclined to say that the 'Greek Model' is preferable. If you ignore the fact that previous Greek governments were helped to cover up their national debt by multinational corporations, in an effort to join the Euro, and this is essentially the cause of their problems, then you'll see that the likes of Yanis Varoufakis, who made a valiant effort to extricate Greece from imposed 'austerity' from Germany, are at least intelligent and qualified economists, rather than ideologically led unqualified buffoons like own own beloved Gideon.
I would have thought that a small raised kerb around it and application of some paint to the road surface around it would do the job. The whole junction looks like it could do with resurfacing anyway, so why not kill two birds with one, erm...
BORED of "Brick"
I have to say that I have never read anything so frightening on these pages as what you are suggesting. You really need to get a sense of perspective, regardless of what your partner does for a living.
Yes, it is frightening isn't it? The fact that we like to think ourselves civilised but behind closed doors people are kicking seven shades of shit out of each other on a daily basis. The scary thing is that because most people don't see it, they don't know it goes on, and everyone assumes that others are like themselves (i.e. not drunken violent arseholes). The actual number of perpetrators of domestic violence is actually relatively low - not all men are women beaters by a long way, but the ones who are make up for it in a big way. A man who beats one woman will more often than not be a serial abuser, and may have served time in prison for such offences. His next partner won't know this, and often such abusers start off as charmers, before abusing their victims. A lot of women are reluctant to report such crimes because of the complex relationship involved with someone you are in love with hitting you. Excuses will be made, such as "he didn't mean it", "it was my fault", etc. etc. Abusers will psychologically manipulate their victims ('gaslighting') into believing that they are at fault, and not the abuser. In cases where a crime is actually reported to the police, on average, it will be on the 35th occasion of abuse. On average. That means that the crimes are under-reported by a staggering 35 times.
This is absolutely not about PR from charities; there are heaps of statistics gathered on such crimes, as they are serious and widespread. The one I quoted was the first result I got when googling it. if you want to be sure for yourself, feel free to pick through the statistics held by the ONS, unless you want to claim that these are somehow misleading because they are gathered by the government, who have an agenda? My personal 'agenda' here is perfectly clear - I think that people who beat each other are criminals and should be punished for their actions. I think this 'agenda' is one that is shared by most reasonable people. That people think there is some other agenda at play simply shows the staggering nature of the problem, and how well hidden it is in society simply because it happens behind closed doors.
In terms of a 'sense of perspective', my partner has, variously, worked for a crime victim's charity, the Ministry of Justice, and as police staff, and holds a masters degree in criminology. She has never actually worked for a domestic abuse charity, but so much of the work that comes through her door has to do with domestic violence, and I get to hear about it, that I have a pretty good perspective on the problem. Putting your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't happen is the exact opposite of this.
Unreported, yet you claim to know the true number. By magic? Or just made up to support an agenda. I think its the latter.
Based, on facts, if you'd bothered to check for yourself.
"on average there will have been 35 assaults before a victim calls the police" - so yes, vastly under-reported.
What I am suggesting is letting people know if their partner has a history of violent crime (something that in some circumstances they can already check for themselves, but I believe it needs to be more proactive).
As for the police beating people up, do you have any sources for that, or did you invent it to suit an agenda? It might have been a historical problem, but these days, with CCTV in police stations, and almost everything being referred to the IPCC, I think you'll find that it's a very small problem, compared to domestic violence.
My partner happens to work with victims of crime, a large number of whom are victims of domestic abuse, so I happen to have some inkling of what I'm talking about. Unlike you, it seems.
Violence is damn near instinctive, probably even biological.
This is true, but there is a clear distinction between cultural tolerance of violence, and it being culturally unacceptable.
After all, in many cultures, adult men are still marrying child brides, but our culture doesn't accept this.
Most people are able to overcome the 'natural instincts' to go around trying to have sex with anything that moves, defecate wherever they like, and grab hold of anything that takes their fancy. Violence against each other can go the same way, without too much difficulty, as far as I am concerned. Those who really cannot keep themselves form lashing out should really be locked away, either in prison, or in a psychiatric institution, depending on whether a judge deems them 'mad or bad'.
MPs come and go, Whitehall remains.
"We need to recognise that the crime prevention challenge has evolved – we now need to prevent serious harm that happens inside victims’ homes, or to stop a cyber-criminal on the other side of the world from targeting thousands of people here with a single keystroke."
Sadly, this will likely do nothing to prevent the most common crime that happens in people's homes - domestic violence. This is one of the most under-reported crimes, and unless you have been a victim (or a perpetrator), you would likely think that it is much less common than it actually is - astoundingly one in twelve women is a victim of some sort of domestic abuse every year (and yes, it does happen to men too).
What we really need is a cultural change towards acceptance of violence of all sorts in our society, be it the public brawl on the high street on a Friday night, or the more insidious violence that happens behind closed doors, and this is an area where predictive policing could really help. If a woman is in a new relationship with a partner who has a record of violence against other women (a common pattern of domestic violence), it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this link can be identified, and the woman warned.
I doubt, however, that this programme will help in this way. It'll probably be politically led, looking for the vanishingly small number of terrorists under every stone, whilst ignoring the real crimes that actually affect people's lives every day. It'll be target-led, leading to easy to solve but low impact crimes (like littering,or parking on double-yellows) skewing the system.
We have bears, mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, racoons, rattlesnakes, coyotes, feral dogs & cats, and other fauna that threaten the livestock.
Good luck trying to take on a bear or mountain lion with a hand-gun, because an injured and angry bear is so much safer to deal with. Snakes are best left alone, all those other animals are best handled through the judicious use of chicken wire and cement, like the rest of the world manages to do without shooting at everything that moves.
I'll stop using an ad blocker when you can guarantee me the following:
- Your ads won't try to infect my computer with malware. Ever.
- Your ads won't play audio
- Your ads won't use excessive bandwidth (e.g. playing video)
- Your ads won't use distracting flashing animations
- Your ads won't pop up over the content I am trying to view
- Your ads won't try to open a separate window/tab
- Your ads won't scroll with the screen, making a portion of my browser window permanently unusable
- Your ads will work properly on a mobile device, without making it impossible to scroll past them to view the actual content.
- Your ads won't use flash
What's that - you can't, or won't guarantee me any/all of those? Fuck off then.
Read the article again.
FWIW, Corbyn is apparently in favour of reforming the whip system, and is on the record saying this several years ago before there was the mildest hint of him becoming the party's leader. He is one of the few politicians who has consistently voted against the party line, against the wishes of the party's wishes, which is something that sets him apart from the 'Tory-lite' Blairites.
The party whips serve several functions, some of which are important to a functioning democracy, such as effective communication between MPs and organising voting. The problem with them isn't that they tell people how to vote (this is an effective way of communicating party policy), but that they effectively sanction those who do not vote the 'right' way.
An interesting discussion of this can be found in Mark Thomas's "The People's Manifesto", first broadcast in 2010, where he interviews Corbyn on exactly this.
A few counter-points:
Those crises you list mostly also apply to us, whether we are in the EU or not.
It does seem that we are, on the whole, incapable of electing decent politicians in this country. This is in part to lack of engagement of most people, and the system of political donations affecting policy a lot more than the wishes of the people. I don't think this is a problem unique to our particular political set up, and the EU is little different.
Your point about us having 'no say' in the EU is nonsense. We elect MEPs to do exactly that. If you were dumb enough to be one of those who voted in a UKIP candidate who is now taking the money but not bothering to represent us in Europe, then the fault lies at your door, not in Brussels. Being a member of the EU gives us the means and mechanisms to engage with the rest of Europe. Withdrawing from the EU would take those away, in which case the EU, as a larger entity, really would be able to dictate to us on many issues (trade, regulation, etc. etc.)
To suggest that the EU has it's "nose in the gravy" and to not acknowledge the old-boys network and sheer corruption of our own government (where money buys influence) looks a little like tunnel-vision to me.
That's the point, though, they want the activities of the security services to be regulated (which they should be), under a single piece of legislation (rather than many, possibly contradictory pieces with apparent wide loopholes). In principle, this is what this bill could be. However, as drafted by the Tories, it is unsuitable. Labour have made their objections known, but not voted the bill down in the second reading, so that there is a chance for the bill to be effectively rewritten in the committee stage. If it is still not fit for purpose, expect them to vote against it in the final reading. This is the only leverage they really have to get it changed, since they don't have a parliamentary majority. Even if they all voted against it, assuming the Tory Whips are doing their job, it will go through anyway. It is then down to the Lords to sort it out.
In my mind, the bits that need removing are exactly those discussed in the article - all this ICR mass surveillance nonsense needs to go, and oversight needs to be from a judge, not a politician (and not a judge rubber-stamping a politician's decision without visibility of the justification). Surveillance needs to be approved by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis. There is, however, a case for the spooks to actually conduct surveillance on people who may be a threat to the state, this just needs to be done with proper oversight, and the existence of such surveillance should be released to the public after the fact, once the subjects have either been conclusively found to be up to something, or not. In other words, the same rules of law that apply to pretty much every other crime.
It's £20 to sit down in London.
"No sir, I didn't like it"
My understanding is that the Labour position is that the bill needs substantial changes before they will vote in favour of it and if these are not made, they will vote against in the final reading; this is the point of the committee stage. I can kind of understand this, in that the supposed point of the bill is to regulate the things that are already being done, to put them on a legal footing.
A bill that would reduce the spooks' powers to do what they already do would arguably be a good thing, but the likelihood of that happening is close to nil.
The whole thing is also arguably a moot point, since the Tories have an absolute majority, they will whip their own MPs to within an inch of their lives (which some of them will probably enjoy),and it will get a majority in the final reading even if all the other parties vote against it in union. The Lords will then send it back, and the
scum Tories will then force it through with the Parliament Act. The ECJ will then find it unconstitutional, and the ECHR will find that it violates basic human rights. The Tories will follow this up with steadfastly not caring and bleating about how evil Europe is, whilst passing on heavy fines to the electorate. Meanwhile, the whole thing will be found to be an unworkable and contradictory mess, and we will become the laughing stock of the rest of the world.