Well I think...
... it was Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Lead Piping!
5796 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... it was Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Lead Piping!
... Oh, the IRONY!
*cough* Gary McKinnon *cough*
(PS Damn, I see alain williams just beat me to that one :-/ )
> I believe that is the expression - although it's clearly wrong.
Yes, of course it's *far* better that we send 100 innocent people to prison rather than risk letting one guilty person go free...
PS the Daily Mail comments page is over there ->
Why do the words "Passive Aggressive" come to mind?
This sounds like Google behaving like a stroppy teenager saying "Well I'm only doing what you told me to do!", obeying the letter of the instruction whilst ignoring the spirit of it.
... Lewis omits the words "Nar nar ne-nar nar!"
Double-plus good, Prole!
Are you seriously asking me that? (NB, for clarity, I'm talking about *proper* patents, ie ones for actual inventions, not "methods" or "software" or nonsense like that)
I would have up-voted you if it hadn't been for that last line.
Patents, when granted and applied properly serve a useful purpose. Unfortunately, of course, these days the system has been so abused with ridiculously broad patents being granted (not to mention software patents) that the whole system has broken down and needs root-and-branch reforming.
> Apps on phones need to know what the device is doing for a start.
Can you not see the difference between knowing if the phone owner is making a call and knowing *who* the owner is calling?
The former I (probably) don't have an issue with. The latter I do have an issue with. The problem is that *I* don't get the choice if I can only grant an "all or nothing" permission.
It isn't what they do with the permissions *now*, it's what they *can* do with them in the future which is what concerns people.
Given the lack of granularity in Android permissions (which are pretty much all or nothing), I'd certainly prefer "nothing" in cases like this given the way FB considers you to be the product.
Of course the fact is that *some* such pictures, even if of entirely legal acts, can be considered illegal if they fall under the Extreme Porn legislation...
See icon for details...!
> Bristow said he could see “advantages” if the government stripped Scotland Yard of its leadership role in the fight against terrorism, arguing that capabilities and tactics in fighting organised criminals and terrorists are often the same. The implication of this would be for the National Crime Agency to lead the fight against both terrorism and organised crime.
Hmm, indeed. Doesn't that rather sound like someone Empire Building?
> Oh well three would rather be blown up than risk having their grocery order read. Any choice of terrorist cell? What a strange world.
What a strange world *you* live in, where, because *you* can't see the dangers of having the State snoop on everything we do and everything we say and know about everyone we talk to, you are quite happy to give away *our* Rights and Liberties which people fought wars to protect.
Oh and do you not see the irony of you posting as AC either...???
Maybe there are elections coming up...
How about "How the *fuck* was this sort of thing possible at all for a 'rogue staffer'"?
Oh well isn't *that* generous of them!
Clarke used the Monolith to take a short cut :-)
"My god! It's full of stars!"
> So you are really looking at a few billion of years full-out collection.
Now try typing "How old is the Moon" into Google...
> You may want to explain where gigatons of pure energy come from
Erm, why does the Moon shine...?
I agree entirely.
There have been plenty of preposterously non-scientific episodes in past series of Who, but at least we had some real tension in this one and chances for Capaldi and Coleman to stretch their acting talents as well as deliver some lovely lines such as "I'll slap you so hard you'll Regenerate!"
Oh and as for those complaining about "Too many episodes set on Earth", I grew up with the Pertwee era...!
... of Police Squad!
Although spam is a nuisance and even the best filters can't stop it all, it is, in a way, some consolation that whilst it's possible for people to spam without being stopped, it is also possible for others to express themselves without state interference and control.
Ok, I admit it's hardly an ideal situation, but consider the alternative...
... we mustn't object or complain about the Police using the full extent of their "legal" powers to protect us from terrorists and paedophiles and drug dealers (oh my!) for fear that, if we do, we will be dubbed "Police Haters" by Matt...
Whatever Matt's reasons (and reasoning) we should still allow him the right of Freedom of Expression, even though in his idealistic fascist state he'd deny that right to anyone who disagreed with him (ironic, as he keeps calling everyone else "sheeple", when what he really means is that they're not following him...)
It's a shame in a way because occasionally he does actually come up with intelligent points, but he seems to lack confidence in his arguments because to "reinforce" them he has to resort to name-calling, oh-so-clever insulting name-changes, ad hominems and keeping on moving the goalposts every time someone makes a point he can't answer.
Then there's also his habit of trying to shift the burden of proof by, rather than him having to prove he's right, demanding that others prove he is wrong (of course when someone does that, as I did recently, with quotes from the actual laws involved, he just moved the goalposts again).
So let him post, if nothing else it shows some the dangers we face if we stop fighting to protect our Rights and Liberites.
The problem with Cube (not The Cube IIRC ) is that there were too many unanswered questions and the answers that were provided in the sequels really didn't make sense (and looked more like ret-cons for the most part).
Also some characters seemed to be in there just to supply useful information for plot exposition and, once they'd done that, they were killed off as they were no longer of any use.
So, nice film, nice ideas, but ultimately unsatisfying.
THE CRIME ISSSSS LIFE. THE SSSSSENTENCE ISSSS DEATH!
- Judge Death.
Unfortunately it's very true and very disturbing...
Ah, but it's different when *they* do it...
... an honest politician is one who *stays* bought..
Capaldi is a great actor, but, like all such actors, he's struggling with what have been, mostly, frankly naff stories.
They're trying too hard to be "funny" or "mad-cap" or "screwball" which really isn't working and when they do come up with something good such as Listen (although pretty much from the start I was thinking "Hang on, isn't that The Silence he's talking about?") it then ended with what was an utterly ridiculous cop-out ending which ruined it.
Most of the rest of the episodes have been lazy re-treads (hanging a massive Lampshade on the clockwork robots and having a bit of girl-on-lizard-girl action wasn't enough to save the first one) and Robot of Sherwood was just dull.
My feelings on The Caretaker were "well, it was better than the last couple of episodes", but that really wasn't saying much.
Come on, Who writers, you can do better than this...
I cannot remember just how many times I *almost* gave up on the Gap series, but then there would be a page (or even just a paragraph) of the incredible writing which Donaldson is occasionally capable of and it would hook me back in...
Yet another argument for why we, as users, should get control over what an App can actually access and use, rather than "If you want to use this App, you *have* to give it all these permissions, take it or leave it".
Any noun in English can be verbed :-)
... Twat or Non-Twat?
... from the Department of Pre-Crime...
> P.S. The guns, drugs, bags of fertilizer, little boys, sex workers, and my missus' bruises are all hidden in my phone, which is encrypted, so even if we're pulled over there's nothing 'the man' can do about it. Let's ride!
Erm, you do realise that, by stating that in a public forum, you are giving the courts the ability to order you to unlock your phone or be held in contempt of court (and fined/ locked up for it until you do so) because you have thereby given them evidence that you do have illegal material on your phone?
... oh, wait, yes it is, never mind.
Yes, Flip, of course, because if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear...
Hmm, telecommunications company says Net Neutrality is bad for "everyone", what a surprise.
Meanwhile, of course, he makes a flawed analogy, it's not a comparison between ordinary letter post and FedEx, it's where everyone *had* FedEx type speeds, but then got told "If you're trying to ship certain types of package, then we're going to slow them down to letter post speeds".
> Can you see why objecting so strongly to the following might have given the impression that you did?
Can you please read the following again, now that you have understood what I was saying, and realise that I am not "objecting" to it, but objecting to the *policy* which causes it to be necessary:
"Charity like this should *NOT* be necessary, because the State should *NOT* fuck up like this.
"It most certainly shouldn't fuck up (or fuck people up) like that as a matter of policy!"
> don't blame me for responding to what you did in fact write.
I'm not. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote.
> the state is not the government. The state is the whole apparatus, including us the electorate.
Now that is just naiive. The State is whoever holds the power and we, the electorate do *not* hold the power. All we have is the choice of electing Tweedledum or Tweedledee who then go and do what the hell they like until, eventually, at the next election, they want our votes again.
> I don't understand your antipathy to charity itself.
And again you continue to misunderstand me. I have no "antipathy" towards charity, my antipathy is towards the people who make such charity *necessary* because of their deliberate policies towards those who end up needing it.
If you don't get that now I see no point in continuing this discussion.
> given that the state, being comprised of humans, fucks up, I think it's great that private individuals do what they can to redress the fuck-ups via charity.
As I said, this is not simply a fuck up, it is a *policy* of deliberately fucking people up. The Tories are targetting the poor, the disabled and those who need the support of the State and using them as a scape-goat to blame for the problems which were actually caused by their rich banker mates (who give them big donations and lucrative Directorships in return).
Why should we have to "step up with private charity" when we are already paying taxes to support the people who need it, only for the government to give tax breaks to people who don't need them and, at the same time, flogging off services like the NHS which we bought and paid for?
Snip of a lot of blather where Matt accuses me of nit-picking whilst, erm, picking nits, I'll just address the (few) salient points:
> no doubt do deter other policemen from dishonesty.
Yes, just like the investigation into the Stephen Lawrence case have deterred police officers from Institutional Racism or the finger wagging following various deaths due to excessive force by the Police stopped the death of Ian Tomlinson or... (I'd mention other examples, but Matt's blinkers won't let him see them, so there's no point in wasting my time)
> which is your nit-picking way of avoiding admitting you cannot provide any law broken by the Met in this case
No, Matt, it's pointing out that you seem to have little clue about what you're talking about.
> I have no idea, not being party to the Police's authorization system [...] Firstly, you need to show that there is actually a legal requirement for the Met to record such authorizations - if not, just like all other organisations, they are not going to try double-guessing every possible data retention requirement. Secondly, you also need to show that, even if there was a requirement to record such authorizations, that there was a secondary requirement to make that information publically available upon request.
Ye gods, Matt, did you actually *BOTHER* to read the original article? Let me quote it for you to save you time:
"the police refused to respond, claiming that because they didn't bother keeping records of how often they used RIPA powers [...] given that the RIPA powers it uses for rifling through innocent people's communications metadata must, legally, be “authorised” by a constable of superintendent rank"
And, to save you even more time, let me quote from the RIPA itself:
* * * * *
35 Notification of authorisations for intrusive surveillance.
(1)Where a person grants or cancels a [F1police, SOCA, [F2Revenue and CustomsF2]][F3F1or OFT] authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance, he shall give notice that he has done so to an ordinary Surveillance Commissioner.
(2)A notice given for the purposes of subsection (1)—
(a)must be given in writing as soon as reasonably practicable after the grant or, as the case may be, cancellation of the authorisation to which it relates;
(b)must be given in accordance with any such arrangements made for the purposes of this paragraph by the Chief Surveillance Commissioner as are for the time being in force; and
(c)must specify such matters as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(4)Where a notice for the purposes of subsection (1) of the grant of an authorisation has been received by an ordinary Surveillance Commissioner, he shall, as soon as practicable—
(a)scrutinise the authorisation; and
(b)in a case where notice has been given in accordance with subsection (3)(a), decide whether or not to approve the authorisation.
* * * * *
Now you can whine and weasel and nit-pick and move the goalposts all you like (and I'm sure you will) but this is an absolute, legal requirement that there must be a *written record* made of the authorisation and that it must be passed on to an ordinary Surveillance Commissioner yet the Police have said that they *DID NOT* keep such records which is in clear breach of the law.
So I have done exactly what you asked, will you accept this, or will you just try to dodge the issue and make yourself look even more of a fool?
> I have a problem with willful self-deception.
ROFL! I'm sorry, I would have liked to reply more in this discussion, but another Irony Detector has just exploded...
As always, feel free to declare victory (which is, of course, in no way self-deception!)
> As Keith Wallis was in a court of law, and the other officers involved got fired, which sounds like they were held to account.
Oh yes, Matt, they've had a *sound* slap on the wrist and that will *definitely* act as a deterrent to all their fellow officers the next time they decide to try to stitch someone up!
> So please do show how any of the actions carried out by the Met investigating this case was illegal under current UK laws. Oh, and please note that is UK law, not whatever fantasy liberal law you would like to have apply.
Oh dear, Matt, shooting yourself in the foot again? It is *not* UK Law, it's the law of England and Wales since Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems. Didn't you know this? Perhaps it is you who should be doing more reading...
Meanwhile, of course, you're also engaging in your usual practice of shifting the goalposts to where your shot ended up and declaring that you've scored.
Please try looking at the *first paragraph* of the article and note where it says "Earlier this week we discovered that not only are London's Metropolitan Police rampantly abusing data-snooping laws to hunt down and punish employees who talk to journalists."
Also note where it says "given that the RIPA powers it uses for rifling through innocent people's communications metadata must, legally, be “authorised” by a constable of superintendent rank, the need for such monitoring becomes obvious", now tell me, are they authorising the use of these powers and then not making a note of it (as they are supposed to) or are they just not bothering with such authority at all? Either way they are behaving in a way that is not open nor transparent and certainly not in a way that is compatible with the Common Law principle of the Presumption of Innocence (even though, in your fantasy fascist land that would be the first principle to be disposed of).
As for your comments desperately trying to cover up your error of forgetting to include your usual Ad Hominem, it seems that you have some sort of paranoid conspiracy theory about the Mod being "out to get you"...
Anyone got a tin foil hat for Matt?
Still doesn't mean they'll *do* anything about the security flaws in their systems...
> Do you mean to have PARIS mount LOHAN?
Sure, you'd just need a device for Supplementing The Register's Aircraft by Penetrating Orbital Navigator or STRAP-ON for short...
"...to ensure that their customers are who they say they are and are not involved in money laundering activities"
And not, in any way, colluding with them to do exactly that *cough*Barclays*cough*
I think you're trying for sarcasm.
If so, try harder.