4743 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"a gnat's chuff less than the speed of light"
Is this going replace the Velocity of a Sheep in a Vacuum as a standard El Reg measure?
"It seems just as easy to draw the conclusion...
"...that mere use of an IP address shouldn't be grounds for armed police to raid a person's home."
Yes, but that would involve the use of a bit of sense!
I have no doubt that the Police took great delight in informing neighbours of the reasons for the raid and the arrest to the extent that many will think "well, there's no smoke without fire" and consider that they should tell their kids to stay away from him "just to be on the safe side"...
"Taleban are out of power and hiding in the hills"
So them breaking into a jail and freeing 100 of their compatriots is merely a statistical error?
Fewer British soldiers have died in Helmand only because they've handed over control to the US.
Military Leaders are worried that the Taliban will resume their actions as soon as the poppy harvest is over.
Yes, Afghanistan has had democratic elections, unfortunately many Afghans are not so happy that they have effected had a US supported and controlled Puppet Government imposed.
If you want to think that this is "success" then you are more naive that even I thought.
@Ian Michael Gumby
"The point I was trying to make was that if you took your example of 'wrongly detained' and then becoming a terrorist... and transposed it to a situation where a person was wrongly incarcerated and then had their conviction overturned, how many went on to commit another crime and get sent back to the pokey?"
Oh dear, Ian, you are *STILL* totally missing the point. How can someone go on "to commit *ANOTHER* crime" if they were "wrongly incarcerated" and then released because it was later discovered that they had *NOT* committed *ANY* crime in the first place?!
"Presumption of Innocence" does not mean "we just haven't caught you yet!"
"Putting a prisoner in Gitmo isn't going to make that person a terrorist."
So, let's see. By your logic anyone who *was* locked up at Guantanamo Bay and was then released and *didn't* subsequently join Al Qaeda obviously *wasn't* a terrorist in the first place, but anyone who *did* subsequently join Al Qaeda clearly must have been a terrorist!
Unfortunately, the fallacy in your logic, as someone has demonstrated in another post, people who were interned without trial in Northern Ireland as suspected terrorists but were later released *did* go on to join the IRA and other such organisations and commit terrorist acts to get revenge for the way they were treated. In other words they were "radicalised" not by others, but by *us*.
"I also suggest that you look at the programs in Saudi Arabia where they rehabilitate those who were in Gitmo."
Is that the "rehabilitation" which was known as "Extraordinary Rendition" which involved electric shocks, beatings, mock executions and other forms of torture by the Saudis on behalf of the USA who decided that water-boarding and sleep deprivation etc weren't sufficient?
As for "I guess I think all pacifists are silly", you said in another post "I mean Graham is definitely a pacifist who seems to have a non-violence at all costs attitude. There's nothing wrong with that naive viewpoint until you try to enforce your beliefs on others." which just shows that you completely fail to understand me.
I do not have a "non-violence at all costs" attitude, however I believe that if you're going to *use* violence, you'd better have a bloody good justification for it and "trying to enforce your beliefs on others" is not such a justification, in fact that is what Al Qaeda want to do to us! So what *you* are saying is that *we* should emulate *them* to "enforce our beliefs" on others.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Walt Kelly.
@Ian Michael Gumby
"Using your logic than anyone in the US that was wrongly convicted and then had their conviction overturned went back to a life of crime."
I think you need to check *your* logic because someone who is "wrongly convicted" ie did *not* have a "life of crime" cannot then "go back to a life of crime" which they didn't have in the first place!
As for: How many detainees were there / are there in Gitmo? How many would fit the description as 'wrongly detained'? I don't know the answer. Do you?
No, I don't and that is the *whole point*! The way to find out if someone is correctly detained is to put them and the evidence in front of a Court of Law and see if they can be Proven Guilty.
And please, stop the ridiculous Straw Man arguments eg about the escape in Afghanistan, they're just making you look silly.
"How about the victims of 9-11?"
How about the families of some of the victims of the September 11th attacks who were objecting to the invasion of Iraq with "Not in My Name" and, more importantly not in the name of their dead loved one...?
Which part of "Until Proven Guilty" don't you understand?
If you can *prove* them guilty then *do* so. Put them in front of a Court of Law (not some Military Kangaroo Court), present the evidence allow them a *proper* Defence and then if they're found guilty, lock them up.
But holding people without trial and torturing them for information which they may not even have is certainly not the mark of a civilised nation which considers itself to be "better" than the terrorists.
"you could say...
...that in keeping them locked up, the US is actually saving foreign lives."
You could also try saying "Presumed Innocent Unless Proven Guilty".
Have you ever considered....?
That if you were someone who was incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, water-boarded, deprived of sleep, repeatedly interrogated to reveal information that you never knew etc etc, you might feel that, on release, joining Al Qaeda would be a bloody good idea!
... Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?
“Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion...
"...to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide,”
And is that "encouragement" something on the lines of "If you decide to insist on your Civil Rights like the Right to Silence, the Right to a Lawyer and the Right of Presumption of Innocence" then we're going to make things really hard for you because we'll assume that you have something to hide and therefore you're guilty"?
"Just over half of the 11-12 year olds...
"...rising to over three quarters of the 15-16 year olds know how to change the privacy settings on their profile."
So, more children than Adults know how to do this, then...
@When I were a lad
Actually it was Hot Gossip who appeared on the Kenny Everett Show displaying their "bodily particles" (not to mention Cleo Rocos with her non-bulgarian airbag assets!)
"such offences invoke an automatic suppression order"
Whereas in this country the suspect's name would probably already be splashed across the front pages of the tabloids such that even if they are subsequently exonerated, their reputation would be destroyed...
voice-of-consumer designed taser device
"Yeah, we want to zap the bastards *twice*!"
That's what we have pencils and paper for.
And now they'll no doubt be used to write down the password...!
For all those stories from the Department of the Bleedin' Obvious!
A lovely cartoon tribute from Dork Tower...
"mix with other prisoners"?
Whilst the move to a new facility following his abominable treatment by the Marines is welcome, I have to wonder whether putting him in the same room as other prisoners is going to be a good idea because there's more than a chance that at least some of them will consider him a "traitor" and decide to try to mete out their own version of "justice".
I'm hoping it will be fine weather for the wedding...
... not for the Royal Couple, but because whilst everyone else is indoors watching it, I'll be out having a blast on the motorbike on virtually empty roads :-)
I think you mean "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" rather than just "Ad-Hom", however the point is that the attack on Nick Clegg at the end is just the No campaign going beyond the bottom of the barrel because they've already scraped a hole in it...
Slightly off topic, but...
Like many people I've just received the No2AV campaign's latest missive through my front door.
Now read this and see all the lies, half-truths and misinformation it contains:
"Although the system proposed is voluntary..."
Ah, "voluntary" a word that is liable to mean "if you don't volunteer, you're screwed, because without this you're not going to be able to do business online"
I think what they meant was...
... "Microsoft should be held to a lower burden of proof than anyone else, but only when *they* are the defendants..."
"I think maybe you just sleep easier when you can write it all off as childish mythology?"
Err, WTF? What makes you think that I lose any sleep over this at all?
It's the "believers" who worry because they have been convinced that if they don't do X or say Y or behave like Z that they're they're damned to some Nasty Place(tm) instead of going to some Nice Place(tm)
PS Try looking at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sky%20fairy for definitions of "sky fairy" dating back at least 5 years.
"Man should abandon hopes of being like God...
"...if he wants to have a relationship with God."
So Man should abandon hopes of being like someone's mythical sky fairy in order to "have a relationship" with said mythical sky fairy?
I sense a circular argument here...
I think some people...
... need to go back and read the original Fleming stories before they start talking about "Real Bond(tm)"
At least in Quantum of Solace they got the drink right!
Why didn't Cellan-Jones just ask...
... if Lazaridis had stopped beating his wife...?
Reminds me of...
"The addition of adverts...
"...brings the price of a Kindle down to $114, a shade over £70, though it will be US-only for a while"
That obviously explains why there was an advert on the back of one of the Sunday Paper magazines yesterday plugging the Kindle for the new low price of £111...
... of derisive laughter, Bruce!
Yet another hypocritical politician who thinks that it's one law for them, another for everyone else.
We should introduce him to Wacky Jacqui...
Was one of the mice...
... called Algernon?
I have some flowers here :-)
No, I'd want the default option to be "Don't include me on your database" unless I *agree*, whether I have a public profile which makes em "vulnerable" or not.
Even if that wasn't the default, I'd prefer the opt-out to be clear and unambiguous rather than my having to opt out of the NHS Spine *and* the Summary Care Record and any other way they can try to find to sneak my data onto their systems without my knowledge or consent.
Still, as you say, I'm not famous, so why should I worry about my data being put on a USB stick or a laptop which is then left on a train or in a taxi or sent through the post or...?
"politicians and celebrities will not get an automatic exemption from inclusion"
However all they have to do is say "I'm famous, don't put my records on the system with all the little people" and job's a good-un...
Windows 7 was my idea...
... but I gave away the IP to Microsoft who patented it...
The police cracked the case in "seconds"...
... but what it doesn't say is how long it took them to actually *get* to the scene of the crime...
So a few thougths...
"putting up snorkel or 'snort' masts (to run diesels) is suicide as airborne radar can sweep huge stretches of ocean"
Right, so how about creating a bunch of mini-torpedos which you set to quietly motor off in various directions and, after a set amount of time, they stick up a mast with a radar reflector on the top and suddenly you've got snorkels everywhere! (Oh, and add in a sound generator to confuse the Sonarman Jones's of this world ;-) )
As for "Responding manned units starting from the "flaming datum" of the destroyed ACTUV would soon find and destroy the sub as it crept away - all the sooner if it surfaced or put up masts in order to flee more quickly."
Right, another mini-torpedo, but this one's job is, for instance, to latch onto the ACTUV with a magnetic grapple and then steer it off in another direction or just apply reverse thrust to keep it in place for a while then, after a set period of time, explode.
For every "cunning plan" that someone comes up with, there's an equally cunning counter :-)
You are free to vote for...
... any party we approve of.
If you vote for anyone else you're DAMNED TO HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY, SINNER!!!
Does the number...
... 601 ring any bells...?
Is anyone else thinking...
... SkyDiver: Prepare to launch Sky 1...!
.... bounced e-mail. Ah-ha-ha-haaa!
... and Don't Blink!
Story arc - again?
So you'd prefer a whole bunch of episodes where what happens this week has nothing to do with what happened last week and will be forgotten by next week?
... those little guys come up with some great idea and then find that the Big Guys have trolled every single possible permutation of patent even (or especially) ones that are so bloody obvious that they should never have been granted a patent at all or which are clearly based on prior art, but the little guys can't afford to employ a big enough legal time to defeat the Big Guy's financial muscle, so the little guys have to fork out big chunks of money that should have gone into R&D to get a licence...
@of course... and Er...
"Google's argument will have no weight until google as some weight in that same arena - i.e. it is a wolf - or as we may hope, a sheep in wolve's clothing - or with a wolfs jawbone as a weapon..."
"If they fall in to anyone's hand but 'ours' we might end up paying more than the patents cost."
The current system of Patents and Licensing in the US is akin to the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction in nuclear war! Big Company A amasses lots of Patents, so does Big Company B, each agrees not to sue each other and, instead, swaps Patent licenses.
The only problem being that it only works for those Big Companies, meanwhile everyone else is shut out or ends up being forced to pay and pay and pay in order to be able to compete in the marketplace with the "big boys".
Advocating Patent Reform whilst, at the same time, amassing big chunks of IP sounds more than a little hypocritical.
"Google has long been an advocate of patent law reform...
"...but it has come to realize that before such reform occurs, it needs a hefty portfolio for defensive purposes"
Of course. Gods forbid that such patents should fall into the wrong hands (defined as "any other hands but ours...")
How to make science classes interesting...
... show your pupils Mythbusters!
The default position for science is scepticism. You start with an hypothesis and then test it to see if it's valid, if not, it's Busted.
If it comes out appearing to be Plausible or Confirmed, then you put out your results to Peer Review (in the case of Mythbusters, the online forums where fans can comment on what was done and, possibly, things that were missed) and re-evaluate your conclusions and perhaps test again (ie revisit) the myth to check your conclusions.
What's most important, of course, is that you shouldn't get so wedded to your conclusions that you refuse to accept that they may be wrong.
Now *that* is science!
@f111f and laird cumings
Just try thinking for a moment: If you were kept under the regime that Bradley Manning is and you weren't a suicide risk at the start of it, you'd sure as hell be one by the end of it!
Google "Physics: The Problem with Motion"
Thanks for that, Louis, I was in need of a good laugh.
Don't you know, he was Thinking Of The Children! That's all the reason he needs!!!