"proportionate, necessary, and urgent".
In other words "Because we say so!"
5194 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
In other words "Because we say so!"
... whilst he's sitting there waiting for the rest of the crew to get the rubbish on board, the guy who gets to drive the Bin Lorry will be playing Angry Birds...
... at a speed of about three miles an hour, stopping every fifty feet or so...
You appear not to understand the concept of "fundamental human rights" if you think that you can "protect" one right by *removing* another.
And in other news "Ohio man cuffed for shagging inflatable pool raft"...
Why do these sound disturbingly similar offences?!
Well neither of them were that much good when there was a Xenomorph on board...!
And how much will it cost to ensure that the comet or asteroid that, statistically, *is* heading towards this planet at some time, doesn't?
May I draw your attention to another story in El Reg: "Lawsuit alleges that Windows Phone 7 tracks users", to name just one example.
*IF* this data is simply "numbers of phones in an area" then, yes, it's pretty much anonymous. But if that's linked with "phones that made or received a call or text in that area", suddenly there's not so much anonymity.
Your question "If fears of a worst-case slippery-slope were are going to be the main concern every single time suggestions are made of potentially useful use of data, how many useful uses would actually happen?" wanders off into Straw Man arguments, so I'll just point out that you then go on to say "If they're not currently guarding my privacy, then I wouldn't seem likely to be losing anything, whatever happened" which seems like you're saying "oh well, I've already lost my privacy, so why worry?"
You conclude by asking "Do I really have a right to be entirely /unseen/ in public, and not simply a right not to be unnecessarily followed", but you appear to miss the point that unless *we* keep an eye on those watching us (quis custodiet...?) then that "right not to be unnecessarily followed" could, like so many other rights, be gradually whittled away "for our own good".
Somehow I don't think that attending a Chumbawumba gig (even if "state un-approved") would be such a serious offence that you would be banned from Switzerland (of course if it had been, say, Justin Bieber...)
But imagine, instead, you'd attended (or just been near) an anti-government demonstration in (insert name of repressive regime of your choice) and your phone was linked to that, perhaps matters would be different.
The question you need to ask is "How anonymous will it actually be?"
If you are going to an event which is "not approved by the State", would you want even "anonymous" information being collected about you?
I'm one up on you since I didn't even have a Twatter account to unsubscribe in the first place :-)
Remember "Salvage 1" ;-)
(There again, you should also remember that doing salvage on "an empty, abandoned vessel" is usually a terminal experience for the majority of the crew...!)
... that the US has its own independent space lift capabili...
... oh, sorry, I forgot, it doesn't any more...
... "there are enough supplies on the ISS to last six people for three months."
Hmm, how about a real-life Lifeboat Debate...!
I don't know about BT Headset, but the TomTom Rider (designed for motorbikes) uses a bluetooth link to a Scala earpiece.
Only drawback is that they're about twice the price of the standard units because of the extra cost of the headset, waterproofing etc...
I am well aware of the rates that businesses are charged by eBay and PayPal, as well as the percentages charged by card-handling services because I run my own business and have looked into (or pay) such things.
The fact still remains that, in some cases, a business on eBay can lose almost *ten percent* of the sale value of an item by the time you've taken into account listing fees, final value fees and PayPal fees, compared to the 28p for a Debit Card or 2.85% for a Credit Card that I pay my card handling service.
But remember to wait until *after* he's made the money to sue him like all good Patent Trolls! ;-)
And, of course, they're "double dipping" by taking a chunk of the profits every time someone uses PayPal as well...
And would that count as Extreme Pornography?!
"...is that it hurts a bit when you get shot..."
ITYM it hurts *someone else* when they get hit!
"if found guilty he should be charged."
Erm, I think you'll find that you have to be charged *before* you can be found guilty! (Well, unless you write for certain Tabloids...)
"Jeter" has one 't', not two (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._W._Jeter )
And saying that the sequel was "good" because the rest of what he writes is crap is like saying that banging your head against a brick wall is good because it feels so much better when you stop!
... it's not based on K.W.Jeter's dire "Blade Runner 2" which tried and epically failed to square the circle between the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and the film "Blade Runner"!
And when he had all six of them running the Matrix screen saver that was *really* cool!
No shit, Sherlock icon... enough said.
The plaintiffs should have claimed that it cost over $5000 worth of time to deal with the security issues raised (cf McKinnon)
Well, you've got to admit that "Packrat" is a little unusual...
...Says someone calling himself Sir Cosmo Bonsor....
Right, so if *your* name doesn't fit with *their* policies, *you* have to change *your* name to suit them!
... that username is already taken...!
Go back and click on "thumbs up" instead and it will swap the down-vote to an up-vote.
... "Yeah, there's this guy, calls himself "Inventor of the Marmite Laser" he's got this flash computer and a load of other gear, I reckon he's one of these crooks who's fucked up innocent people's lives...
"(The fact that I've got a grudge against the bloke and he's done nothing wrong except piss me off is a mere technical detail...)"
... they have staff!
... they could have been given Segways!
No, we don't, for instance you could have added the Extreme Porn Law that the last Government brought in too.
But that's not to say that these are good or sensible laws...
... you've got to remember that Lewis is a navy guy for whom all "fly boys" are nothing more than glory hounds who are more interested in getting ribbons on their chest to impress the ladies...
Err, perhaps they'd better read the Extreme Porn Legislation carefully or otherwise block it in this country otherwise...
... on second thoughts, forget I mentioned it!
Presuming we're talking about Grant here, no, he wasn't cuffed, however he *was* lying face down. The officer decided, supposedly, that he was going to Tase him, but pulled his pistol instead and discharged it.
The thing is, even if he had drawn the Taser *why* did he feel it necessary to Tase someone who was lying face down and *NOT* a threat? Perhaps to punish him for "not cooperating with the Police"? Is that a legitimate use of a Taser, do you think?
And, once again, you seem to think that this guys death was his own fault. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that not "sitting down and shutting up" is not a capital crime?
Your final paragraph reminds me of the old joke "Help the Police, beat yourself up"...
Ok, fine, I got the wrong person, although given the way that you referred to Oscar Grant, even on re-reading I can see why I didn't think you were referring to Charles Hill because you start with "He did throw the knife" and then refer to Grant, not Hill.
If you have a choice between a Taser and a Handgun *even if* under duress, wouldn't your "fairly extensive firearms training" suggest that you make sure, especially if "under duress" *which* weapon you're using *before* you discharge it?
"I'm telling you, in excruciating detail, that if you are an idiot when an authority figure with access to firearms tells you to "stay put", and you choose NOT to "stay put", you are likely to remove yourself from the gene pool. Why people have issues with this basic principle is beyond me ... Blaming the cop is contraindicated."
Because the "basic principle" is that you *DO NOT* use a firearm on someone *UNLESS* you wish to *KILL* that person. "Fairly extensive firearms training" should tell you that "in excruciating detail". Being an "idiot" or not doing what an authority figure with access to firearms says is *not* a capital crime, nor does it justify the use of deadly force.
And, yes, I did read your post for content, probably more carefully than you did when you wrote your rant that wandered off into claims that "most of the folks arrested in the "knife thrower" killing protests are the same rent-a-mob that protests Redwood cutting (at least in good weather), trashed Seattle awhile back". (Got any evidence for this? Any cites? Names?)
Even if they *are* the same people, so what? Are they only allowed to protest *one* issue? Was their protest illegal? Did you agree with Syria and Libya cutting off internet and mobile phone access to stop protests? If not, why agree with it in this case because you consider these people to be "rent a mob"? (Who is "renting" them? Is announcing by mobile device that there is going to be a protest "renting a mob? Why is that different from any other way of organising a protest?)
Care to try again to answer my points?
... there are plenty of copies of it available on YouTube etc and the officer shot a man in the back who was lying face down on the floor.
The officer claimed, apparently, that he was trying to use his Taser, well if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you shouldn't be allowed to use either! (You claim "fairly extensive firearms training", can you tell the difference?")
As for "If a cop tells you to sit down, keep your hands in sight, and wait for them to sort things out ... you'd better do exactly that. If you're innocent, you'll walk away unhurt." are you saying that if you *don't* do that then you're liable to be shot just because you've not done as you're told? Does your "fairly extensive firearms training" justify the use of deadly force in such a situation? Is it justified if someone is "being a stupid ass"? If so, I know a lot of other people you can shoot.
And finally I get sick of people (especially the authorities) trying to block, ban or disrupt lawful protest or dismissing anyone who wants to object to the unnecessary use of deadly force as "rent a mob" simply because they don't agree with them.
I can't recall it happening recently, but I'm sure it has happened in the past, however short of going back through all my old posts to find an example, I'll just have to keep an eye out for it in future.
I did wonder if it might have been due to the moderation process eg with reply posts somehow getting "disconnected" from the OP.
I'm sure I've replied to messages mid page yet still seen the response turn up as a "new" message instead of part of the thread.
Actually I think this is an occasional glitch with El Reg's forum system. Before now I've done "Reply to post" only to have my message come up as a separate entity instead of being appended with a "quote bar" to the OP.
"...Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow."
- Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5.
... the same one that puts plans on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"!
... I'm in a hurry, I'm holding my phone in my hand as I dash along a corridor, jump down a short flight of steps and *boom* there go my fingers...
... about fools and their money...
... and Carry On...?!
At least someone's got a sense of humour :-)