Look, I don't want any toast, and he doesn't want any toast. In fact, noone around here wants any toast. Not now, not ever. No toast.
2014 posts • joined 19 Nov 2007
Re: Spineless of them to give in
""Jack the Ripper (British) was apalling. Never give the British a free pass, never.""
Well, your spelling is appalling, but whatever. The point was that she gets five years in prison for being a victim, and this is because the Church is a corrupt institution. See also, massive paedophilia cover-ups.
Not quite sure how Jack the Ripper was a case of institutional corruption on the part of the British.
Re: RE: unwanted infantilism
"Might be worth checking your stats, in UK 2 pedestrians die a year from cycles but 6 a day from cars.
Evidence based approach please!"
Ooh, ooh, can I do that?
You've forgotten to divide by the number of passenger miles. Cars kill 2000/year, roughly, bikes 2/year, roughly. So if there are more than 1000 times as many passenger miles by car than bike, then cars are safer for pedestrians. Here is the data per billion passenger miles. It looks bad for Mr Cyclist, but terrible for Mr Motorcyclist.
Pedestrians KSI per billion vehicle miles (not even passenger miles, which inflates the car death rate, as average occupancy rate is about 1.6, and of course massively inflates the bus death rate):
By cycle: K 0.9, SI 31
By motocycle: K 6.0, SI 66
By car: K 1.1, SI 16
By bus/coach: K 12, SI 81
By van: K 0.7, SI 6.4
By HGV: K 3.9, SI 5.3
(K = killed, SI = seriously injured)
So what can we learn from this?
1) Carpooling wouldn't change this data, but would reduce absolute numbers of casualties,
2) Two people in a car are safer than two bicycles for K, and one car much safer than one bicycle for KSI in total.
3) Motorcycles are a menace to society and maybe should be banned on safety grounds.
4) Get rid of all bus routes with an occupancy below 12 or so?
Re: re: unwarranted triumphalism
"that pays none of the mythical "road tax" "
Stop being silly. Road tax is a pretty good description of it. It isn't a car tax, as lorries and motorcycles pay it, and if you state SORN then you don't either In fact, you only pay it to drive on UK roads. Its official name was Road Fund Licence, later VED. Road Fund Licence is very similar to Road Tax. I still call the water rates even though they are a bill from a privatized utility company. People call it the dole instead of JSA.
I suppose you never referred to it as the 'bedroom tax' either, and solely as the 'under-occupancy penalty'.
"as the autumn weather turns to winter for much of the world and temperatures drop."
Well, half of the world.
"Why if you have made $1 million in crypto currencies would you leave it in the trust of a 3rd party like Parity?"
Because it's not really worth $1m. The same way as if I invented a secret gold-making procedure, and made a million tonnes of gold, if wouldn't be worth quadrillions. It's worth $1m because the trading volumes are low. Try to sell those Ethereum and you'll find the market is nowhere deep enough to handle it and you will get almost nothing back.
OpenSSL patches, Apple bug fixes, Hilton's $700k hack bill, Kim Dotcom raid settlement, Signal desktop app, and more
Re: @Doug S... I wonder what the Trump apologists' excuse will be this time?
"What Clinton did was to use a personal secret server instead of conducting her business on a .gov email account. This was done with the intent of violating the FOIA."
So secret she told the State Department about it, and offered them every e-mail on it? Loads of the e-mails off that server are in the departmental archive, the rest were deleted after State said they didn't want them.
But, I guess these are actual facts, in the real world, so not of much interest to you.
Re: Horrible green stuff
"Amazingly people once did think it healthy to add radium to a drink."
And put it in toothpaste.
"My response to the Senator would have been something along the lines of:
"For anyone who fails to grasp that distinction, I would question their competence to be on this committee""
Then you would have been an idiot. Free speech is not untrammelled, for example with respect to political speech, where there are rules and regulations. Speech is free amongst yourselves, as a group of individuals, but Facebook is more like an online campaign rally than a chat at the pub, Twitter even more so. There are regulations on this type of speech, that currently do not apply to Twitter. Why?
Re: Need in UK
"Unfortunately death by being hit by a car that's mounted the pavement, or driven dangerously is so common that it's been normalised."
At one point I think I worked this out, and cars and bicycles have a similar pedestrian KSI (killed or seriously injured) per km driven/ridden statistic. It's just that there are lots more cars going much further, so they kill and maim more people.
"Why not posit that (in any given big bang) there will be some excess of one or the other polarity of matter, as a result of Quantum Uncertainty?
I know I know, not very rigourous. Just my 'gut' feeling, really."
The obvious cheat solution is the anthropic principle. We cannot see all the universes where matter and antimatter annihilate each other, only ones that don't have this property.
Re: anti-particles "moving backwards in time" ?
I'm not sure this antiparticles moving backwards in time makes much sense, to be honest. First, both particles and antiparticles have positive spin, because spin is a magnitude. If electrons are paired, one has spin 1/2 and one has spin -1/2, but that just means that one is a 'vector' in the opposite direction to the other, there is no sense in which one is negative and one positive.
Second, when a neutron decays, a proton, electron and antineutrino are created. How does that antineutrino know to be there if it's going back in time? (One solution is that there are antineutrinoes everywhere, just itching to be part of a neutron decay, but that is a bit of a cop out, as although there are lots of antineutrinoes, they aren't everywhere.)
I think what is meant is that the laws of interaction work the same for anitparticles with negative time as particles with positive time. But that doesn't mean to say that antiparticles travel backwards through time, any more than since I was somewhere else yesterday I will travel backwards to there through time. Antiparticles cannot send information to the past.
Re: If it's in Ireland ...
"The fact is that Microsoft U.S. could tell its Irish office to send over the data, and the Irish office could hardly refuse to obey an instruction from head office."
I'm sorry? So if head office says "go out and kill a bunch of people", you could hardly refuse it? If it is a crime in Irish law, I would imagine that excuse won't go down well in their court.
"That's assuming that nobody in Microsoft U.S. has admin access to the Irish servers and so could just help themselves if they were so inclined."
If they want to commit a crime in Ireland then that's their business. Accessing a computer to perform illegal acts is still a crime. Whether the US would extradite is one thing, but local Microsoft employees would be in the dock for abetting a crime.
Re: Does the Ecuadorian commissary accept Bitcoin?
"All of this will be seriously disruptive to the traditional banking system: The days of fractional reserve banking (and sanctions) are numbered. Currency is far too important to trust to any one entity."
Uh huh. So let's hope you never have to pay any taxes. The country you are in generally gets to decide the currency in which you pay them. That's why there's always a demand for each currency. As for your pretend stuff, there's no intrinsic demand for it. It really is only of value because it's convertible into something useful. If you really think that the international community is going to let you and your IT project threaten the entire global economy, think again.
Re: Sadly, a decision which needs more clarity
"In common with many of the dear readers of this website I have worked at many a company where senior managers and the like have given their logins and passwords to their PA to enable them to handle all the stuff which is encrypted to save them the effort. Since each of those companies very clearly stated that such activity was forbidden and a disciplinary offence, I presume those managers/Execs in the US offices will now go to jail?"
No, the PAs would. Unauthorized access is illegal, not giving away your password.
"If Facebook and Twitter refuse, stick their proverbial middle finger up and just operate from outside the country then what would the government do? Ban them?"
It's far easier than that. If Facebook operates from outside the country and against UK law, and hence it's illegal for UK companies to deal with them, how exactly are they going to get paid for the advertising they want to show people?
"but I'm damned if I can see why someone at the lower end of the income spectrum should be subsidising the purchase of a car for a higher earner."
It's an industrial strategy, just with the subsidies for business being better hidden to avoid regulations.
Re: Tesla is not typical
"Long term future does not look good for recharge from the mains - I suspect within a few years we'll either see standardised batteries so they can be swapped or feasible Hydrogen cars."
I used to think standardised makes sense, except at one point I remembered that the batteries are about half the car at the moment, and replacing them in a hot swap would be difficult. You might as well just change cars at that point. And that makes a lot of sense if you as doing CaaS (car as a service) at that point.
"If I were running a safari and was concerned about poachers, I'd fit GPS jammer into all my vehicles. That way, even if a camera has built-in GPS or a poacher insider fitted a secret GPS logger in the vehicle, I'm still covered."
You're worried mainly about poachers as keyboard warriors, not poachers as super-spies, I guess.
Re: Am I missing something?
"but on the 2nd test there will be 5 days (assumign 5 working day week) less surely - not 1x less? (and dont get me started on how we work out how many green/how many red we need to take out)"
I think I convinced myself that summing over all possibilities for removing n balls at random for varying n gives you the same answer as if you just remove a single green ball. I didn't prove it, but that's because I couldn't be bothered.
Re: Let's be real here.
"If one of my employees shows up obviously under the influence, I'll show them the door. It's that simple, and they know it. They have the option of taking a blood test immediately after being fired, and I'll deal with the consequences if I'm wrong."
If you are in the lovely US in one of those at will states then fine, but in the UK you would be in court pretty quickly with that kind of approach.
"No, it gets you exactly the right answer."
It gets you the right answer, but to a different question. It gets you the right answer to the question "what is the chance of getting caught given that each day has a fixed probability of you being drunk", whereas the question was that in a given year there are exactly twelve drunk days, so it becomes a finite problem which needs finite methods rather than a continuous probability.
The quick way is to do 1-(0.95)^52=0.93 (2 sig figs), which gets you almost exactly the right answer. That's how we were taught to do it in school for continuous events and adding probabilities. The extra accuracy you get by withdrawing balls gives you the correct answer, but the short form above works well, if the testing is still relatively infrequently.
Re: Confused identification with authentication.
"For that you need a valid ID which is a choice of Eu biometric ID or passport (which has biometrics). Rest if Europe (except UK which continues with "utility bill idiocy") is the same."
In the UK, you need a utility bill or something similar to establish your address, and a photographic piece of identification (passport or driving licence) to establish your identity. I'm glad my passport doesn't have my address on it, or otherwise it would be even more costly to move when a student. Driving licences do have your address on them, so they can form the second piece of ID, but you still need two.
Re: Why stop there?
We're just been told we have to BYOBL: bring your own bin liners. And then empty our own rubbish bins.
"Company will be sued under equal pay legislation."
I don't see this. There are two contracts: good pension + bad pay, and bad pension + good pay. The employee is allowed to pick which one they have, so where's the equal pay claim?
"Isn't the life expectancy for a teacher retiring at pension age about 18 months?"
No. It's about 15-20 years. Like most non-manual positions.
Re: is it my fault?
"Men and women are different mostly due to acculturation rather than biology (excepting the obvious physical differences). There are no 'men's brains / women's brains' type of differences. Put a number of brains under the microscope and you couldn't tell which ones came from men and which ones from women."
Well, first men's brains are on average slightly larger than women's, so there are men's brains/women's brains differences. Second here is a link (National Institute for Health) to a scientific paper proving you wrong. In it, it is noted that Down syndrome is more likely to affect males than females.
So, now that your sweeping general statement has been debunked, we now should ask whether there are any genetic conditions (hello, autism spectrum) that are not balanced between the sexes and that increase/decrease ability in some jobs.
For example, if there were a genetic mutation affecting one in 100000 men and one in 200000 women, that massively improved distance judging and hand-eye coordination, then almost every top archer and snooker player in the world would be male. On the other hand, the average man and average woman would be almost exactly the same at archery, and so you'd see news reports asking where all the top female archers were, and what is holding them back (and 99.999% of all men as well, but, and here's the important bit, we are comparing two different populations).
You of course don't see news reports asking why top female basketball players can't mix it up with the men because we all know that men are taller than women, but the tallest men are massively taller than the tallest women. (Tallest living man, 251cm, tallest living women, 221cm. But the average height difference is about 10-15cm.)
I'm not saying that sexism doesn't exist (although it depresses me that every time someone states actual, reliable facts, certain people have to shout 'sexist'), but there are alternative explanations for the distribution in certain niche professions than sexism.
"What you are saying by down voting is that it's ok for the press to go for him without evidence or before evidence is presented so that he can then deflect by saying the press is out to get him where I'm saying they need to be a little more intelligent in their presentation of the facts and not give him the chance to deflect."
I don't know about anyone else, but I downvoted you because I think that Trump is going to ignore every shred of evidence he doesn't agree with, such as actual photographs of crowd sizes, if it doesn't agree with what he wants to do, and then smear everybody else with fake news when they point out that he's a complete bumbling fool. And you just don't see it.
Re: The whole thing's stupid
"Since it was all US Money that paid the development and deployment costs for what developed into the "World Wide Web" it's only natural that US Companies staked out the choicest territory."
Ooh, I wonder if that applies to other things? I think the whole of the US either belongs to the UK or to the native Americans (you know, the real ones) under that argument. And anyway, if these companies are in California, aren't they Mexican? Oh, you mean the US stole California from Mexico? Is that natural too?
"Brazil's complaining is why it's difficult for the world to have "nice toys" for very long."
Well, no. The world didn't have the nice toy, it was the US that had it, and it didn't want to share. It even didn't want to share when it had stolen a toy (in this case, the name Amazon) from the rest of the world in the first place.
"That's all right because we'll have the European courts to protect our freedom of speech. Oh."
Because that's worked so well in Catalunya.
"I wonder if he'd have been caught sooner had each patient rated him with that rating aggregated and publically [sic] published for all to see?"
I don't mean to sound crass, but dead men tell no tales.
"Anything outside the UK and not directly related to the London taxi operations of Uber will not be considered."
I'd be surprised if that were the case. If you are assessing whether someone is a fit and proper person, you also tend to include their behaviour even in other countries.
Re: Ben Hur Moment.......
"According to the highway code, it's not "the fast lane", it's "the overtaking lane" and you are perfectly allowed to do any speed you wish under the limit provided that a) it's safe to do so and b) you are overtaking someone in the middle lane."
False. You are not allowed to go more than 20 mph under the limit without good reason.
Re: So Google told them to fuck off
"Monopoly my fat hairy arse. You have Apple, Amazon and various app stores outside of the US. You'd also have Microsoft, Nokia and Blackberry, but they were too fucking incompetent to stay in the game. The alt-wrong are welcome to set up their own App Store, but that would involve a little something called work."
That's great. Now if only you knew the legal definition of monopoly, you'd be home free. Instead, you just stand their looking like an argumentative fool.
Re: So Google told them to fuck off
"Sounds like free speech to me. It's Google's online real estate, so they can do what the fuck they like with it."
That's great. Now if only they weren't a monopoly. But they are! So different rules apply.
Re: @ J. Smith
"Do you have an ISA or similar tax free savings vehicles? I trust not, since those are all tax loopholes that exercise those practising numpty-nomics"
Oh behave. There is a difference between unintended loopholes and very specific rules designed to encourage something. You know they are different things, stop being silly.
Re: And in DC the US Treasury is not happy
"Google would increase the prices of its advertising, the advertisers would increase the price of their products to cover their extra costs, and the consumers will have to pay higher prices. Where else could the money come from, if you assume that Google doesn't want to take a cut in profits, which is a given."
It might be a given, but Google are still subject to supply and demand.
To see why your argument can't possibly be right, suppose that the tax rate were 99.9999% of profit. Now Google needs to charge billions per advertisement, and nobody will pay that, so they go bust.
No you know your argument doesn't work when tested against hypothetical values, you have to decide to what extent your argument works when prsented with more realistic numbers. A rise in their taxes will lead them to put prices up, but their demand isn't perfectly inelastic and so there will be a drop. They will have to eat some of the costs themselves, because they can't all be passed on.
Meanwhile, consumers benefit from having reduced taxes themselves (or not having increased taxes, which is the same thing) to the value of 100% of the incerased tax take, more than balancing out the resultant inflation.
TLDR version: this 'taxes are passed onto the consumer' wheeze is bullshit. People pay in the end, absolutely, but shareholders are people too.
Re: And in DC the US Treasury is not happy
"Another libtard who doesn't seem to understand tax tax is paid by the buyer"
If only it were true. This is only true in a single-country market with perfect competition. If Google paid more tax, how exactly would that be passed onto the consumer? And if US companies are taxed, how does that affect the EU consumer?
Answers on a postcard slipped into an economics textbook, please.
Re: EU - making it up as they go along
"If companies such as Apple, Google et al in all good faith and with a duty to their shareholders to take advantage of all legal systems present in the EU to minimise their tax payments, however "unfair" that may seem to the rest of us, then it isn't those companies at fault but the EU."
Just because you used boldface doesn't mean it's actually true. There is no duty for companies to maximise their short-term profit, merely to act in the interests of their shareholders. One might very cogently argue that paying more tax now to avoid being slaughtered with a turnover tax later is definitely in the long-term interests of their shareholders.
Re: Ah, Mr O, the go to guy for an article
"Ah, Mr O, the go to guy for an article to slag off Apple. Like Apple, El Reg does not change much over the years Glad to see you are on the ball as usual. Keep it up."
It's 1000 notes for a bloody phone. Anyone who buys this needs their sodding head examined.
Re: Interesting principles behind this
"Was Osama Bin Laden brought before a court, found guilty and sentenced to death? Executive actions often have no trial or jury. So, maybe killing one of these animals is simply an executive action?"
Killing Osama bin Laden was almost certainly a crime. That doesn't mean people don't feel happy about it, and doesn't mean anyone will be tried for it, but it's a crime in the sense that it's against the law. And before you say "when the President does it, that makes it legal", it might have been legal under US law, but I very much doubt it was under Pakistani law. Or international law, such that it is.
Re: Interesting principles behind this
"Now, is this not effectively finding it guilty of killing a human (murder) and then exacting a punishment (death row) just like if it was a human being?"
No. It's more akin to redesigning a bad junction, callous as that sounds. There's no trial, no jury, etc. Instead it's a safety issue: there's a threat to human safety and that threat is removed.
Re: There's an infinite number of monkeys at the door
"Paging Mr. Hilbert! Mr. Hilbert to the front desk urgently!"
I could have sworn he was in this room yesterday. Have you checked the one next to it?
Re: Eight men control as much wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion people
"All of which are gone. Sustainable?"
How sustainable do you want something to be? If we are looking at more than 500 years into the future then a lot of things are not going to be sustainable. For example, energy production, which will boil the oceans long before then at our current rate of energy consumption expansion.
(This is not anything to do with global warming, or hyperbole. Plugging in our increase in energy production, and treating the Earth as a black body, you find that you get a significant increase in temperatures just because of entropy, enough to boil the Earth long before half a millennium's time.)
Re: Eight men control as much wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion people
It's also not true, unless you are happy counting Harvard graduates with massive college debt as the poorest people in the world. (Which of course Oxfam is, as it gets a bigger number.) And, of course, if you have very narrow definitions of wealth designed to maximize apparent inequality. (Which of course Oxfam is, as it gets a bigger number.)
Re: An Attempt at Blame Shifting?
"That's a standard clause you will find in almost any software license (and similar in a huge amount of other contracts)
Basically, if you loose a stack of cash due to a fault, we will only pay for the cost of replacing the hardware / software.
You have to prove deliberate negligence to sue for more."
At least under UK law, since you haven't paid for free software, no contract at all has been formed (no consideration), so negligence would be very hard to prove. Especially if you signed something saying 'use at your own risk'.
"Well, this is a step in the right direction. Cultural imperialism of Japan and South Korea (and the US) is a big deal. Time will tell if China can produce some nice export worthy "pop culture" media."
China exporting its own media is also surely cultural imperialism, to go along with its actual imperialism, you know, like Tibet, Bhutan, Taiwan, the dodgy deals in Africa, the nine dash line, and so on.
In fact, since China is one of the most powerful nations on Earth, I don't see how South Korea could possibly be accused of cultural imperialism towards China. But then, I'm not a blithering idiot.
Re: The ad hominems in the comments are unworthy of commentards,
"It's already illegal. So a new law will achieve?
If it's illegal, why were they not convicted?