"The US may have finally complied with the European Commission's repeated requests to name a permanent Privacy Shield ombudsperson, The Register understands."
This is the Trump administration. There are no 'permanent' positions.
2680 posts • joined 19 Nov 2007
"Citation needed to say that they have improved things as well..."
OK, how about the CDC? From this page
What Do We Know?
Most drivers and passengers killed in crashes are unrestrained. 53% of drivers and passengers killed in car crashes in 2009 were not wearing restraints. (My note: only 15% of drivers in general are unrestrained.)
Seat belts dramatically reduce risk of death and serious injury. Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%.
Seat belts prevent drivers and passengers from being ejected during a crash. People not wearing a seat belt are 30 times more likely to be ejected from a vehicle during a crash. More than 3 out of 4 people who are ejected during a fatal crash die from their injuries.
Seat belts save thousands of lives each year, and increasing use would save thousands more. Seat belts saved almost 13,000 lives in 2009. If all drivers and passengers had worn seat belts that year, almost 4,000 more people would be alive today.
"Up to the news site to decide if their content not being visible via big name search engines is a good idea in terms of click throughs / monetization."
Isn't that a bit like saying that the Highways Agency can come and help themselves to your stuff in your front room, unless you say you don't want a road to your house?
We need to be absolutely clear about this: Google can either 1) do what it wants, or 2) be a monopoly. It should not be allowed both, as that will lead to massive abuse of power. Like, for example, taking people's stuff and slapping ads on it, then threatening with wiping them off the (public) face of the net if they disagree.
"Maxwell didn't invent electromagnetism. Patent and licencing does apply to inventions which come about due to a better understanding of electricity, light and magnetism."
Fine. The Daimler and Benz families happily accept your donation to their wealth funds for your use of the CarTM. The current fee is £1/mile. Happy now?
Also, says you. Why shouldn't Maxwell make some cash from his discovery? We are changing laws and handing out eternal rights for money cash moolah, scientists should be able to dip their wick.
"On the one hand I agree with you, on the other.... well, if I create something completely new and own the ip for it, why should you be entitled to presume it belongs equally to you and to my decendants?"
Let me be less facetious with an answer. There is a different between property and IP, which is why it has the I at the front. IP is not property. IP is non-enviable, which means that if I 'steal' your IP, you still have it. So since IP cannot be stolen (without some form of memory-wiping drugs), it isn't property. This is why we distinguish between the painting itself (which can be stolen) and the idea of the painting (which cannot).
It is ludicrous to suggest that IP should be owned in perpetuity. For example, you like chairs? How about paying the descendants of the first chair maker to sit down? Every product has an inventor, who in the world of perpetual IP would rake in fees. Each person that contributed to the development of the computer, the motor car, the aeroplane, etc., would be due a royalty every time one was made, maybe even used? And each could presumably say no, we won't license the IP for rubber to be used any more, find a new compound. You could make something like rubber 'essential', so set FRAND-like terms for it, but as time goes on more and more cash would have to be set aside to pay all previous inventors.
You might wish now to distinguish between different types of IP, between 'useful' stuff, which is owned by everyone and inventors cannot perpetually assert their rights, and 'useless' stuff, which can be owned in perpetuity by its creator. But this demonstrates precisely why it makes no sense: the act of creativity is the same, so why should one be denied what the other enjoys? It sounds like nothing more than special pleading on behalf of those who make 'useless' stuff.
"On the one hand I agree with you, on the other.... well, if I create something completely new and own the ip for it, why should you be entitled to presume it belongs equally to you and to my decendants? If I wanted that, I could open access in my will. If I choose to leave something exclusively to the benefit of my family down the generations, well, that is my right - we do it with fundamental stuff like DNA and also with wealth, connections / networking etc."
The descendants of Maxwell thank you for choosing ElectromagnetismTM for your data transmission requirements. The current fee is £1/MB.
"The companies that earn that much money, Google, Facebook etc have the funds to hire accountants who'll do whatever they can to make it look like the company doesn't make the profit required for the tax. "
That will be much harder under these proposals. For example, Google's sales are in Ireland even though customer is in UK schtick would be illegal. And this is turnover rather than profit, which is much harder to hide.
"We have NOT had 2 referenda [sic] on being part of the EU, we had a say on the matter 40 years ago about joined a trading bloc called the EEC, nothing more. If we had known then (I use the proverbial “we”, personally I was still in cloth nappies at the time) what we were signing up to, would we have still voted yes?"
By the sound of it, the best way to satisfy both referendums (it isn't referenda, it's not a Latin noun) is to leave the EU and stay in EFTA/CU.
"That depends - parts of the country have already had 2 referendum votes"
All of the country has had two referendum votes. One in the 1970s, one a couple of years back. One yes, one no. So far it looks like the country has changed its mind once, so why wouldn't it change its mind again? And why shouldn't it be allowed to do so, given it was already allowed a second referendum in case it had changed its mind?
"While yes, the article confirmed the sisters actually are identical twins, what you stated is incorrect. [snip]"
Thank you for, in great detail, explaining why I was right after all. I guess my point, although apparently overlooked, is that the tests are not only wrong, in the sense that identical twins should give exactly the same answers, but also meaningless, in that siblings should give the same answer if it were possible to do what the product says it does.
"Perhaps they are fraternal twins who just look exceptionally similar? That is a possibility."
And, drum roll please, if these tests worked, they should still give the same answer for any person whose parents are the same. The fact that the article confirmed through a proper DNA test that they were identical notwithstanding, one daughter cannot be 13% from somewhere and the other 3% from the same place, if they have the same parents.
So we have two options:
1) Not only are the DNA tests from the proper place wrong, the mother wrong for thinking they were identical at birth, but also they must have different fathers, despite being twins, which might be a little bit tough, or
2) These tests are full of crap.
"Come on, it's not that difficult to check, now is it ?"
Not just difficult, impossible. How do you conclusively prove that it isn't compromised?
For example, if I give you a string of 1s and 0s, how do you prove that there isn't a hidden message in it? Indeed, every message is hidden in it, given the right key.
"Huawei is under no obligation to obey American sanctions.
They may be banned from selling in the US but that doesn't mean US authorities can prosecute officials from another country for breaking US rules."
And once again, this nonsense. I assume you mean the crime that she has been arrested for, which is, more or less, fraud. She (allegedly) lied about the corporate structure of Huawei in a call with US investors, to induce them to unwittingly break the law. That's a crime in most jurisdictions.
"China's government has come to Huawei's aid."
Well, if you call kidnap and (threatened) murder coming to someone's aid, yes, I guess.
“We urge relevant parties to cease the groundless fabrications and unreasonable restrictions toward Huawei and other Chinese companies, and create a fair, good and just environment for mutual investment and normal cooperation by both sides’ companies,” Hua said.
OK, China first then. Drop your ludicrous trade barriers, release your hostages, and then we can talk.
"I don't think the US law is all that different from the UK; where a contract requires arbitration, that process will be required to be completed first, and grounds for overturning an arbitration finding are (1) fraud or corruption; (2) partiality; (3) misconduct in selection of evidence; (4) straying outside of the bounds their powers, by either going too far or failing to reach a conclusion."
It's my impression that forced arbitration is more or less unlawful in the UK. It's nigh on impossible for a company to stop an employee taking them to an employment tribunal.
"The internal crystal controlled oscillators, not so much. How often do you have to reset your digital watch, or kitchen clock because the time is too far off?"
I have to reset my car stereo's internal clock regularly. I believe this is due to a slight drop in power every time you start the car, from ignition. Over time this half a second builds up and it's a few minutes out.
"I'm struggling to feel too much sympathy for them, truth be told. They were hardly a vulnerable customer."
Do you only feel sorry for vulnerable people, when a company behaves like a total dick towards someone? So I'm not a vulnerable person, but I feel people should feel some sympathy if a company burned my house down and told me to fuck off.
"Also, if their business nous is so bad that they bought a shit insurance policy"
It isn't a shit insurance policy, the insurance company are -- what is the word? Ah, yes -- lying.
"They probably refused to install some stuff?"
So they arrested one dude from Huawei, and also just for fun an ex-member of the Polish intelligence community?
I really don't understand you lot. If a Western person is arrested for spying, he's obviously a spy. If a Chinese person is arrested for spying, it's obviously because he refused to spy for the West.
Maybe, you know, Chinese people also spy? Otherwise, that really big agency in Beijing is full of people who are rubbish at doing their jobs.
"Given other actions against Russia and China"
Would that be where some dastardly British people deliberately threw themselves all over those poor innocent Russians' bottles of deadly toxin? Or where those Chinese soldiers got all lost and accidentally built an airbase on the artificial island they accidentally built?
"I just went along with the biologists."
I believe biologists write 'viruses' as well. 'Viri' would be the Latin plural anyway, not 'virii'. If you are thinking about 'radii', that's the plural of 'radius', not 'radus'. And even more pedantically, the Latin virus, meaning slimy liquid, doesn't have a plural.
"Seem disingenuous to compare prices in a non-native currency for the product."
So why did you? The iPhone is assembled in China, so you should look at yuan-to-pound exchange rates. 2/1/2014: exchange rate 9.4. 4/1/2016, exchange rate 9.6.
At any rate, if you live in the UK you are paying in pounds. And you don't care what the exchange rate with the dollar is, because you are (almost always) being paid in pounds. The fact is, the iPhone costs twice as much now as it did, and that isn't true for other companies' offerings. The laptop I bought last year isn't twice the price for a similar specification as a few years before.
"I thought that was how things were supposed to have been for the past 4 or 5 years "
Yes, but at our house because we've had the same Internet provider for the last eight years, no decision has been made.
Maybe you need to make the choice repeatedly, say every three years or so. It might catch people who stay with one provider and whose circumstances change.
"I know there are many problems having to submit age verification, but it's also not right that children are exposed to this kind of stuff so easily. The Reg seem to be pretty one-sided on this, and I can see it's a tough one, but there is another side."
The point is that a government solution to the problem always seems to consist of building a massive database and using it to spy on everyone's activities. The only reasonable route is to have mandatory content filters set to on by default, and then you ring up your Internet provider to set them to off. That way you know there can be porn in your house, and you know you need to do something about it (or not if you have no children).
But that doesn't build up a dossier on everyone's activities, so that's a non-starter.
"But given he was naming something even he didnt know 'idiot' may well apply."
Not really. He wasn't an idiot, that's the end of it. For a start, he was discussing work of Kelvin (another non-idiot who said one really stupid thing) when he coined the term. Second, just because you end up being wrong (and 100 years later physicists still tend to believe it, but nobody's really sure) doesn't make you an idiot.
What makes you an idiot is the following: given the evidence available to you, did you make a really obvious error? Poincaré was not, therefore, an idiot. Either in general, or about this in particular.
"Erm, no. 27 percent dark plus less than 27 percent baryonic leaves more than 46 percent unaccounted for. I believe that dark matter accounts for nearer 72% than 27%, possibly even more than that."
Erm, yes. Dark matter: 27%. Ordinary matter: 5%. Other: 68%. (Postulated to be dark energy.)
"Okay, everyone have the downvote button ready to go? Then begin!"
I obliged. The guy threatens to sue his critics instead of demonstrating why he's right. Hallmark of a charlatan.
It looks like his work is not compatible with the existence of magnets, which would also be an issue.
"Mlargest. This is a prime number from which the number (2^Mlargest)-1 can be derived. Because this can not be a prime, it should be the product of two or more primes. At least one of its factors is expected to be larger than Mlargest."
Congratulations, you have proved that large numbers exist.
Problems with your proof:
1) All factors could be smaller than Mlargest.
2) The factors need not be Mersenne primes.
There's a reason that some problems are hard. It's not that mathematicians are bumbling idiots.
"correction: 2^(2^n) + 1 3, 5, 17, 257, 65537"
That's not a correction, that's an addendum. You are not correcting what I said, merely adding to it. I didn't feel the need to state that the exponent needed to be a power of 2, because doing the pre-factorization into cyclotomic polynomials isn't necessary to demonstrate the point.
"Experience in UK does not support you. There has been a huge rise in handgun crime since they were largely banned post-Dunblane,"
Ditto with this guy. It's false. Gun crime is low and hasn't exploded. There was a change in statistic recording which made it appear as though crime has risen.
"I can give you many links to dictionaries that define "acronym" "
The dictionary closest to hand doesn't have a definition of 'acronym', going from acrolith to acropolis. That's what you get for having a dictionary from 1925, I guess.
"what is your evidence for the assertion "most people..." "
Hits on Google for acronym: 143m. Hits on Google for initialism: 1.52m. There aren't 100 times as many acronyms as initialisms, so it must be that many people are using acronym for both concepts.
Interesting you mention C.S. Lewis. Hw of course, was a born-again Christian and, like most converts, much more pious than the standard variety. He believed that there was such a thing as universal morality, naturally a Christian morality. Believing in a universal morality is a necessary first step to imposing it on everyone.
"But thats not good enough for the health nazis because with a sort of healthy alternative to smoking, they'll lose their power"
The issue is not that vaping is less lethal than smoking -- it is -- but that you don't want people going from non-smoker to vaper, as that's a retrograde step. Selling vapers with cartoon characters on them and in many different flavours is exactly the old-style cigarette advertising, designed to hook children.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019