* Posts by h4rm0ny

4617 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Winston Churchill glowers from Blighty's plastic fiver


Re: It is safe in the washing machine - how about the dryer?

Well it already has Churchill on it.

Gillian Anderson: The next James Jane Bond?


>>"Sean Connery was less English than Idris Elba"

But he was playing English. Just very badly!

I meant the character has to be English, not the actor.


There're only two requirements. Firstly, Bond has to be English and posh. (S)he can be gritty and rough as they like but they have to know their way a bottle of wine and be able to pick out the Saville Row suit from the others.

Secondly, they need to be something of a brute. I see this as where the danger with a female bond. I think they will be tempted to make Bond a slinky femme fatale a lá Cameron Diaz in Charlie's Angels or Scarlett Johansen in those Avengers films. They'll want Bond to suddenly be this ninja cat type spy just because he's now female. I would prefer a male bond (I'm female, I like to look Danial Craig - that's half the appeal), but I could stand to see a take on it with a female Bond. But if she doesn't beat someone half to death in a nasty manner and a dollop of sneering contempt for the victim's horribly violent death, it's not Bond.

If they keep the character the same, I might be okay with it. But I suspect they'll want to change it. Bond is a psychopath. That will stand out a lot more to people if he becomes a she and I think most male directors would shy away from that and soften Bond.


Re: " will have to to beat off stiff competition"

Well it's still better than Pierce Brosnan's "I thought Christmas only came once per year". I mean if there's any article where you're going to insert an extra entendre, it's going to be one on Bond.

Art heist 'pranksters' sent down for six months


Re: "it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

I would have thought one of the biggest dangers was to themselves. They were lucky no members of the public decided to intervene violently.

Big Pharma wrote EU anti-vaping diktat, claims Tory ex-MEP


Re: Have to ask...

If all you want is the flavour, why don't you try a sweet you can suck on or a carton of fruit-juice, both of which are a lot more considerate to those about you than puffing out clouds of sickly scents that others may not want?


Re: Hurrah!

Not so Hurrah in my opinion. Nothing in this article gives any voice or consideration to the argument in favour of these laws. It's a hit-piece. For example, the comment that it forbids nicotine levels of the degree that a "heavy smoker", "might" need to quit. Vaping isn't by itself a cure for smoking. So what does that statement even mean? It would hold even if the vaping solution provided more nicotine than you got from a cigarette. After all, if you get MORE of a hit from a vape than a cig, that would increase the chance of you getting off cigarettes. So anything less than that makes Orlowski's statement factually true. But would it sound as rabble-rousing to state: "EU law prevents vaping from providing more nicotine than a cigarette"? Obviously not. But let's not just look at hypotheticals, lets see if the loophole in Orlowski's article is actually exploited in practice. Turns out the answer is yes. The regulations limit the maximum threshold for e-cigarettes without prescription to 20mg/ml. How much nicotine do you typically get from a cigarette? From 12mg - 20mg.

So when Orlowski says "less than the amount a heavy smoker might need to quit" that's factually true as statements containing "might" often are, but actually means that the EU is limiting e-cigarettes to containing no more nicotine than cigarettes. And there's a further omission in Orlowski's article which is that such things aren't illegal, they're simply restricted to prescription so if you are Orlowski's "heavy smoker" trying to quit, the EU doesn't stop you, it just means you need to get them as part of a structured quit-smoking program which is the best way to quit anyway. Furthermore, the figure isn't just pulled out of the air. The 20mg figure is show to be suitable for the majority of smokers which is why Orlowski snuck his "heavy smoker" qualifier in there. No, if you have a three pack a day habit then e-cigs with a normal dose might not stop you smoking, which is why you'd go to the prescription ones that can have more.

What else? Well, the stuff about harmonization. Orlowski's view seems to be that law can only be reactive. Heaven forbid that for once in our lifetime regulations are actually laid out in a timely fashion rather than waiting a decade for everyone to build utterly unrelated standards and then stick a patch on top. Yes, Orlowski, this IS in fact about harmonization. It sets out a framework for all countries even though some of those countries still haven't fully fleshed out rules on this themselves. That's a GOOD thing.

Finally, the general outrage that motivates this article. Well, the jury is still out on vaping help vs. harm but lets at least accept that the simplistic idea that because they're less harmful individually than cigarettes they're an intrinsic good. They're still addictive and harmful things. But there is a perception spread about that they're not. In fact, the companies behind these are doing their best to make vaping trendy. I mean, have you seen the range of stylish vapers you can buy? The range of flavours and mixes you can get that would put the average homepath store to shame? It's a very hipster thing to be vaping. But that is causing some people who don't smoke to take it up. And that's not anecdotal, it's based on studies. People are picking up vaping who don't smoke. Vaping is becoming normalized in situations where cigarette smoking would be frowned upon. I've had people start vaping inside a hotel lobby where it's a no smoking zone and the sign even explicitly stated "this includes vaping", but it was ignored because the person said "vaping isn't smoking" and carried on. I even had one person try to start vaping in a restaurant where we were eating and got very unpleasant when asked to stop and the poor waiter had to ask them twice to stop and endure being lectured on how they were an idiot because "it isn't a cigarette". In both cases, there was a very smug righteousness about the person.

So yes, it's important that there are regulations on these and Orlowski's objections in this article to the regulations that have been brought in are fallacious and one-sided. Here's the study that was done prior to the changes being brought in.


Of course it's 345 pages so I don't expect many to read it. But at least recognize a biased hit piece when you see it. Loaded vagueries like "how much a heavy smoker might need to quit" are a clear give-away.

A cracked window on the International Space Station? That's not good


Re: Transparent ALUMINUM?

Sadly El Reg now uses American English. I sent a correction to them on an unrelated issue a while back and mentioned in passing that they'd used an American spelling. Got told that as they now have more readers in the USA, that's what they're using.

Lewis Page gone, American English and other sordid changes... El Reg is British no longer.

Walmart sues Visa for being too lax with protecting chip cards


Re: Zip code for non-US cards

Well that explains why one of my cards didn't work over there.

But using a ZIP code as a PIN is a terrible, terrible idea. Can we have an Edvard Munch icon, please?


Re: and therein lies the problem for Aussies

Functionally it is little different from having cash stolen. They set the limit at X as a parallel to how much money you might be carrying in a non-card world. £100 probably isn't that bad they think as you'll get it back eventually.

However, the system needs two things. One, the availability of cards without NFC payment enabled, and two - the ability to configure your own limits. (These can actually be the same thing given you could configure a limit of zero).

Can ad biz’s LEAN avert ADPOCALYPSE?


Missing the point.

Sure, I don't like intrusive ads but most websites I'd visit are smart enough not to show those to me anyway.

It's the tracking I despise.

Server-jacking exploits for ImageMagick are so trivial, you'll scream


Re: I hate to defend H4rm0ny, but

If it helps, you can consider yourself simply defending the original AC by proxy. They made the valid criticism and got voted down heavily for it. That way you don't have to feel troubled by defending me for whatever reason that it is problematic. Instead you would merely be agreeing with me on an isolated point.

Hope that's of use.


Re: That's the unix way of doing things..

>>"qrencode -t PNG -o - "${1:-Empty data!}" | display &"

>>Joining two applications without having to do anything special is part of how Unix stuff works.

We're talking about calling this from another program or a web script, so tell me why building your command line above is less "having to do anything special" than using an API like the following:

Imagick imageTool = new Imagick();


Etc. Is building a command line and sending it to the shell inherently simpler? I think the opposite. It's certainly more prone to vulnerabilities which was the OP's point.

Text is a terrible way of joining programs together.


Re: @AC ...That's the unix way of doing things..

>>"Before you bash Linux/Unix... Looking at the exploit, unless you run ImageMagick as root, you're limiting the potential damage."

Something that runs as the webserver (ImageMagick is a library compiled into PHP amongst other things), then that's quite enough damage, thanks. Being able to connect to the sites database and run arbitrary commands, scan the entire webroot, and even (though this should normally be blocked by other measures) potentially write to it is not something that should be described as "Limited" without context.


Re: That's the unix way of doing things..

>>"The moral of the story is not that there's anything wrong with interpreters (like your diatribe against shells) but the context that they're allowed to be used from. ImageMagick evolved from being a command-line tool and now it's being used in an unsafe context. That is all"

I disagree. Your argument is to the effect of "it doesn't matter if there are sufficient protections in place", but that's a statement that's always true and always misses the point. The point the OP made was that command-line text to join up different programs is inherently more vulnerable as an approach than calling the APIs of other objects because it is inherently more open to malicious input. If in this case, ImageMagick was written to call the "imageconvert()" method of an object, even if you could provide a variety of such objects that implemented it in different ways, that would be inherently safer than having it exec to the command line "jpegtool --convert myImage.jpg" where the command line is, by necessity, assembled from different parts and thus needs the kind of "jail" that you talk about in your anecdote.

OP is correct.

Brits who live in 'smart cities' don't really know or care


There's not really any community presence online, that's the real issue. E.g. there's no online "hub" for Glasgow or York or London that anyone visiting or living in those places would naturally connect to. Sure, there might be council websites or something, there are some geographic apps that swing in and out of popularity, but that's it.

If they want to get their message out, if they want to do things like engage cyclists to log their routes, they need to build up some sort of community presence in a standard way that people will want to connect to.

That doesn't seem to exist, yet.

UK govt admits it pulled 10-year file-sharing jail sentence out of its arse


Re: So is anyone going to be held to account?

>>They made stuff up and tried to tell us it was based on something tangible.

The problem is that the author's definition of "made stuff up" appears to include "reached a decision". You're quoting the article and I consider this article biased, click-bait and grossly misleading. And I have supported that.

>>If this doesn't concern you, keep an eye out on my soon-to-be-released proof that the earth is indeed flat. It's based on the Flammarion engraving, 'unpublished research' and some tweets by the rapper B.o.B, so pretty much irrefutable

Facetious analogy is facetious, I'm afraid. We're not talking about being unaware of some objectively provable fact. We're talking about people putting together some proposed laws. And the proposal is based on harmonising existing laws which allow a difference between sentencing for the same crime depending on if it's committed online or offline. Which is plainly a bad state of affairs. People complain about the law not keeping up with technology. This is an instance of it doing so.


Re: So is anyone going to be held to account?

>>"@h4rm0ny - so you missed the stuff about parliament saying no, 10 years is too long, we need an independent review, and the review saying no, it's too long, and more than 2/3rds of all the responses for comment saying that it was too long also?"

No, I didn't miss that the public response was overwhelmingly against it. But then I look at vast upvoting for things here that I know are factually wrong and I recognize that in all probability much of the public feedback was similarly misguided. If you do a public consultation about rationalizing penalties for the same crime between online and offline methods, and 70% of the feedback is people who plainly haven't understood the proposal that doesn't mean throwing out the law is a good response. And in fact, I've read the response. It comments on the concerns people raised and provides citations that explain the misconception if people bothered to read it. But instead we get articles like Kieran's here which scan through it looking for something to attack, find a phrase like "Such information was derived from our analysis of the evidence and opinion provided to us by a wide spectrum of interested parties, over the consultation period." and translate that as "they admit they pulled it out of their arse".

That's just bad reading. So no, I haven't missed it, I've responded with facts and reason. Truth isn't determined by popularity as voting here demonstrates.


Re: Facepalm

It's unlikely to appear in mainstream media because the author of this piece has massively misrepresented things in both their recent articles on this.


Re: Fiscal Responsibility

Well previous recipients of multi-year prison sentences in the UK for piracy have included people who traded over twenty-million in pirated software so probably the ratio is pretty high. Conversely, find me domestic file-sharers who received multi-year prison sentences in the UK courts over just getting a fine. Found any...? No? So maybe you shouldn't be upvoting spurious posts about imprisonment costs because you can't back it up with this actually happening in the UK.


Re: So is anyone going to be held to account?

Why? On the basis of a misrepresentative article by a biased journalist?

We just had an article on this which was equally misleading. Now we get another which describes analysing and reaching a conclusion as "made up" and "pulled from its arse". By this author's criteria you can include pretty much every decision as "made up".

As this article is pretty much the same re-tread as the last, I feel entitled to re-tread my response from last time. So here's my view on it minus hyperbole about making things up and implications that domestic file sharers are going to be sentenced to ten years in jail. Note the use of things such as reference to actual past sentences in the UK, etc. So...

Presumably everyone outraged by this also thinks that when an ISP promises "up to 100Mbps" that's what they'll get. Or that because you can get up to two years for dangerous driving, you'll get two years for accidentally going through a red light.

This is about harmonizing offline and online penalties so that someone producing knock-off DVDs gets treated the same as someone transferring ISOs online. It's not about upping the penalties.

Let's look at actual prosecutions resulting in multi-year sentences in the UK. To recall two, we had a guy who traded in $20million of pirated software and made a very handsome profit on that. He got seven years, iirc. The other multi-year sentence I can recall was someone running a piracy site and he was channelling about £50,000 advertising revenue per month through Latvian banks to South American-registered companies. I don't recall how long that person got, but it was less than ten years.

If you're someone at home distributing some movies via BitTorrent, you're not going to get a decade inside, you're going to get a fine, in all but the most exceptional cases.

Discretion in sentencing is a thing and exists for a very good reason. Meanwhile El Reg. and Ars Technica go into a feeding frenzy of click-bait profits whilst freetards go into moral outrage and complain about comparisons to manslaughter. Well home torrenters aren't going to be sentenced the same way as people committing manslaughter and if you throw out all historical evidence from this country to the contrary, and refuse to acknowledge that maximum sentences are not the be all and end all of how you assess a law, then you're wilfully trying to be outraged because you enjoy it. As the author of this article does. Got to get those clicks!

So why should we harmonise penalties between online and offline behaviour? The silly argument I've seen arguing against this is that if you steal a warehouse full of DVDs, you're depriving someone of something but if you copy the data you're not. This is silly.

Both are methods of depriving the content producer of payment for their product. Unless for some incalculable reason you think the primary cost of producing a movie or album is the plastic that goes into the DVD, then it really makes no difference how you take it without paying for it. This is a fact.

The other is the perennial "I wouldn't have bought it anyway". This too is flawed.

This is you deciding unilaterally the worth of someone's work and depriving them of a say in it. You declare it's not worth £10 but is worth £0, so it's therefore okay for you to take it for £0. Trade depends on both parties being able to negotiate on a price. If the seller prices it too highly, you choose not to buy. If you find it worth the price they demand, you do choose to. Taking it at a price that the seller does not agree to is theft, even if (especially if) that price is £0. The customer always wants everything cheaper, that's why they don't get to set the prices of it unilaterally.

Also, utterly absurd to argue from a position that piracy doesn't cost sales. Whilst the comments sections of IT news sites seem to be filled with people who pirate nothing that they would ever buy, the real world contains people I know who absolutely use piracy as an alternative to buying, renting or cinema.

And before I get the utterly predictable retort that this doesn't mean that every pirated good is a lost sale, let me point out I haven't made such an argument.

Some people take what they read by this author at face value. Either through trust or because they like being outraged. The article is misleading people. They don't want to imprison domestic file sharers for ten years as supported by our own UK history on this. What they want is to slap a fine on you and say "don't do it again." Unless you happen to be engaging in large-scale software piracy for profit which is more what this is about despite the frothing rant that has just attempted to pass itself off as journalism without so much as pretending to consider the opposing view.

As this is the second such rabble-rousing, context ignoring article, I can only presume that the author loves their status as official angry mob spokesperson more than they prefer actually taking an objective view on the context of this law.

Engineer uses binary on voting bumpf to flag up Cali election flaws

Paris Hilton

Re: He's wrong, of course. The system would fall apart within minutes..

Oh it might fall apart. Probably would... But I think it would be really fun to try democracy for a bit and see how it went.

I am Craig Wright, inventor of Craig Wright

Black Helicopters

Maybe amanfrommars is Satoshi Nakamoto?

Windows 10 handcuffs Cortana web search to Bing and Edge browser


Re: Proprietary code hardwired to use proprietary APIs to do stuff shock!

>>"What's the point in having a cake if you're not going to eat it?"

Well, to a certain mindset it allows you to have a cake that others do not. "Have your cake and eat it" has always had a connotation of greed and unreasonableness about it.


Re: Deja vu

>>"Reminds me of the time when Internet Explorer got so fully "integrated" into the OS that you couldn't get rid of it in favor of another browser."

You really don't want to know about ChromeOS, then!


Re: Cue the hackers in 3, 2, 1...

>>"Legend has it that the keypad arrangements were chosen to use a different layout specifically to slow down people as they mash in the number. Desktop calculators, or "adding machines" with cranks on the side had been around for a while, and the usual office worker could overload or confuse the phone system with their speed if they used the adding machine format."

You're confusing two separate though similar things. The QWERTY keyboard layout was designed to slow people down because old-fashioned mechanical typewriters could not keep up. Dvorak is designed to be faster but is seldom seen.

The phone keypads weren't designed to slow people down. Phone keypads were not mechanical in the same way as typewriters and have always been able to handle human speeds just fine. And I think that the old-fashioned dial phones never had this problem either. What they did have, however, was the fact that it took longer to dial numbers comprised of low digits, than it did to dial longer ones. Which is why phone codes in the UK and USA were preferentially assigned according to population / pull in government. E.g. London was 020, Bristol got one with several ones, I think, whilst we Northern rif-raff got all the fives, sixes, etc.


Re: Proprietary code hardwired to use proprietary APIs to do stuff shock!

>>"Why the hell do people demand Microsoft's code run on magic and rainbows when none of their competitors are required to do so?"

Because we (the MS customers) pay money for their products and want that to be how MS make their money. MS were one of the last non-advertising, non-privacy invading software vendors. We LIKED it when privacy was a selling point that MS would use against Google. We have money and we're willing to hand it over for what we want.

But that's not good enough for MS, apparently. They want to have their cake and eat it, they've seen Google eat their lunch and think the only way to fight back is to become Google. Ignoring that many of us are still with them only because they're not.

So what do we have left? I don't know what privacy is like in the Apple ecosystem. But I guess increasingly it's becoming either them or the (non-Google) GNU/Linux distributions.


Re: So where's EU

Both Google and Microsoft are bad on things like this. May not be coincidence that this happens the week after Google and MS agree not to shop each other to the courts for market misbehaviour.

Revealed: The revolving door between Google and the US govt – in pictures


Democracy... The very best that money can buy!

I would guess that a lot of the people going from government TO Google are receiving rewards for favourable actions whilst in government. That's the way it works with Oil and Health Insurance.

Sergey Brin, how are you feeling these days?

Docker hired private detectives to pursue woman engineer's rape, death threat trolls


Re: The biological imperative.

>>"Personally, I'm going to keep arguing for roughly the same causes as you but from behind a different label."

I'm glad you posted a response. And I'm glad we've reached an accord. I do see your point and I do recognize that feminism isn't the only label for fighting for equality under - even sexual equality. I'm very glad to have your support and you have mine also - whether I oppose sexism under the banner of feminism and you oppose it under the banner of, for example, human rights.

I post the beer icon of peace. :)


Re: The biological imperative.

>>"Absolutely, we all (or anyone worth talking to at least) want that. I'm just saying that if that's what you're after then the feminism movement, which is named after only one gender and has a long history of caring primarily about that gender is not a good way to achieve that sort of non-sectarianism."

Someone claimed that feminism was a derogatory term that some people were applying revisionism to. I showed with historical accuracy that this was not the case. You chose to argue against my post and add your own words into my mouth in doing so. I re-iterated what I'd said, asked you if you were really trying to defend such an absurd position as I countered by contesting what I wrote. You have again, skipped over that, started contesting what I wrote. You seem only to wish to argue against my defending the term against someone who twisted its meaning in a quite plainly obvious way.

Feminism remains an important movement for as long as there are injustices which are primarily perpetrated against women. Just read the story you're actually replying to if such injustices are escaping your attention. I can provide a long list of other examples if you wish and you know that I can. It is no more wrong to be a feminist and fight against injustices against women than it is wrong to be a gay rights activist and fight against injustices towards homosexuals, or to be a racial activist and fight against injustices towards Black people. Or similar for any other targeted group.

>>I think we now need to stop calling ourselves feminists and start saying we're in favour of gender equality.

Femism has ALWAYS had equality as a stated goal. To claim we need to "start saying..." anything of this sort is absurd ignorance. If you have any grasp of the history of feminism then you must know there is no "start". This has always been a core statement of feminism. The "Feminist" name of the movement isn't because we're not in favour of equality, it's because historically and today, most of the adjustments that need to be made have been bringing women up to the same level of opportunity and rights as men. Or are you going to contest that as well?

It's your repeated insinuation that to be feminist is to ignore other injustices. This is false and you know it to be false, yet in trying to abolish the term feminism you keep pretending that it is.

>>You could call that a feminist issue if you want but if it's about something which is good for everyone, why would you want it to be labelled as a "women's problem"?

It's a problem in society that affects people regardless of gender. But if you're genuinely interested in my answer as to why I use the term feminist, as opposed to just trying to attack the term for being exclusionary, then the answer is simple. It's one more front on the battle for social justice that has a long and respected history behind it and it's a cause behind which both men and women can rally. Whether you call yourself a feminist or choose to call yourself a human rights activist, is up to you. But please cease attacking those of us who do call ourselves feminists by implying it's exclusive of championing other causes. And especially cease attacking the supported and plain arguments of those who refute historically inaccurate and hate-filled revisionism which is what you have been doing so far.

Feminism is a useful term that is the name for an active political movement that stretches back over a hundred years. I and others call ourselves that because we believe in and work towards equality for women. When that's achieved, come back and tell us the term no longer has meaning. Today, that hasn't happened, so kindly respect our freedom to champion such causes and continue to refer to ourselves by the name of our movement. You know perfectly well that being a feminist does NOT mean excluding other injustices and caring ONLY about women. Would you similarly attack someone from Stonewall when they were debating with a anti-gay bigot and tell them that they shouldn't call their movement a gay rights organization, but a human rights one, even though they were a gay rights movement? Or leap into a conversation between a racist and a black rights activist and keep trying to attack the latter saying they were wrong to talk about Black rights? Show some respect. Feminism has a long and proud history so kindly respect people's right to identify as such without insinuating things about us. Sure, you could abstract every righteous cause on the planet and complain that they should all just be called "Justice" and that any differentiation beyond that implied exclusion. But would it be useful? Would it help? Would it recognize that people fight against the injustices that they encounter in their daily lives or have been on the receiving end of? No.

If none of the above reaches you, and at the end of it you don't feel like just respectfully backing off and letting someone shut down bigots who say stupid things, and still want to challenge people for the name of their movement and the areas they are active in; then I can only conclude that your goal here isn't to learn or respect how people self-identify, but only to argue and be right on the Internet.

I understand your argument. No further explanation from you is necessary on this. I understand it and am still fine with calling myself a feminist and I still reject insinuations that it means we're excluding people. Re-read the experiences of Jessie Frazelle. Re-read some of the injustices women go through daily in the world today. And if after all that you still object to people taking up the banner of feminism under which we unite to try and oppose those things, then you don't have the respect for the people fighting those battles that you think you have. Because you're attacking them every time you support people who try to turn the word feminist into a term of abuse.


Re: hmm

>>You've concocted a lot of specious circumstances to try and justify what boils down to: ""This guy is attractive so he can say whatever he likes" and "I don't like the look of this guy so if he so much as puts a foot wrong I'll try and wreck his livelihood".

Have I? I wasn't there and your post begins by complaining that a "hot guy" (your words) made sexual comments to a girl and she was okay with it but that an "unattractive, creepy IT guy" came and commented sexually on her appearance and she did not like that. You then got annoyed, saying that treating people differently based on whether their advances were welcome or not wasn't an "explanation". Now I don't know whether or not her going to HR and complaining about him was justified or not - like I said, I wasn't there. But I can say a few things about it. Firstly, if this thing by itself results in "wrecking his livelihood" there's some context missing from this story. Was his livelihood actually wrecked? Or did he just get called in for a chat about workplace etiquette? Secondly, you well know, or should, that there is a lot more to communication than just words repeated on a page. You complain that his comments were less lewd than the "hot guy's". But that's not the criteria by which such things are assessed. They're assessed by the intent behind them, by the person delivering them. Like it or not, that's the facts of life. Nobody gets to go "He said she had a nice arse and she didn't mind, so she has to be okay when I tell her how soft her skin is", or whatever.

Maybe she was jumpy and over-reacted and he would have taken a mild rebuff and never bothered her again. Maybe she didn't and he wouldn't. But either way, what has this to do with the story we're talking about or the general case? Is it your position that women shouldn't be able to file a complaint about a guy who bothers them sexually in the work place? Or that a woman should be mandated to complain when she doesn't want to? Is it that you feel women have too much power over male colleagues by means of being able to report them for sexual advances in the workplace? If so, are you saying that a male employee is not allowed to file complaints? What exactly is your contention here? Because you seem to just be complaining about a double standard between attractive people and unattractive people. Which, you know...

Making sexual advances to someone in the workplace is a risky business. Is there really anybody that this is news to? You don't do it unless you have a reasonable expectation that it wont bother the recipient, and if you do do it, you try to do it in such a way that it minimizes embarrassment and allows a get-out for all concerned. It sounds like your "hot guy" has such skills and that your "creepy IT guy" came across as, well, creepy and threatening. And for all we know, he did. So I refer you back to my middle paragraph - what exactly is your complaint here? That women shouldn't be able to voice complains to HR if someone makes a creepy and threatening advance to them? That they should have to complain even when the advance is welcome? That a specific person reacted in a way you didn't like and you think this is representative of women generally? Because all of this is how it comes across.

Paris Hilton

Re: The biological imperative.

>>"Now (in the west) things are very different. Women have legal parity (or better) with men in every area. So someone who has continued the same fight for more rights for women has, without changing their behaviour, gone from fighting for more gender equality to fighting for less gender equality"

Sexism isn't about war between two factions, it's about disregarding someone's sex when judging their abilities or what opportunities they have. And it's about stamping out abuse based on someone's sex. You see it as two sides in a war fighting over power - your attitude is part of the problem. It's really about a world full of individuals and not splitting them up needlessly into factions based on some arbitrary criteria that isn't relevant to the matter in hand. And you are making your comments about how women have it better than men on a story about how a woman was hounded with death and rape threats because she was a woman. Quite literally, this story would not have happened if this were a male developer.

The finance sector in particular still has prevalent sexism. Every year British women get forced into marriages or sent abroad to undergo forced removal of the clitoris. Repeatedly women with an online presence have to deal with sexual harassment and abuse because they are women. In the USA I know first-hand of multiple cases where someone has been sidelined for positions or paid less because they are female. All these are facts. None of them would harm male rights if we could stamp them out. It's less than a hundred years since we got the right to vote. It took 46 years for the Women's Suffrage campaign to get that right to vote. And another decade after that before it was extended to women of the same age as men who could vote, and didn't require a woman to be wealthy to do so. There are people alive today, still compos mentis and able to have a good old discussion with you who remember these events. And you really think all anti-female prejudice is gone and any argument for equal rights is now an attack on men in disguise? You have no idea.

>>"They didn't put an end to oppression, they just switched places and started oppressing the Sunnis."

You may feel oppressed but clearly the majority of men here do not. Maybe they have something you don't. Feminism will have achieved its aims when the law and people don't think in terms of men vs. women, but just in terms of people. You may wish to demonize or corrupt the word feminism, but you wont.


Re: The biological imperative.

>>"Just to butt in on the question of definition, were you a feminist before Germaine Greer?"

No, but then my statement of what feminism is not, isn't based on my having seniority over someone else in when I started using it. That would be silly. It is based, as you have read in my post, on the origins of the modern movement which coined the term in the first place, which goes back to the Nineteenth Century and women's suffrage in France and the UK. Emmeline Pankhurst and Marie Stopes were feminists before both Germaine Greer and myself, and it's these examples which I used as evidence.

Trying to throw out my argument by suggesting it's an argument from authority (i.e. "my definition is the right one because it's mine"), is to skip, oh, about a paragraph and a half of my post.

>>"If not then your claim that gender equality is in the definition of feminism is definitely revisionist"

Firstly, see above - your premise is flawed. Secondly, I don't believe those words above are mine. What I wrote is that "Feminism" is not a revisionist interpretation of a derogatory term. Unless you are arguing that it is, then you accept my position criticising the AC that claimed such a stupid thing.

Paris Hilton

Re: The biological imperative.

It's barely worth replying given how voting shows everyone can see the obvious counter-arguments to your posts for themselves. However, because I hate historical revisionism...

>>"I often see that claim and I'll say it's false and the user tries to redefine a derogative term to suit political agenda."

When feminism as a movement emerged in Nineteenth Century UK and France, women were denied the right to vote and the law had numerous double-standards. They defined different property rights for men and women differently, for example. Can you imagine a situation where marrying granted the male legal right to handle all economic issues of their partner? Is opposing that what you want to say is originally a derogative term? After much campaigning and active fighting for equality, women in the UK got the right to vote like men, if they were over thirty and owned property. This was in 1918. Just under a century ago. These are the origins of the term Feminism. How you can claim it was a "derogative [sic] term" that modern people have redefined with your bare face hanging out, I'll never know.

I'm a feminist. Have been since I was a teenager. And if anyone is trying to redefine the term, it's you.

>>"is literally feminists, female supremacists with the idea that males are unnecessary and should be eliminated by genocide."

The world must seem a very scary place to you. Meanwhile, on this planet, the men I meet don't seem terrified of me and treat me as a human being. And when they don't, it's usually because of some horrible aspect of my own personality as an individual, not because of anything inherent to my sex. People like you are the exception. Congratulations - you have become Adria Richards with a penis. :)


Re: The biological imperative.

>>Instead of blaming each other, how about facing up to the real world, rather than the kindergarten cartoon the politically correct draw, of society and social relations. [...] Of course those that have, have no time for 'feminism', which remains the province of those who have not.

Everytime someone complains about political correctness, my instinct is to suspect they are annoyed at not being able to use phrases like "doll" or "the little lady". And every time the same person goes on to declare that "feminists" are against sex, it reinforces that.

Feminism is simply the seeking of equal opportunities for women as there are for men. That is neither anti-sex nor mutually exclusive with supporting equal opportunities for men (e.g. fair consideration for men in custody settlements). Yes, you get the odd Adria Richards type person who wears the label of Feminism whilst using it to attack over trivial and inoffensive things. But that no more makes it right for you to indulge in the old "feminists are women who aren't getting any" trope than the Nation of Islam group makes seeking racial equality a bad thing.

Feminism isn't about 'beating men'. It's just recognition that there are some problems, amply illustrated by this story, that there are some problems which, whilst not wholly unique to women, are primarily faced by them and trying to solve that so that everybody (not just one gender), can be judged on merit.

>>"AC because I dont want to be subjected to death threats, pictures photoshopped with blood etc etc."

Honestly, I think downvotes are the only thing you'd really have to worry about.


Re: hmm

>>"Different reactions for different people" as an attempt to explain away that double standard really does not cut it.

What double standard are you referring to? That someone reacts differently to someone they find attractive and non-threatening to someone they don't find attractive and do feel threatened by? That's the example I gave and I think as explanations go, it's a pretty clear one. What explanation for reacting differently to sexual advances from two different people do think is more likely, than how welcome they are?

Keep in mind that the situation you've raised is not one of sexism. It's not related to the difficult situation this woman faced with rape threats, it's not about career opportunity or discrimination. You posted a story about someone coming onto a woman sexually in the workplace. You held it up as wrong that in one case she flirted back with the "hot guy" and then treated the other guy "from IT" differently. So yes, my "explanation" that the difference is down to whether the advance was welcome or not is likely the right one. That's not a "double-standard", unless you think that someone should respond equally to sexual advances regardless of whether they're welcome or not.

Basically, you've gone off on a tangent about something that isn't an issue of sexism. A man is equally entitled to respond differently to two different women flirting with him.


Re: Utterly unacceptable

>>"Not just Women, but everyone....being a black techie is a nightmare, you are seldom judged on the contents of your brain....rather the colour of your skin, disgusting behaviour!"

Do you mind if I ask where you work? UK or USA?


Re: Troll mentality? - a story of abuse

I'd just like to say that was an inspiring story both for the cleverness you showed in unmasking the perpetrator and for your first reaction being to stand by and support your male partner in this. Attacking someone by threatening to start rumours and sow doubt between a couple is a disgusting, horrible act.

Paris Hilton

Re: hmm

Well yes. Comes-ons from people you find attractive who know how to come on to you, are received differently from people you don't find attractive and whose come-ons feel kind of threatening. If a good-looking guy says something flattering to me and seems confident and casual about it, I'm usually okay with that. If an unattractive guy who has clearly been planning out the scenario of coming on to me - typically with a transparent disguise of trying to do me some favour to show what a good friend they are to me - for the past two weeks does it, I react differently. Especially if it makes me uncomfortable to the point I think it's going to be a growing problem with someone I have to work with.

That's how flirting works. Different reactions are given to different people.

So anyway, anecdote time if we're doing this. My general impression, as I've said before on this topic, is that most men I've worked with have been entirely decent nice people. I think it does vary by sector and country. In Germany, I have never encountered discernible sexism ever. I'm sure it must exist, but nowhere I've been. Absolutely great. In the UK, I've only a couple of times encountered real sexism in the IT sector. And in both cases, the attitude of everyone else in the place nipped the sexist people's behaviour in the bud (for which I was very grateful). Amongst Marketing and Sales people, incidences of sexism has been much higher. I think that is a general symptom of the kind of sleazy circles and old-boy network environments of this sector. You get a lot of sexism in marketing and sales departments or companies. The worst sector in the UK, ime, is the financial sector. Here sexism is high and especially, in my brief overlaps with it, in The City. There is a long way to go in eradicating sexism there. But in IT departments in the UK, mostly fine imo. Good, in fact.

The USA has more of a sexism problem. In fact, outside of the Middle East, I think it's the worst. MOST of the people I've worked with in the USA have been alright, but it's definitely a much greater incidence of sexist attitudes I have found there and I've worked in a couple of places where the sexism is very real and has very definitely adversely affected women's career opportunities and earnings. I'm sorry to say it, but I wouldn't particularly want to work for a US corporation again based on some of my experiences there.

Anyway, all the above is anecdotal and only ONE PERSON's experience (mine). So please only take it as that. (Paris, because she's the only discernibly female representation we have in the icons. ;) )


Re: @Meldreth -- Utterly unacceptable

Why should Docker share the results of private investigations? Aside from the fact there's a good chance it would do little good, there's a significant chance it would do a lot of harm - naming people who weren't guilty, prejudicing cases against those that were...

It seems like a very positive thing to me that Docker took additional steps to try and deal with this problem. I'm more concerned about the fact that we're entering a situation where corporations have to take care of law enforcement for their employees rather than the State being able to provide this service.

The case for ethical ad-blocking


Well it would be unethical when it resulted in harm, I guess. That's the usual basis of ethics. And I can certainly see that stripping out the way sites such as El Reg make money but still taking their product harms the site. Yes, it's not enforced by a contract or DRM, but I don't necessarily take the position that anything not actively locked down or forbidden by contract becomes okay to do. On the whole, I am fine with sites having advertising and I respect that I am getting something from the site so I have the courtesy to not block them getting something from me for it. Legality is of little interest to me as in my experience the law often has only a passing acquaintance with ethics (and sadly, the entire history of government in this species will probably back me up on that :/ ).

Where I do feel entitled to block it, is when it starts spying on me. That is an actively aggressive act which I reject. I do not appreciate that to use the Internet I must submit to giant ad corporations knowing everything I do and everywhere I go.

So in short: I'm fine with advertising and wont normally block it because I want the sites I like to be profitable and their employees to be paid. But I despise tracking and will cheerfully do what I can to stop that, even giving up the odd site (such as forbes.com) that make it too difficult to avoid.

30 years on, Chernobyl wildlife still feeling effects of nuke plant catastrophe


Re: (Related) ... Anyone have grounded theories about this...

I find it hard to believe that any negative effects from Fukishima on fish populations would even be measureable against the effect of fishing and whaling by human beings.

There's one reason for collapse in marine populations, and it's us.


Re: If Lewis Page had written this article...

Might be better if he had. See my correction above about the "50% of animals" statement. This article is very lacking in actual numbers which is one of the first signs you should look deeper. Are you really of the belief that media coverage of nuclear incidents isn't generally biased? I can provide you plenty of examples of bias and misrepresentation from mainstream sources if you ask.


Re: Show me some stats

I'm also pretty certain that the article is wrong. Or at least highly misleading. It refers to more than 50% of animals having reduced brain size. That should be more than 50% of the types of animals suffer from it. I.e. they found incidences of this in X number of species, not of all individual animals total, more than 50% were afflicted.

Definitely some numbers required. I'm going to make an educated guess and say they would lead to a very different impression than this article.

Jaron Lanier: Big Tech is worse than Big Oil


Re: Employment: well, yes and no.

But Amazon might finally be making in-roads to get rid of even you. RDS is coming for your job sooner or later.

Ten years in the clink, file-sharing monsters! (If UK govt gets its way)


Re: Actually, no

>>"More on the torrent thing...the example given is people distributing 2500 films. Now I have been on torrents with 12,000 people on, so -instead of 2,500 x 1 file- we're looking at 1 x 12,000). "

This is misleading. They weren't given the sentence because of the number of films they participated in torrenting. They were given it because that was the number of undistributed films they managed to be amongst the first seeders of and their stated goals as a team were to obtain and be the first to pirate these movies and get the torrenting started. If you had read the reference in the proposal you would have seen this. If you're going to try and clarify things for people, research your facts, first.


Re: Actually, no

So let's begin with the obvious. I've made the point, with examples of actual UK legal history, that this clickbait suggestion of ten year sentences for domestic pirates is inaccurate. You've argued against my posts and I've asked you for any counter-examples in UK law of your own. You have none.

You claim you can't give me examples of ten year sentences because this law hasn't been written yet. But I'm not asking for that and already addressed this. We can sentence someone to 4.5 years right now so you're entirely able to give me the examples of multi-year sentences for domestic downloaders I've asked for. Well, assuming they exist. Where are they?

You claim the courts will abuse this ten year maximum but you can't even find me examples of abusing the current maximums! In fact, I'll go one better. In the Surfthechannel case they were prosecuted under Conspiracy to Defraud, which has a maximum sentence of ten years (same as this proposal) and the defendant received a sentence of four years. And THAT was a case of someone making £30,000+ per month and filtering the money through foreign banks to hide it. Yet you are promoting this idea that the domestic downloader is going to get ten years in prison for it.

>>Isn't the entire point of the proposal that the most you could do online copyright infringers for was 4.5 years by using fraud laws?

No. This is about rationalizing online and offline penalties. Is it fair that someone who commits fraud online should be penalized differently from someone who does the same thing resulting in the same harm offline? I mean you attempt to argue that this should be done later on and I'll get to that. But it's plainly wrong. The law needs to keep up with technology and here is an example of it doing so. So, no the entire point isn't about upping it from 4.5 years, it's about making the law consistent with itself. Now lets talk about the 4.5 years and the fact that it's gone up. It's also about making the law more readable and clear - also good things - because there are many cases where the CPO has dropped cases because of the confusion with the existing laws. If somebody ripped you off you would be most unhappy if the CPO came back and said "sorry - the law is too complex to prosecute".

>>"I would suggest that physical piracy is far more likely to involve a commercial element. For a start you're going to want to recover the cost of the blank media "

People make hundreds of thousands of pounds from advertising on piracy sites. And you're talking about pennies! So firstly, since when did reduced costs become a factor for making something less likely to appeal to criminals? Think over what you've just argued! Secondly, when you've answered that, tell me why it should matter what methods of crime are most popular to the case of prosecuting some individual for their particular crime. If it's not relevant, then don't bring it as a counter-argument about proposed laws.

>>"plus cash exists and you have to physically meet to exchange media anyway, so no extra arrangements need be made and no extra risk needs be taken"

Oh yes, meeting dodgy people and moving around unmarked smuggled boxes is a great incentive over sticking up a website. Sure it is.

>>"Now online infringement can be monetised; but you need to add a mechanism to do that and that is always going to add significant risk."

It's called advertising and adding it to your site is easy. As is telling the advertisers where to put the money. "Significant" is really a lovely vague term, isn't it, btw?

>>"Well, I'm in Spain; where there is a tax on blank media and the rights groups get a payout"

Well that might explain why you're repeatedly able to support your points about UK law. Regardless, a tax on blank media is a terrible, terrible idea. Why? Firstly, you're forcing people who don't pirate to subsidise those that do. Secondly, profits are divvied up by big rights organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA who take a nice fat cut of that for "administration" and independent and small artitsts are fucked as well. Thirdly, it's deeply out of touch. Do you honestly think that all those people torrenting movies and MP3s are busy sticking them on plastic discs? No? Then don't offer this stupid law up as a justification for piracy.

"When it's hands-down the most popular method of downloading large lumps of data and when that method intrinsically means that you are technically making that data available to large numbers of people, then fuck yeah, it's a weakness"

No. Laws citing specific technological methods of doing things rather than aims and results is always a bad idea. Do you seriously want a scenario where copyright law was re-written for Betamax and VHS and vinyl and cassette tapes and then CDs and then DVDs and then Blu-Rays or MP3 players? Have you seen the mess the US patent system is in when it focuses on specific bits of technological method rather than general principles? Would you like international law to have lots to say about mustard gas but nothing about Sarin or nuclear weapons? Well-written laws have to be written about aims and results, not about specific stages of technology.


Re: Actually, no

>>"You're saying that with a confidence that I don't share. You appear to be expecting common sense from the law; whereas -not only do I not expect it- but when you think a little bit about recent legal history scope creep; RIAA maths and so on, the exact opposite is what will likely happen in practice."

I've been citing actual cases of multi-year convictions in UK legal history and showing the level of wrong that had to be committed to achieve that. They are rare and extreme cases, all with massive distinctions between them and domestic piracy that others here are discussing. You accuse me of confidence, well yes - I'm basing this on actual cases. You declare vague hints about "RIAA maths" and declare that the exact opposite will happen. Well then put your money where your mouth is and do what I have done: cite some actual cases and lets examine them. Show me cases in the UK where people have received multi-year sentences for piracy in the UK and we'll take a look at whether these are domestic pirates or are actually some non-representative case that has special reasons for it. Go for it - show me cases where people have got multi-year prison sentences in the UK for this. And don't make the mistake of saying you can't because this is a new law because this is a rationalization existing law to remove discrepancies between the same act taking place online and offline. Multi-year sentences have been possible for piracy under UK law for a long time. Cite me some examples of this that support your case as I have done for mine.

>>"The proposal has 2 serious flaws: The first is that digital copying is not the same as physical copying"

If someone hands me a cracked copy of photoshop on a pressed DVD or if they send me the file via Dropbox, the fraction of a penny difference in plastic is not the concern. Similarly, if I stole a retail copy of it and then applied a crack, do you really think the pennies of difference and pressing of an extra copy is the concern to Adobe? Or that it's the copy of the software that is their concern. No, the distinctions you are attempting to make are not the relevant ones here. Steal a piece of plastic with the information on or steal it via a torrent, it is logical and correct that the law shouldn't have wildly different sentences and guidelines over these. That is simple and correct. Attempting to say "but in the former case, they no longer have a piece of plastic that someone might have bought" when the plastic is just another medium of transporting the real thing of value, is knowingly trying to dodge the important elements here.

>>"The second is that torrenting is technically making files available; potentially to a large -instant industrial scale- number of people and I see no mention; exemption or even knowledge of that in the proposal"

Well, I'll resist the urge to suggest you don't participate in massive distributed attempts to defraud people of the product of their labour and point out that (a) you haven't seen the actual draft law itself yet and (b) there is indeed a response addressing proportionality of response. Several in fact. Amongst them they highlight previous cases for guidance including one where people got two years and that this wasn't for simply obtaining the movies as domestic downloaders, but people who aimed to be the initial seeders of content that wasn't yet generally obtainable by torrent and did so for over 2,500 movies.

Generally when laws cite specific technological methods, it's a BAD thing. Such laws rapidly become out of date. You are now effectively arguing it's a weakness in the proposal that it [I]doesn't[/I] do this. The point is addressed by multiple citations of existing history in this area so you're wrong that it doesn't cover it. It just doesn't cover it in the way that you think it should be done but would in fact be very problematic and short-sighted to do so.

Now, back to you finding cases in the UK that actually support your belief that domestic pirates are going to get ten year sentences over my actual examples that indicate they wont...

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019