So what if she was? Were the Daily Mail forums full?
4545 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
Re: I'm sorry
>>"The politicians say that I must go to jail for 10 years if I download a movie "
No, they don't. The inability of some people here to grasp the basics of UK law is depressing; viz. that it allows a range of sentences so that discretion can be allowed and you can differentiate between someone who sells $20m dollars worth of software and someone who torrents half a dozen movies at home to watch.
Also the inability to differentiate between mode, median and arithmetic mean.
Re: I'm sorry
>>"So downloading a bunch of films is worth more than a kids life."
No it isn't and you wont get ten years in prison for "downloading a bunch of files". You might get several years for conducting a large, for profit piracy operation however which are the actual examples you'll find of people having been given multi-year prison sentences for piracy. And the maximum sentence for "Causing Death by Dangerous Driving" which is what the actual charge is in the UK, is 14 years. That is since you're so fond of making comparisons based around absolute worst case scenarios.
Re: Of course it will work...
Actually, it's really immaterial the state of the prisons because this isn't about stuffing lots of home downloaders in prison. They (when actually caught and prosecuted which is rare) get fines. The prison sentences handed out have been for large-scale profiting operations. One of the biggest was 7.5 years for someone who was selling pirated software (traded about $20m worth), another person got 4.5 years and they were routing their profits to a bank in Belize via a bank in Latvia - not exactly your typical teenage downloader. Even that guy who the Guardian got so indignant about being extradited to America to be charged with copyright infringement had made $230,000 in advertising revenue from his site. (And he still wasn't sentenced to prison).
The reason for the harmonization is because it's silly to have different laws for the same thing done online as done offline when the effects are the same. It's not going to lead to swarms of people being sent to prison. Copyright infringers who get prison sentences are a tiny, tiny proportion of the total.
>>"The way this is phrased makes it a loaded question. Alternatively stated, would be would you make effectively a $16m donation to keep people in their homes, and personally I think that is too much to ask."
Well there are reasons why it's phrased the way it is. This isn't an exact parallel to someone suddenly being asked one day if they'd like to donate $16m to help house people. It's actually his decision and responsibility. You could go round dozens of rich people in your version asking each but in this case he owns their homes and the profit he stands to make is from selling those people's homes. It's not a passive act, he has to make an active decision as to whether he's going to get a huge amount of money and let people keep their homes, or get 140% a huge amount of money by kicking them out of their homes. When the money is coming from you selling where people live, that's different to just being asked for money for people who have nothing to do with you.
Re: TAKE THE MONEY
>>"I have no sympathy for people who are close to my age and NEVER SAVED ANY MONEY. I worked my BUTT off literally and figuratively to get what I have today. I have NO sympathy for people who were grasshoppers not ants."
Or alternatively prioritized raising families, lower-paying careers they cared about such as teaching, or had more dependents than you, or etc.
Incidentally, your caps key appears to be broken.
Re: I hope...
The RSPB lost their way quite some time ago, unfortunately. I used to be a financial supporter of theirs until I found where much of my money was actually going. They put as much effort into promoting wind-farms and killing birds (to prevent species interbreeding - essentially a Genetic Purity effort) as they do actually looking after birds anymore.
Better off supporting smaller independent conservation projects than the RSPB. They're there if you look for them and they actually, you know, protect birds and habitats.
Yeah, the way you'd feel with £25m and calling yourself a good person beats how you'd feel with £39m and doubting it. And you're going to be free to relax and do what you want either way.
Plus the world could sorely use some examples of putting compassion ahead of profit. That has a knock on effect on people's lives too.
I'm inclined to trust Kapersky on this one, if I were to pick. Aside from the sheer dodginess of Reuter's "evidence" (and the fact it doesn't make a lot of sense), there was also that Bloomberg hit piece a while ago which was speculative trash. Kapersky seems to have a few enemies in the higher-up American power structures. Which given they cracked the Equation Group (NSA), is not that surprising. They were also targeted not long ago with one of the most sophisticated hacking operations we've ever seen - absolutely state-sponsored - so they provably have some very highly-placed and well-resourced enemies.
>>"No, that ego-stroking myth has already been thoroughly discredited"
By the fact that the USA has never abducted the people it wants even from European countries? By the fact they wouldn't love to get their hands on him? By the fact that Sweden doesn't have an extradition treaty with the USA?
Because it has, they would and it does. Just saying.
Re: Wouldn't it be fun
The actress from Mystery Men????
At least John McAfee knows it.
I don't know, but I have a perfect mental image of Elmer Fudd as Steve Jobs singing:
"Kiiiiiillll the Wozzzzzzzzzniak"
>>"It really hasn't occurred to them that a lot of people like myself really DON'T WANT a digital assistant."
I would be fine with it if I could choose the aspects that I want. It would be nice to use it for appointment's management. But MS want consent to scan my txts and emails. I'm perfectly happy to accept a compromise and not have it auto adding things because it found an email from an airline in my inbox. But compromises don't seem to be on offer. There might be a setting to turn it off but as far as I can see you can't even get to that part without first going through the consent agreement part.
>>"To be honest, this concept of privacy is almost recent. Only a two hundred years ago, you wouldn't have dreamt of hiding your secrets from your neighbors. People mostly lived in small towns, and had no anonymity, and not much privacy either."
Actually, I'm pretty sure people hid their information going back as far as there were those with power and those without. Every village hid information from the visiting taxmen. And if you think there weren't secrets in even small communities then you've never lived in one. In short, you're talking bollocks.
Re: Whilst I do not disagree with the criticisms of the privacy issues regarding Win 10............
>>"..........I would have been much more supportive of this line had you and other authors been a touch more critical at a significantly earlier stage in the context of Google/Apple etc with regard to precisely this issue given the comprehensive hosing you are now giving Redmond"
How about me? I think I have a reputation on these forums of being an MS fan. At least I've been called it repeatedly and had to endure endless accusations of bias.
And I find MS's direction right now pretty poor (and yes, I've criticized Google for the same thing in the past). I'm happy to pay for software and I liked MS when they sold it and I gave them money in return. Now they seem to think they can have their cake and eat it and I'm not very happy about that.
Re: The legend that is...
I think you'll find that when you look at someone's head angled from above, it's hard to see their eyeballs. At least unless something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
>>"And if the backdoor was introduced in an early version of GnuC?"
Then it would have long since been found and weeded out because it is not some unbroken chain of compilation. You would have to keep compromising the vendors of the software over and over and over.
What are the ways to beat a keylogger?
There's always someone who brings up compiler backdoors and the answer is no, you don't really have to worry about these. In some circumstances you might, but those are exceptions. The reason is that a binary compiled with a backdoor will be different to a binary compiled without. The overwhelming majority of OSS comes precompiled. You download it and check the hash and you're good to go. IF some bad actor wanted to subvert that then they'd have to compromise all of the servers compiling that binary and get away with it. Even getting away with it on one would be a big stretch. And even if you were using a distro that wasn't pre-compiled, you'll still be using a pre-compiled compiler from somewhere that you will check the hash of.
Compiler backdoors in OSS are possible. Viable is a whole other matter. The point stands that whilst closed source software (e.g. Windows) can be just as secure against outside threats as OSS, one of the big advantages of OSS is that you can check it against internal threats by the vendor. That's an undeniable plus.
Now Microsoft actually open their source code to large purchasers for inspection against such things so how much of a risk deliberate subversion there is we do not know (really depends on whether China et al. could be persuaded to collude with the USA on some group backdoor scheme which is shaky) and MS would suffer a massive blow if they were shown to have deliberate backdoors in there for the government so I don't think they would risk it as the company they are today. And it's increasingly unnecessary as the useful stuff can be obtained by spying on traffic and cloud-stored data. But it can't be denied that ability to trust the vendor is a major positive with OSS. It's one of it's chief advantages.
Re: Pretty obvious - a keylogger was installed
That's very interesting. Are you able to say where the compiled data is stored so a user could erase it?
Re: but with an eye to CO2 emissions Vodafone is keen to reduce the use of diesel.
>>"Not to mention the need for some sort of vehicle to distribute the fuel cells, which would obviously need fuel itself. Surely if they were being totally green, they'd have gone for Solar power? It's not as if South Africa lacks sunlight."
Solar panels would have to be transported by vehicle as well, you know. Besides, hydrogen is only produced from fossil fuels because it's cheaper to do it that way - much like it's cheaper than batteries and wind power. The nice thing with hydrogen is that you can ALSO produce it cleanly if you wish. It's not a fuel SOURCE, it's an energy STORE. Whether you store energy from a clean source or otherwise, that's no different to whether you charged a battery from a clean source or not.
>>"Not sure how that scales for a large sealed container of hydrogen at that critical point."
It doesn't translate because hydrogen is so much lighter than coal vapour. The narrow upwards jet of hydrogen isn't purely the result of being stored at pressure as in your example, it simply shoots upwards regardless. It's one of the mitigating factors to hydrogen's flammability. So for example petrol vapours will pool around if there's a leak, being so heavy compared to air, whereas hydrogen, despite in theory being more dangerous, will be heading skyward the first chance it gets.
Hell, it's hard enough to keep in one place deliberately, let alone by accident. Not that hydrogen can't be dangerous, it can, but it's not usually this bomb waiting to happen that people seem to think.
Nice experiment for teaching chemistry to kids, though. Will remember that. :)
I doubt they would blow themselves up. Hydrogen is stored under such pressure and so light that if someone did try it, I imagine the most that would happen would be the back of the drill hitting them in the forehead at high speed. Even if ignited, you'd get a fast, narrow jet of flame going straight up which wouldn't last long. Admittedly, it [b]would[/b] be invisible.
Still, the point stands - stealing hydrogen would be a lot harder than diesel or even natural gas. The only feasible way for a small time operation to do it is to steal the whole tank. Which is much easier to secure and, until Hydrogen becomes a common standard, would still leave you with the problem of what to hook the tank up to even if they did.
>>"I was going on the theory that probably most of the awful things you can imagine governments doing with the data are probably happening already."
Uh, no. Crack open a history book if you want to see how bad things can get. You don't even have to go for the obvious Adolf Hitler stuff. Take a look at the Stasi, at North Korea, China through the twentieth century, Qatar today and plenty of others. If you think most of the awful misuses of the data are already happening, you're gravely misinformed. It can get a lot worse and the more information that is collated and available the harder it is to fight such abuses. Significantly so.
>>"I'm not privy to any secrets; but I'm pretty sure that the technology is still being developed, so the potential is there to be able to identify possible problems before they happen"
Like the Algorithm in the Captain America: Winter Soldier movie, you mean? Absolutely the potential is there to identify problems before they happen, and by extension end them. The thing is, and one of the reasons you're probably getting so many downvotes, is the State's definition of problem is not necessarily the people's definition of problem and worse - the more power the state has of this kind, the increasing divergence between the two there will be. This latter is a fact.
Re: Fascinating. @ NoneSuch
If it's "equally probable" then why assume one over the other. "Hanlon's razor" is just a humorous meme (though it's less humorous after the fortieth time you've heard it). There are plenty of idiots in government, but there are plenty of smart people too - civil servants, intelligence bureaucrats and directors, private industry associates who make LOTS of money from the deals arranged and yes, even politicians are not necessarily the idiots they sometimes appear to be. These people have worked their way up to seize a limited number of lucrative positions against the competition - why assume incompetence or idiocy. All too often it's simply the case that their goals aren't the same as your goals. You might think the RIPAA act is stupid because it's chances of combating terrorism as stated are near nil. But so what, it's lets the busybodies follow you around or watch you on the CCTV which is what they _really_ want. So are they idiots for proposing an anti-terrorist measure that wont catch terrorists? Of course not - they just lied to get what they want. Not the same thing at all.
Hanlon's razor is a trite joke that some people appear to actually be thinking is some kind of real operating principle to work by. Here's a better operating principle: "Who benefits?" So long as the answer to that is 'someone' that's cause enough to suspect malice.
Re: In other words, he is hardly innocent
Well actually all we now know is that someone on Reddit claims to be somebody specific. Is any of this recorded in testimony anywhere? It might be true, it might not. OP correctly wrote claimed, you've jumped to "we know".
Re: Frozen A/C, hot room
"One of my favourite interview questions for budding software engineers is, how much do they know about aircon?"
You're obviously at one of these companies that confuses any sort of IT role together. A Sysadmin MAY find such knowledge relevant, but really they should be focused on the software aspects of their charges which is complex a job enough. If your programmers are being asked about air conditioning, then they should take that as a strong warning sign that they're applying to a company that doesn't understand IT roles very well and they're about to be dumped in some generic pool of "the IT types".
Re: Re. ransomware
Because one is usually an attempt to kill someone and the other may lose you some possessions?
Yeah, people should stop releasing new products until they've found a way to stop thieves putting its name onto their malware. These companies are just lazy.
Re: Galloway Rocks....
>>"It amused me watching you leap to his defence."
AKA, another boring troll.
Re: Galloway Rocks....
Strange... Character assassinations, pretending to speak for the whole of England, little jibes about the lack of education of kids today... It seems to me that you'd fit in pretty well at the Mail.
Re: Galloway Rocks....
>>"The real issue as that I find Galloway to be odious, oily, smug and self-centred. A massive contrast to another leftwing politician, Tony Benn, who also stuck to his principles no matter what
So basically you think that he should leave the country because you don't like his manner whereas another politician you did so they can stay.
Re: Galloway Rocks....
>>"Well I guess he must have something to inspire such an impassioned defence"
More that I just dislike cheap attacks and pretending to speak for the country.
Anyway, given I posted facts and your posts go "are you his mum", I think this is pretty much done. As another poster said, if sponsors of mass surveillance just try to tar opponents of it by association, your sort of mindset is exactly the one that tactic works on. What matters is that they're trying to get away with dragnet style surveillance, not that you get upset about George Galloway.
He has a very good track record of highlighting government wrongs. You should watch that link of him laying into the US case for war with Iraq. That got a lot of press and his arguing style is to back everything up with references as he goes, which is a lot better than most people's style of word play and veiled ad hominems, imho.
Re: Dear Mr. Galloway.
No. Are you his ex?
>>"Extracting hydrogen from water is still a developing art."
Well pretty much all tech is still developing - there's very little that is completely matured short of the wheel and fire. But no, it's not difficult and we can do it fine. The reason it's still made from natural gas is that this is cheaper. Just like running a car from petrol is cheaper than batteries. But we can make it from clean sources just fine so the correct comparison is how it compares to batteries, to which the answer is it's better.
You are also either being disingenuous or just repeating anti-hydrogen soundbites with your "4 tonnes of CO2 for every 1 tonne of hydrogen". That's meaningless without comparing it to actual energy densities. It is sad that proponents of battery powered cars would rather attack a fellow clean energy approach than be pleased by it. But then I suppose it's seen a rival and if you support "batteries" rather than "clean energy" then I suppose it must be hated as it's a threat to battery-powered cars in a way that fossil fuel isn't - competing on its own "clean energy" turf, as it were.
Re: the one and only solution today is nuclear energy
>>"UK regulators have asked Hitachi-GE to address a series of "shortfalls" in the probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) of its Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). The request takes the form of a Regulatory Issue, which is the second in as many months in the generic design assessment (GDA) of the reactor for its use in the UK."
Isn't this what is supposed to happen? A process between the designers and the regulators to iron out problems and get documentation in order. I do the same with software requirements documents every month and I'm dealing with specifications far less complex than I imagine a nuclear power station to be. Do you really imagine whole books of documentation being handed over to the regulators and them NOT coming back and saying "we need more on this bit" or "please clarify or amend this" ? If you do, you have no experience of complex projects. If you don't, then why are you damning nuclear power for the process working as it should?
>>Hydrogen cells are batteries
Wrong in both technical terms AND in layspeak. Hydrogen Fuel Cells are not batteries.
A battery is something you charge up with electricity and then you discharge it over time. Even lay people understand that a battery is something charged with electricity.
A hydrogen fuel cell is connected to a tank of hydrogen. The hydrogen is reacted with oxygen to produce energy and the resulting water vapour is expelled. Have you ever seen a battery that you plug a hydrogen tube into and watched it give out steam from the reaction? No, because that's not what a battery does.
>>I'm interested to know what that mythical 'other source' is
It's called hydrogen fuel cells and Toyota have a commercially available family car that uses one right now, so you have a funny definition of 'mythical'. Lot of London busses run on HFC as well. It's far more energy dense than any battery ever produced or likely to be any time soon. And the exhaust is water vapour.
Hydrogen can also be produced cleanly with electricity and hot water - something nuclear powerstations have in abundance. So you have power generated by nuclear and you can do it efficiently because you use the troughs in demand to produce the hydrogen as a storage mechanism for energy. Nuclear power is most efficient run at a steady output so they're a perfect compliment. And you get cars that are clean, lighter than battery equivalents, have greater range and use existing petrol infrastructure with the relatively simple addition to the station of a new pump and accompanying tank.
>>"Now, as for energy generation - there's been relentless hostility to renewables from the fossil dinosaurs for decades now. They really, really hate the fact that they're not going to able to keep holding everyone to ransom with fossils"
Now that's a character attack on your opponents. I'm about as vicious a critic of wind power as you're likely to find and I have NO association with any fossil fuel industry that I'm aware of (other than being a customer just as you are). I'm pretty sure you'll find that many of us from the author of the article to the posters here are actually strong proponents of NUCLEAR power. Claiming our arguments are biased because we hate not being able to hold people hostage over fossil fuels is wrong. In fact it's silly. Do you really think all those people modding down your post own shares or hold positions in oil or coal companies? Rather than just think you're wrong?
>>"Hardly "creative accounting". The claim was 8% of electricity, not 8% of total energy use; perfectly accurate, and not at misleading"
In the context of this article, no it's not misleading because this article is clear about the difference. However, look at the sort of press-releases it is in response to. The contributions of wind power are not put in any sort of proper context and presented as having a whopping effect on reducing CO2 and fossil fuel usage. And I have been in debates with plenty of people who are more than happy to conflate the two to make wind power look better. I recall a few months ago someone claiming how Germany is now a net exporter of energy and linking to electricity figures.
Never mind that even if Germany were, it would still be a grossly inefficient approach to it made sustainable only by subsidies.
First laptop manufacturer to ship their laptops with a clean install of Windows and none of their proprietary software or that of people who are friends with the CEO, gets my business.
It seems a waste that with this technology, how good hand-writing technology has become and how great it is for sketching out notes or annotating web-pages and PDFs, pens aren't being pushed as more of a standard thing. It should be a major differentiator for Microsoft over their competitors at Apple and Google, but they don't seem to capitalize.
That said, coming up with good stuff and then not doing much with it, is almost standard practice for Microsoft, unfortunately.
Re: For £1,099 you can have...
The difference between Macs and PCs, in hardware terms, is that Apple only sells premium laptops. With PCs there are Premium and Standard and Budget variations. Compare like for like. If Apple can successfully sell laptops in the premium range, there's clearly a market. And besides, Lenovo and Dell have been charging these sorts of prices for their high-end for years so presumably are doing fine.
Just because there are cheaper laptops out there, doesn't mean this is above market prices.
>> 1- Does not has independent orbit around the Sun it cut the orbit of Neptune.
Nowhere in the history of the use of the word planet has anyone ever said it's something that cannot overlap with another planets orbit. Until post-fact looking for reasons to add this to the definition, of course. In fact, your argument is equally an argument that Neptune is not a planet. So are neither of them planets by your definition? If not, why is it okay for one to be ruled out because it cuts another planet's orbit but not the other? But chiefly, this is a post-fact addition to the definition of planet by yourself.
>> 2- Pluto and Charon moving around the common center of gravity [...] also It is not fair
All planets with satellites are orbiting around a common centre of gravity. Is the Earth no longer a planet? Also, how is one unfair to a planet? Are its feelings hurt?
>> 3 Pluto is not completely spherically as revealed by NASA
Nor is the Earth. It is oblate. This is another post-fact criterion added by yourself.
>> 4- it has a different terrain in comparison with surface of other face
Again, I don't think the word planet has ever had uniformity of terrain as a criterion, until you needed to add things to the definition to separate out Pluto.
>>> 5- Pluto does not have enough gravity to clear its orbit
>> 6- Pluto only is not a planet because it is a binary with Charon
You can't have a binary planet? If you had two Earth-sized planets orbiting each other and both orbiting a star, would they no longer be planets?
>> 7- Pluto rotation around itself the day is equal to a month on Pluto
See 4. Also, I'm reasonably confident that there are asteroids that the inverse would be true of - fast rotation much less than their month. Are you arguing that they are therefore considered for the position of planet? Of course not, so it's a double standard not relevant to this.
>> 8- Pluto's orbit has a great anomaly in the orbit in orbital inclination
And Uranus' axial tilt is nearly perpendicular to the rest of the planets which is far more of an anomaly. So what? Again, see answer to 4.
>> 9- Other satellites orbiting around Pluto and Charon does not around Pluto only or Charon only because the common center of gravity control orbits of these satellites.
Just number 2 again with different wording. All planet and satellite systems orbit a common centre of gravity. Is there some established point agreed in the definition of planet historically that defines how displaced the common centre can be from a body before it disqualifies that body from being called a planet? Not that I am aware of. See answers to 4 AND 6 this time.
Snipped for legibility. This is again just a longer re-wording of 6.
Re: Nomen est omen
>>"The thing is, when it comes to science, precision matters. Science MUST be pedantic or mistakes linger."
Sure. But planet has next to no scientific meaning. When you're calculating the path of your spaceprobe, you factor in 1x10^6Kg mass to your slingshot calculations, not "1 planet".
Planet is a cultural term used by laypeople.
I upvoted you just for "Team Planet". Beats the Hell out of "Team Downgrade Classification".
British support of Pluto's Planethood right here. Don't be so xenophobic. At best, I think you're just suffering confirmation bias from the fact that this is more of a controversy in the USA. In most of Europe and Asia, most people still just think of it as a planet so of course you'll see less argument.
I don't care if an American discovered it. I don't discount Venus because a bunch of Sumarians or Mayans first documented it.
Re: Wishing and Hoping
And honestly, why shouldn't it be a planet. Planet isn't a term that has any precise scientific meaning? No space probes will crash because they expected 2 Planets worth of gravitational force to affect them and there was only 0.5 Planets of gravitational force. It's not a scientific term, it's a cultural one. You want to correct someone who calls a hyena a canine because it's not? Fine - there are precise meanings behind the term. But there's nothing that says "planet = Xkg in mass".
It's been a planet for most of its existence and it's really just a cadre of people who like correcting others that took it up as a crusade. Call it a planet, no-one will get confused. In fact, confusion and arguments will drop. And I say all this as someone who back in the day argued fiercely against metric KB and KiB inventions - they affected me as an engineer. But what the Hell is the scientific definition of "planet". It's just a layperson's term so let 'em have it.