Posts by Intractable Potsherd 4162 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Titus, hiding behind a contract which requires you to do something illegal or immoral is a version of the Nuremberg Defence - which we know doesn't work.
Let's put it this way: say that for some reason the local chief police officer takes out a contract, legal in form, on your life. Should the person who takes the contract just fulfil it and be able to say "Well, I was just doing what the contract said" without sanction, or would you prefer that the person perhaps notifies someone else who can do something about it, and, given the power the local police chief wields, decides the best way is to go public? Snowden is in the latter position: it wasn't clear who the best person to report it to, so he has gone public with the information that [possibly] illegal and [certainly] immoral actions have taken place.
My wife and her family, from an ex-Iron Curtain country, believe that it is dangerous to touch a washing machine whilst it is on, because there were a lot* of incidents at some point in the past of people being electrocuted.
Pointing out that:
- a lot of people have their washing-machines in the bathroom in that country**
- the building wiring there. It is entirely possible that it was not entirely safe,
- it is not entirely inconceivable that a number of washing machines had an electrical path to the casing,
- therefore, it is the combination of wet people and dodgy electrics that led to the deaths,
falls on deaf ears. Washing machines are dangerous!!. They then go in and use the hair dryer over a sink full of water ... or, worse yet, go to the cottage and use the two-ring electric cooker set lower than the sink next to it, and cannot understand why I think it is not a good idea ...
* for whatever value of "a lot" strikes them as significant.
** Most live in apartments in which, for some unfathomable reason, the bathroom is big enough to hold a party in, and the kitchen isn't big enough to swing an amoeba. The number of 240V electrical sockets in a bathroom terrifies me!
Absolutely fair comments, Ledswinger. I should have phrased it differently, but I know that I can sometimes come across as a complete big-business-hating loon, so I responded to the original post as written.
It is a poor situation when the least-bad option is someone I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire. I suppose it is quite amazing how bloody awful Icahn is when he makes Dell look like the more humane option ...
What a mess.
I like the sentiment, and would upvote you if the result of Icahn winning would not be lots of people losing jobs. If you can come up with a plan that avoids the huge amount of misery the objectionable bastard always inflicts on the companies he rapes and yet has the same effect of reducing the shithead to poverty and ridicule that we both want to see, I'm ready with the upvote button!
No. What we've learned is that there are some in the population who have bought the whole "the world is a REEEEEEAAAALLLYY dangerous place" story, and will excuse the State anything in the pursuit of perpetrators.
I'd rather have the small risk of something bad happening. Let's face it, the sort of crime most of us* will ever come across is not the sort that this kind of intelligence will ever pick up - petty vandalism, picked pockets, burglary, minor offences against the person. By all means, if the police have a suspicion that there is a conspiracy to commit a major crime, then they should do their jobs as they always have - work out who is likely to be involved, persuade a judge to give a warrant for proportionate intelligence gathering, and then, in the event of an arrest, gather sufficient evidence to persuade a jury that the suspects actually did it. That is the rule of law. Treating everyone as a suspect simply for being alive is wrong.
* and the overwhelming majority of us will never experience any of these anyway
I *do* understand the world we live in. There aren't enough "terrorists" to make any difference to the majority of us.
You cite the London incident - there is absolutely no evidence that random data-gathering made any difference whatsoever. There are so few potential bombers that, without specific intelligence, the wholesale hoovering of data will make no difference (or only if extremely lucky) at all.
Placing the whole population under scrutiny is a crime against the people. The state is acting in a way that says "we do not trust you", and, despite what you say, it is not lawful to spy without due cause. The alternative is to accept that everyone is a suspect merely for being alive. That is wrong, and someone needs to be held to account for it.
What else would you consider it prudent to stop doing in order to avoid over-reaching security? Don't write anything? Don't read anything? Don't buy fertilizer? Don't drive? .... The trouble with your argument is that, no matter what the "security"* services do, you will say "Well, what do you expect? Just stop doing <whatever it is the snooping bastards have been caught doing>!"
We agree on one thing - the world is as it is, and this is what is happening. We differ in that I don't just shrug my shoulders and say "Well, what do you expect?". I want to change things so that there is strong protection (even to the point that the occasional bad thing happens) of individual privacy, and a respect for the population. I also expect that the rules of diplomacy are followed, and that foreign leaders, especially those who are supposed to be "friends", are not spied upon (unless they are at risk from an existing target).
There *is* such a thing as the moral high-ground - it is time we got back to it.
* I don't actually feel secure by the existence of overreaching spies. It is time we engaged in a national debate about exactly who the security services should be protecting.
Ah, yes - the only "tech" I've ever bought for a woman that was appreciated (she had asked for it specifically, and went with me to make sure I got the right one).
Completely wasted on me - pasta is pasta is pasta. It is a flour and water paste in different shapes. There is (in my opinion) no difference between the cheapest dried stuff from the bottom shelf in Morrison's and the stuff my wife spends hours making (and then giving to people as presents ...)
There is a lot of truth to that. In the past, I have tried to be as specific as possible about what I want (having been hedged into a corner by the "but you can't buy your own present" non-argument). It was then my fault because the sales-monkey had, for whatever reason, not just handed one over (pre-internet shopping, of course), and the standard birthday argument ensued because I *had* got what I wanted :-(
"The worst thing you can buy, is an Iron ..."
As my dad found out many years ago. Mum had been saying that the old one was not working properly, and so he really thought this would make a good present for her birthday ...
Trouble is, he didn't learn - I remember the (apparently) seven-day frosty atmosphere after he got her a new chip-pan after complaints about the old one!
Did it sink in with me, you might ask? Well, probably not, given the receptions to a satnav, an MP3/4 player, and a pair of hiking boots over the years (not for my mum, though). I now insist on either a) a very clear statement of what she wants or b) it is going to be something soooooooooo useless and expensive that the argument is going to be as big as getting something useful (and probably cheaper) anyway. I refuse to buy silly fluffy monkeys just to "show I care".
I didn't downvote you, but you are are half-right, and half-wrong. Distance learning works for *some* people. Having the option is important.
I can never agree with you that "humanities, arts and others ... have no tangible return or use). Learning is valuable in and of itself. You seem to be one of those that think history (for example) is a pointless subject, whereas, say, engineering isn't. I'd say that you let your prejudice get in the way of clear thinking. That doesn't mean to say that I think the current policy of channelling thousands of people into university courses is necessarily good, but I think that people should have access to education (broadly defined) throughout their lives.
However, remember that universities do not only teach - there is a vast amount of research going on, and so premises must be available.
"... most academics respect the skills and experience of their IT staff ..."
Well, true in many cases. Personally, the IT folk are high on my list of people (departmental and central) to make acquaintance with within the first week in a new place - partly because I enjoy the company of techies, but because I want to show my respect for them by talking to them before I have anything to ask of them. The same isn't the same of all my academic colleagues, some of whom still regard IT as an unnecessary evil ...
"In most UK Universities the academic staff get any devices they need for their work provided to them, so BYOD isn't necessary."
I don't know where you get this idea from. Of the many jobs I've had in universities (lecturing and research), only one supplied me with a laptop for the work (which I was more than happy to use, even though it was a bottom-of-the-range Toshiba laptop). All the rest required (and still require) my own IT provision.
I'm intrigued what those who advocate a supplied-IT approach in universities would like to see? The only other option is to supply thousands of staff and students every year with standard equipment, creating a huge inventory and attendant stock-taking and replacement cycles. Alternatively, are you advocating that all students/staff must only use local desktops, (which shows you don't have a grasp on how learning works these days - distance-learning is a fact, guys and gals)? My current university is some 400 miles from where I live, and I need to be able to work when I'm not actually at my (non-existent) desk. So, seriously - what is your answer?
Whilst I have some sympathy with your post (I love book shops, and I miss "real" libraries), I cannot entirely agree with you. Literature is literature is literature, regardless of the medium. No doubt there were people that claimed the only "real" way to read a book was on parchment that umpteen monks had slaved away on for years, and that this printing lark was devaluing the experience. However, it doesn't matter whether it is produced with ink-particles or electrons. The ideas are what matter.
Yes, there are issues surrounding the resilience of ebooks compared to dead-tree books. If there is an apocalypse, hopefully some of the dead-tree books will still be around to help the survivors at some point - it is interesting how many post-apocalypse stories have the wise man guarding the old library - whereas we cannot sensibly expect anyone two generations after whatever disaster to have any clue what the strange devices that do nothing were for. However, I'm not sure that is any reason to shore up the modern equivalent of buggy-whip manufacturers (also more likely to be useful, post-apocalypse, than cars).
Your argument that ebooks can be recalled by the publisher flies in the face of reality. Any book you think might be banned is available through less-offical channels somewhere, and if it isn't, it would be five minutes after news of a recall was published. I keep several local copies of every single ebook I have, and I an far from the only one. The other advantage of ebooks is that there are a lot of potential sources of samizdat print copies in the event that they are required.
TL:DR - you are over-reacting, I think.
I'm not sure that it can be established that Amazon is doing anything illegal,* otherwise Apple and/or others would have started there, rather than do something that any sensible lawyer would have told them sailed very close to the wind. Amazon are, unfortunately,** sailing far enough from the wind to be unassailable from any legal point of view.
Had Apple and the book companies not had the "most favoured nation" clause, than this would not have come to court. That decision is what showed intent to distort the market unfairly, and this seems to be an inevitable decision on the part of the court.
* I assume by "illegal" you are suggesting that Amazon has been "dumping"? There is no evidence of that available, at least at the moment.
** I say "unfortunately" because it is never good in the long term for one company to have a massive share of the market in anything.*** Amazon has, so far, not used its weight to act contrary to the interests of the consumer, or, really, the producers (at least, no more than any other outlet would). Nonetheless, I'd prefer to see an effective competitor from somewhere, even though I do use Amazon for about half of my media (all types) purchases.
*** The logic of capitalism requires that monopolies are the end product in any market. It amuses me when people who claim to be "free-market" advocates talk about invoking anti-trust law, thus requiring state intervention!
"... the judges also make money when the litigants bring these cases."
No, they don't. Judges are salaried employees who would be paid regardless (it isn't as if there is competition for cases). There isn't any extra for hearing certain types of case.*
* As far as I know, but California is a funny place ...
I'm appalled at the Luddism shown by supposedly techy types. Air travel is one of the greatest inventions of mankind, and you complain about a bit of noise (I grew up on the flight path of Vulcans, and recently lived on the path from Birmingham), and would happily move back to live near a proper airport (Dundee doesn't count ...)
NIMBYs are the lowest form of social life.
"..you're saying that Apple's walled garden approach is the only way to be secure?"
No, sabroni - the only way to be secure is not to use any mobile phone at all. Slightly less secure is not to use smartphones at all. A bit further down the list is to use a smartphone but don't download any apps from anywhere. Just a little way down is to use a reliable store, regardless of supplier. Perhaps twice that last distance is to use an unauthorised app store. Even then, you are barely 5mm down a 10cm scale of "risk".
"What's the punishment for providing false evidence?"
Providing false evidence, if found to be culpable, is known as "perverting the course of justice". It is a common law offence, and carries up to life imprisonment ... I don't know of any cases where the maximum has been applied, but the clear fabrication of lies by Huhne and Pryce only got them eight months with two months served inside.
Yep - it does look like we are all now extensions of our employers, who must now monitor every IT activity we do. The concept of "private time", or time when we are not the responsibility of our employers just went out of the window.
This is going to lead to some popcorn sessions, I think. Better get the armchair ready.
At what price *do* you expect customer service to be included? I'm old-fashioned enough to consider that any customer deserves service, regardless of what is being bought - a 50p tap washer customer is the same as a £100 tap customer.
Your attitude makes you part of the increasingly poor delivery of service, since you think that price is directly proportional to deserving of service.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
