"ISIS may attack bankers"
is the most effective terrorist recruitment slogan ever.
967 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Jun 2009
You are right to be suspicious of the figures the police release, given that the police can manipulate them, have incentive to do so and, based on recent headlines, do.
However crime rates are falling according to british crime survey stats, which are less easily manipulated. The figures come from surveying members of the population, and so can't be altered by no criming an offence.
Crime falling in the UK shouldn't really come as a surpise - it is the worldwide trend.
Three strikes gets more people killed - if someone has been jailed twice burglary, and are offending again when the owner comes home they have 2 choices - give up and get jailed for life for burglary, or kill the owner and maybe get away with it.
I also think any system that can send someone to jail for life for failing to pay their TV license is intrinsically wrong.
(You seem to mean a total life sentence - the rest of you life behind bars, rather than a minimum term and life on license)
The prupose of a justice system is to reduce crime - if someone robbed me I'd want them punished, but I would much rather they didn't rob me in the first place.
The "similar staff" you mention are NHSCIC, which was given a facelift but largely left unchanged when it became HSCIC
As for there never being a perceived problem search The Register's for "careless data-sharing plans" or "Triple-headed NHS privacy scare" to read about them selling, inappropriately sharing and failing to protect data.
Because 4chan consists of thousands of anonymous accounts and so can't be said to be taking a collective stand on a particular action just because one person posted something to the board.
If Dave Fictionalman posts to 4chan that he's going to streak at the Brit Awards, then Dave Fictionalman did it, 4chan didn't, and if he goes for a pasty later there should be headlines saying "Greggs threaten Brit Awards with streaking"
So there was never any evidence the site was set up in response to Emma watson's speech, and it turns out the site wasn't set up by the 4chan "community", but was part of a bizarre pro-censorship pseudo-feminist(*) campaign by Rantic. But The Register happily repeated their guff anyway.
May I suggest hiring some less credulous writers?
(*) If your feminist campaign's means are to lead people to believe that the result of giving a pro-feminist speech is a nude photo backlash then you aren't very good at promoting feminism.
If your feminist campaign's means lead Emma Watson to believe that nude photos of her will be released as part of an agnry internet campaign of harassment then you don't seem to be particularly keen on treating women well.
No, the standard of proof, and degree of misconduct, is much higher for the CPS.
A court/tribunal would back you if, on balance of probabilities, you were justified in dismissing someone (i.e. if there is at least a 50% chance they committed gross misconduct, or other fireable offence)
The CPS shouldn't take action unless there is a 50% chance they can convince a jury beyound reasonable doubt that a crime was committed (i.e. if there's a 50% chance you can conince a jury there is a 98%(*) chance they committed a crime)
(*) ish
Except the decision doesn't relate in any way to pictures taken by movement detection.
It's perfectly reasonable to say that setting up a camera to fire on movement detection (or even setting a timer) constitutes "taking the photo". The Copyright Office hasn't said anything that would disagree with this.
...because they don't want anyone to think about Operation Ore, where they arrested hundreds of people, most of whose only 'crime' was to have their credit cards nicked.
If they actually *have* arrested the right people this time then congratulations, but based on past form I suspect they ahve arrested more passers-by that paedos
So the share price reflects whether investors think other investors think the torrent will affect the films' sucess.
Assuming the investors are all holywood insiders, does this study give us an insight that the film industry doesn't really believe that torrents affect their revenue? Or am I stretching too far?
"Yes you have to knowingly be lying to the court."
That is the law as written, but the argument that EFF made (when Hotfile countersued against Warner) that "[...]Any company could sidestep accountability for improper takedowns by simply outsourcing the process to a computer.[...]" *might* stand up in court (The Warner/Hotfile case was settled out of court)
"People who are looking into ways to hide their online communication are more likely than the average netizen to be doing something of interest."
And yet still the overwhelming majority of them aren't interested in committing acts of terrorism
Increasing the amount of noise you collect doesn't help you refine the signal.
"We are investigating the report, and will issue a statement when our tecnhical staff have fully evaluated it. In the meantime, to avoid embarrassment, we have distracted our VP of marketing and business development with a number of shiny objects, hidden his PC and changed his twitter password"
"In that scenairo you'd hope the police and the courts would exercise some common sense."
Good luck with that.
The law should be based on "I'm sure everyone in the legal system will behave themselves". Just ask Paul Chambers, or Andrew Robert Holland (the tiger video) or the lawyer dragged through the courts for owning perfectly legal fisting pornography, or...
So, 1 manwee (500ml) of pee in 140 million litres of water - around 3 parts per billion (ppb) is unacceptable.
But the level of arsenic allowed in the water by the Portland Water bureau is 10(ppb) - over 3 manwees per reservoir.
So they would have been happier if the guy was peeing arsenic?
I recall a tale of a grocer who would deliberately misplace apostrophes on their signs so that people would come in to the shop to provide corrections, and often buy something whe they are in there.
I recount this only to show I'm aware that, by clicking the article to make this comment, I have fallen for the trap I am complaining about.
That headline is awful.
We do this in the hope that one day someone will put forward a kind of enforcement that is proportionate, convienient for the end user, and not used as a way to restrict fair use.
Such a measure would benefit the consumer, the publisher (because the lawful product would no longer be less valuable than the unlawful copy), and the artist. (*)
Still waiting.
(*) to the extent that the publisher bothers to pay the artist
> I was diagnosed at 13 with an undefined skin disease
swhen I was 13 I was 4 feet tall - in today's society this has many disadvantages - short people tend to earn less, hae greater difficulties meeting partners, and on average report less satisfaction with life. Then I looked at a cow. Now, decades later, i am 5'11".
Looking at cows makes you taller.