Posts by teebie 968 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Jun 2009
> 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.
"I think there's an amazing arrogance to the idea that [Snowden] knows better than the framers of the Constitution how the government should be designed to work in terms of separation of powers,"
I can't confidently compare the legal expertise of some blokes from 2 centuries ago to Snowden's, but I'm pretty sure he knows more about the sort of surveilance that has only become possible in the last few years than a bunch of revered skeletons.
"Ledgett said that the documents Snowden was responsible for leaking were full of "half-truths and distortions." "
Well, that's one of the things we are complaining about...
"The capabilities [of the NSA] are applied in very discreet, measured, controlled ways," the deputy director said."
'everything' is, of course, a discrete measurement
But...but...but now you can put more money in an account that gives a derISAry interest rate.
The bank are giving savers so little interest because they don't need the money - they just get it from Funding For Lending, which is being extended, so the situation isn't likely to improve.
It depends on what you mean by universe.
Max Tegmark's type I and type II parallel universes consider the area we can observe (the Hubble Bubble, things withing 13billionish light years) as our universe, and anything outside that is in another universe
That way it is available for the lawsuit, but not available for day-to-day overspying.
Of course they won't, but it was a nice thought. (And takes away the victim blaming - the lawsuits meanthey have to keep a copy of their records, but in no way compel the NSA to be a dick about it)
or both...
It's possible an agency could reenable devices - I believe there was news recently of a cam that could be turned on without your lnowlege - so the software fix isn't perfect.
EDIT: why both? Why not just the masking tape? Well, I don't want GCHQ knowing what masking tape I use, do I? Or maybe I just didn't think things through before posting
'"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it".'
"take"
Dotcom isn't accused of taking - he is accused of helping others to copy things. But copying isn't the same as taking
"another person's property"
Copyright isn't property. 'Intellectual property' is a horseshit phrase used to justify overreaction
"without intending to return it"
You can't return something that you haven't taken
"without permission or legal right"
Well, at least you got one thing right.
Stealing and copyright infringement are different things. I appreciate "I see, so there is a difference between copyright infringement [...], and the crime of theft." was supposed to be saracstic, but it really shouldn't have been
Empirical testing? As in run a test on a random selection of data and assume if it gives a decent p value then the hypothesis can be considered correct?
That sort of thing doesn't cut it as mathemetical proof.
It might be good enough for sciences less pure than maths (e.g. sociology, physics, all other sciences), but even a a statistical proof - the probability of this being wrong is 0 - isn't enough for a mathematician.
In typical German fashion, 'handy' was originally a long composite noun. The word is short for Handapparat-GerätfürdieKommunikationmitMenschendieweitweg-wieBarry-HalloBarry-ohnedieNotwendigkeitvonSchreiensind, which roughly translates to "Handset-based device for communicating with people who are far away-like Barry-Hello Barry-without the necessity of shouting"
So who gave the true definition of 'Handy'? - it's got to be there somewhere...
"[if republished] the date of original publication would continue to stand"
The old law did need fixing - as things stood if someone looked at a story again it counted as being replublished, which was clearly in[correct|sane].
However, under the new law, if you (*) manage to defame someone without them noticing for a year you can then defame them any time you want, as long as you say the same thing.
It took me about a minute to see that loophole, and I made at least 3 typos writing this little thing. How could the professional drafters have done so badly?
(*), 'you' in this context should not be read in the traditional senses of 'you, the individual' or 'one', but rather 'Paul Dacre'
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
