Re: The Government* response?
The Daily Mail website also has more hypocrisy on show than a 1984 censor, but that's never bothered them before.
866 posts • joined 23 Jun 2009
The Daily Mail website also has more hypocrisy on show than a 1984 censor, but that's never bothered them before.
Exactly what I was going to comment.
Going on the current model, you could expect 200+ years of science deniers and populist idiots stating that "scientists don't agree" and "more research is required," followed by a completely avoidable, multi-generation catastrophe.
> They should either clean up their act and stop this from happening OR they are complicit on the fraud.
I suppose saying they are complicit in the fraud may be pushing it slightly, but they are certainly making money off it.
> It does in the US. We would do well to enshrine that in law too.
No, unrestrained and unrestricted freedom of speech does not exist in the US. The classic case is that Americans have no right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre, but there are many more restrictions, from grounds of National Security all the way down to various incitements.
Deciding what is, and what is not, allowed, is one of the core functions of Government. Using silly terms to try and demonise a government clarifying (or even making) law, in unclear cases, does nobody any favours.
To some extent you're right, but the article was about Reddit saying they've identified and banned accounts such as this, mostly before the 2016 US election. Essentially framing it as a past, dealt-with problem. Clearly, in reality, it is an on going issue.
Separately, it may be true that combating extremism with truth is one tactic, but it's not the only one. In this case, these posts are not organic views from withing a country, open to reasonable debate. They are state-sponsored messages from a hostile country, aimed at sowing discontent and division. They are not open to debate or reason, and they are not "real" views. Banning them is the only reasonable approach. And although the one I linked to is crude and obvious, there are many who are better at it than this guy.
There are still, in every thread on any remotely contentious political topic, blatant Russian posts.
You know the sort. Like this one. Badly spelt, pro Russian propaganda.
That's not even getting into the aggressive, divisive nonsense spewed everywhere, sometimes supporting Trump, sometimes simply being racist.
I simply don't believe that this problem has been addressed. Maybe what they mean is that there were 944 accounts registered from the public IP addresses of the Russian government?
@ Voland's right hand
Not sure I understand what you mean. An example might make it clearer?
My problem with that (the concept of multiple universes), is an understanding of the word "universe."
Let's say there was another Big Bang. Wouldn't the products of both, by definition, be contained within the universe? We might need to come up with a new word, thought (star, galaxy, XXX, universe).
Of course, if both are expanding, then when the edges meet it could be fun. But there are already lots of high-energy, "fun" things happening in space.
Scientist: "We don't think X is likely."
Press: "Scientist proves X is possible!"
It's almost a cliche at this point.
> 1) We're running out of room
That's not an argument to make them recoverable, just to provide provision for a controlled suicide burn at end of life. Many larger sats do this already.
> 2) The chances of some random lump of metal landing on your head are increasing
Again, this isn't an argument for recoverable satellites. At best, it's an argument for a controlled suicide burn. But sats which are large enough to do damage can generally already do this. Micro-sats really don't need to - nothing will make it back through.
> About time that ALL satellites were made recoverable
Nice. So, if a company is 'clever' enough, they could define a minimum outage period as that which is longer than the time to contact the help-desk and trouble-shoot the issue. They can then have as many outages as they like in a year, and still keep their official stat as 100% up-time.
Of course, only a cynic would suggest that out-sourcing the call centre to India, lowering the number of agents, and randomly dropping calls would lead to an increased allowable time...
Can't these laptops be returned, at least in the EU, if they no longer function as they were advertised? I'd give it a damn good try if that's the reason I bought it.
> I await the inevitable downvotes for daring to say something against Reg reader's strange obsession with going back in time to battery doors.
I actually agree with you, and have said so here before (and accepted the downvotes). I do not need a battery that can be replaced in 10 seconds via a pop-off door.
What I would not accept, though, is needing to fully dismantle the phone and break out the hot air gun and soldering iron.
There is a happy medium, involving 20 minutes, a few screws (or clippy catches) and a micro JST connector, which would allow replacing of a dying battery easily, without requiring the design compromises of a "user replaceable" battery.
Since this compromise is rare, and since it is difficult to assess before buying a phone, I've always ended up with phones with a replaceable battery (Moto Gs of various generations, a Wileyfox Swift, an old HTC etc).
Your point would be valid if it were necessary to take Google to court. The whole point is that it should not be - a simple request should allow you to access this. That's what the court cases are about.
I grew up loving it but now, as a parent, I find that it is both eye-wateringly expensive, and obsessively niche. Why does my daughter need a pink set with ponies and flowers? But since it's on the shelf, that's what she will want.
Luckily we've still got 3 or 4 boxes of mid 90s lego railway in the attic, and a baby bath full of generic bricks.
> That will enable testing of driverless car in only situation they are wanted - saving someone from the dread designated driver role.
Letting me take a nap on the way to / from work is pretty high on my list of desired use cases, too.
I think the url on the front of the "pod" in the photo says driverless.drl.co.uk - which currently returns a WebTitan error, "Unable to determine IP address from host name."
Doesn't inspire much confidence!
I stayed in a hotel in Italy on a school trip when I was about 13. The hotel had lovely glass doors overlooking the coastal views. There were very clear manifestations (great word, by the way) on the glass, but they were still walked into semi regularly, including by some in our group.
Told my parents about it when I got home, and my dad, to his astonishment, realised it was the exact hotel where he had run, full speed, into the exact glass door when on a family holiday as a child, probably in the late 50s.
Different manifestations, same defenestration.
> Investigation has identified the problem: the production line ran out of glue so the screw wasn't glued in.
You do realise this is likely exactly the problem? Screws are normally retained with a thread locker (the blue gunk on nearly all tiny screw threads). No thread lock? The screw will work loose over time.
> All this means is potentially spending time rotting in a UK jail as opposed to a US jail.
It means a fair trial, not a stitch-up in a hostile foreign country. And if found guilty, yes, it will mean jail time - in a country which doesn't glorify prison rape against weak inmates.
> Last time I checked, claiming you have assburgers and that you are going to kill yourself if you go to jail is not really a valid defense.
He has never claimed it as a defense. His mental health is an aspect of his appeal against extradition, not against the hacking (for which he has not yet been tried).
> It's clear UK and US have pretty solid evidence that he took all that data (otherwise why fight this), and eventually that hard disk will be decrypted, revealing all. (and the meantime, failure to provide decryption details is also a criminal offense)....
Yes. And now he will stand trial for those accusations, as is right (assuming the US actually provide any evidence, which in itself is perhaps unlikely as they will then be torn to shreds in our courts for their totally inadequate security, while it is made clear that US laws do not rule the world). In the process, he will be treated fairly, given appropriate care for his disability and illness, and will be able to stay in close contact with his family. None of those were likely if he was extradited.
Good to see nice, succinct character descriptions used so appropriately!
Something to do with bitcoin transactions, right?
£350 million a week!!?!11!
Yup. Paragraph 2 makes no sense at all.
Big numbers is hard for poor journalists.
Who are you replying to? What are you on about? Did you just have a pre-prepared rant, and copy-and-paste it into the least irrelevant place you could find?
The guy above you didn't say the UK does not have voter fraud.
> "You'd think you could only buy these if you had a government ID and wee in the state of Michigan..."
Exclusively? Or just on occasion? I would certainly qualify if I was in Michigan, and I can categorically say that, when I was in Michigan, I did. But I wouldn't have linked that to any sort of security clearance. I mean, surely even their senators wee elsewhere when they are out of state?
What a bunch of bloody imbeciles.
I live in NI, where similar nonsense happens. At the moment, we are under "direct rule" from Westminster. Does America need a mother figure to step in and hold their hand when they get a bit scared too?
The verse followed by canteens and grans across the country:
Sprouts on in March,
Carrots in May.
The veg will be ready
come Christmas Day.
> She said: "In today's digital environment, even very young people are IP consumers, accessing online digital content independently and regularly.
What, unlike 30 years ago when they were reading books, magazines, cartoons, and watching TV? Some could even operate the VHS independently and regularly. Were they not "IP consumers" then too?
> "They are creators of IP, and many will leave school or university to take up careers in industries that depend upon inventiveness and creativity.
Ah, unlike any time since, I dunno, the creation of the printing press?
Here's a suggestion. If this woman can't learn to talk English, and make a point which can't be trivially torn apart in 20 seconds, she'd probably better think twice before trying to patronise kids. Who will probably be a lot more savvy than she seems to think when it comes to a bullshit detector.
> in fact one multirotor guy recently quit his job and is doing YouTube / Patreon full time now
Drew (le drib)
...That is 4 in the last couple of months that I can think of. I guess there is a fair bit of money in the hobby just now!
And you are right, all of them have sources of income other than Youtube.
Despite the other cynical response, adverts are only run against a video if the creator selects them, and revenue is shared with the creator. Unless they make other changes to the T&C, there is no reason to believe they will run ads against videos on channels which cannot be monetised.
The exception is when copyrighted music is used, ads are run and the revenue goes to the copyright holder. Again, no reason to think this will change.
If your freedom, or the length of your sentence for a crime, was in question, would 50% seem like a reasonable threshold to you?
Let's say it means the difference between a 20 and 25 year sentence. Do you think a loss of 5 years of freedom should be dependent on a 50% chance? Even the 60-70% seems very low for such grave decisions.
If accuracy cannot be improved beyond that, how about this: sentence based on the crime committed.
> Though even SpaceX are expecting this one to URD*. Butt hey will learn a lot from it either way.
What?! You seriously think SpaceX are expecting this to fail? They have lower confidence than usual, and a failure (RUD, Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly, is the usual acronym) is possible, but saying they expect it is a stretch.
Also, But. Nobody likes finding random butts on their screen.
This is good news. I love the look & function of the high-end Teslas, and the practicality and running costs of the Nissan Leafs, but there is an enormous gap in the market for an electric "normal family car." Companies like Ford, Volvo, GM, VW etc indicating that they are moving into this space is great news. Excited to see what will be available in a few years.
> Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Digital, like Cyber, is not a noun.
Now I know words are hard and all, but aren't these people meant to be smart?
mrsknight - you want to take a tiny, robust action cam, and add a flip screen, additional outputs, additional ports, and increase its footprint by nearly 4 fold (adding 2 cm to every dimension increases volume by 380%).
Something tells me an actioncam, Gopro or not, isn't the camera you need.
> I was under the impression that Uber drivers use their own cars. Obviously, if that its not the case, it is just another taxi company.
Virtually every taxi company runs driver-owned vehicles. Doesn't alter the point at all. If I phone Valu-cabs and ask for a cab, and a man turns up with a cab to drive me to the airport for a fee that I agreed with Valu-cabs, the exact ownership structure of the car used is irrelevant. Valu-cabs are providing the service to me.
As that stands, the Valu-cab driver might or might not be self employed. But as soon as Valu-cabs says the driver can't also take work for A2B, then he has become an employee.
Company which provides a car and driver to take a person from A to B, whose drivers are not allowed to work for any rivals, has been classed by the courts as a taxi company which employs drivers.
Glad to see some common sense prevailing. It's really impossible to classify the company any other way, unless you also allow all bus companies to classify themselves as printers and also ignore all transportation rules (since all they do is sell small bits of paper, after all - just like all that Uber provide is a simple app).
I imagine the Reg reporter made a slight error working with such unfamiliar units. If we could all just start using the Reg Standard Units, ff/f, there would be no such confusion (football fields per fortnight).
Does someone really have to mention bloody kerbels every single time any aerospace topic is being discussed?
Every time someone relates something in the real world to a game, or to fiction, all it does is advertise that they don't have any direct experience or anything to add.
Yes. And it physically hurts when, as an engineering student, you have to sit through those lectures, trying not to let the buzzword bingo drill small holes through your skull to let your brain leak out. Surrounded by enthusiastic 1st year social "science" students, who are getting awarded twice the number of credits for exactly the same course.
For some reason, though, the University of Glasgow though that was a good idea 15 years ago. Maybe buzzwords still sounded exciting back then?
> I have no idea why Brits (and to be fair many other countries) tolerate the confiscatory levels of taxation that currently apply to fuel.
Meanwhile, we in the free world will never understand the bullshit that USians put up in terms of crap public services, expensive (or non existent public) education, abusively awful healthcare, failing infrastructure... It turns out that an ideological crusade against tax, run by corrupt idiots like Trump and Moore, isn't exactly a good way to run a country either.
Fuel tax is a perfectly reasonable way of raising revenue. Own a small cheap car, and minimise your use of it? Pay less tax. Own a flashy 4x4, and drive it all day every day? Pay more.
The alternative is a higher level of vehicle tax (an annual charge, which does not reflect the vehicle usage), or higher general taxation. Increasing general taxation isn't normally very popular.
I don't think that's how it was intended.
If you read it as "this new tech is great, people will convert to it but that means we will lose revenue, so we need to change our tax systems," isn't that a perfectly reasonable thing for him to say?
I know you're being facetious, but I think the article is slightly harsh on Khan here. He doesn't appear to be opposing the new tech, but recognising that it's likely to lead to a loss of revenue, largely because it is better. Hence the statement:
>A move towards new technologies like electric vehicles is likely to reduce taxation income for the government which could impact on the funding available for highway improvements
This doesn't say "new tech is bad", but the opposite. New tech is good, but we need to make sure we don't lose tax revenue.
Seems perfectly reasonable.
The article doesn't really go into what is objectionable about the NDA.
I'd assume that the signing of an NDA is a reasonable request. It also seems fair that, to be paid for a piece of work, you should hand that work over to the company paying you. Aren't you effectively selling your work to the company?
So, what have DJI slipped in there which people objecting to, and which is different from other bug bounty schemes?
Nice to hear it's got a niche in which it is useful. However, do you really have to think to work out who doesn't own one?
Apple phones are about 40% of the UK smartphone market, and this article says 1 in 7 iphones sells with a watch. So by a very rough calculation, approx 5.5% of the UK own one.
I guess either they are all concentrated in a small area (which wouldn't be surprising, several of your uses make sense in London, but not so much elsewhere), or you mix with a really small cross section (also not surprising - everyone does to some extent).
Personally, I can't see a single compelling use. All those listed, perhaps with the exception of the Tube payments, are either such marginal improvements or are just a solution looking for a problem. Maybe if I lived in London it'd be a different story.
Skippy, interesting comment.
Do UAVs fall into the DAIB's remit, and is it likely that these crashes are subject to such an investigation? In which case, how long is the usual delay before publication? And why, when the author of this article contacted them, did the MoD not explain that?
I think the (very real) engineering challenge was to create a super-sonic land vehicle. All previous supersonic vehicles have been firmly in the air. Solving engineering challenges like that almost always have knock-on effects in terms of general increase in understanding of physics.
However, since that was achieved with Thrust SSC, I'm not sure exactly what science will be advanced by this incremental speed increase.
Bloody exciting though, I'll give them that!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018