I find the idea of banning them...
...equally offensive as the idea of them existing in the first place.
54 posts • joined 24 Jun 2009
I know the telephone number is good if the fingerprint they read out matches the one I've got. And because I wasn't stupid enough to find the telephone number in the same place as I found the key.
And because of my muscular buttocks.
All joking aside ... well, MOST joking aside, I know Web Of Trust isn't a perfect system. It's just that it's obvious to me that Central Authority doesn't even pass the first hurdle. Sure, let's all trust this guy we've never met, because ... erm.... he's got lots of money?
I don't care if you're an (inter)national certificate signing authority. Unless I can ring you up and have you read out your key fingerprint so I can check it against the one I have here, I don't trust you.
"Central Signing Authority" my muscular buttocks. Who the hell does he think he is?
We seem to have seen this sort of thing before.
I mean, it sounds a bit like Unity, but that's not what I meant.
I'm thinking of KDE, which had a radical reworking into something weird from which apparently there is no going back.
I tried KDE4 six months ago. After ten minutes of "What the F**K is happening?" I gave up and de-installed it.
Disclaimer: I still use Openbox, which runs in something like 500k and just works...
I *do* watch TC regularly (and enjoy it) and I thought that the Mexican "jokes" were pathetic.
Of course, you're right in that you can always find someone to be offended at any attempt of humour, regardless of the quality.
But my point was simply this: ruling that the jokes were acceptable because in the context of a show where people make tasteless jokes, is a stupidly broad excuse.
You might as well say that Hitler was justified to invade europe in the context of his being a power-mad dictator. This is true -- but no help at all.
I post to my Tumblelog every day. It was a bit slow yesterday, and I had to post a couple of links using the website rather than the toolbar button. But that's been it.
If you say that Tumblr was subject to a DOS attack, I believe you -- but I can assure you that the whole of Tumblr did not go down for a number of days. Didn't happen.
I've heard it argued elsewhere that telling people who were at the demonstration to get rid of clothes, text messages, etc cannot possibly be destruction of evidence unless the person in question has actually been accused of a crime -- otherwise anybody getting rid of anything at any time would be destruction of evidence, if it later turned out that it could have been of use to the police.
IANAL, but it seems a logical argument to me.
Yes, it's ridiculous to criticise a pre-alpha for having bugs in it.
Unfortunately, it's worse than that. (Probably.)
Diaspora was supposed to be a distributed, Darknet version of Facebook. There is nothing in the code that even starts to deal with those concepts. It certainly does not demonstrate them.
Now, it's too early to say whether the team have it all mapped out as to how it will develop in the future. In which case, sure, there's nothing to worry about.
But if they have, they've not told the internet about it.
We can get encrypted Sky programs, for example, by controlling a seperate sky box using infrared.
But it would be a pain in the arse.
Personally? I can't be bothered to store HD content -- it takes up too much disk space, and the extra quality isn't really worth it unless you have a £6k TV. But that's me.
So, pictures of sex with a dead animal are illegal? Clearly there is no basis for this in terms of animal welfare. What if it was a plastic squid -- is that still illegal? How about a seafood cocktail (sic)?
Prosecute the guy for taking pervy pictures of actual children, and drop the comedy charges, FFS.
As originally drafted the act specifically excluded "Any law enforcement agency".
So the police, customs, and even your local trading standards office can bribe people.
Wonder if that made it into the final draft?
Link here: http://firstname.lastname@example.org/blog/2009/11/21/bribery-bill-2009---sismi6-mi5-and-military-forces-on-active-duty-exemption-ok-b.html
Good to know that most CCTV footage is useless / unused.
However I still find the things the hallmark of some sort of fascist state: the implication is that we're all criminals and need to be watched so we can be caught out.
The problem is not the cameras themselves, it's the lack of safeguards, and the fact that as soon as we start photographing things, it would appear that Mr Plod thinks we are a terrorist. It's unbalanced -- all the power is in the hands of the state.
My suggestion: all CCTV camera footage should be declared CC licenced. Anyone can view it at any time. Pass a law saying that photography in a public place is a basic right of expression. (Yes, I know it's not illegal now.)
That way if the someone wants to use footage of me for a purpose that I don't approve of (say, attempting to incriminate me), at least I get to see the footage (all of it, not just the bits that make out I did something wrong), and maybe take some of my own.
What if I'm in the middle of some electrically-powered medical process, like, say, I live in an iron lung? And the Powers That Be decide to limit my electricity usage for a while?
For that matter, what if I'm running on a treadmill and they cut the power -- can I sue for damages?
1) Steganos is just for hiding files, not encrypting them. Their manual says you should use PGP too.
2) I'm at a loss to understand how Truecrypt's plausible deniability feature is going to help here. It's not as if the police don't know about it:
POLICE: Give me the key to this file.
ME: Here you go.
POLICE: Now give me the other key.
ME: There isn't one. I didn't use that feature when I made it.
POLICE: I don't believe you and I'm hereby issuing you with notice under RIPA section III....
Note that this conversation goes the same way whether I used the plausible deniability feature or not.
I'm just waiting for the first RIPA arrest for refusing to decrypt a file full of random numbers...
*Please* can we not have this comment thread degenerate into a war between the climate change trolls and the climate change denial trolls (to over-simplify massively)?!
We could, you know, actually talk about the subject of the article?
Should a pagan be allowed to be a schoolteacher? Should someone interested in BDSM be allowed to be a judge? Is a law protecting these rights a good one, or not?
New languages are always interesting*. This will appeal to C-type programmers.
The stated intent is to produce a language like Python or Ruby that is compiled. Nice. But it reads nothing like either of those languages to me; too low-level. Either that, or the initial tutorial isn't well written.
* To me. If you're bored by new languages, why are you reading this?
I don't see how the drugs advisory body can be genuinely independent if the government can sack Nutt.
I love the idea of Nutt setting up a genuinely independent advisory body. Clearly the government don't want scientific advice, but the public sure do; he can advise us.
Which prescription medicines are dangerous when misprescribed? How do we recognise dodgy street drugs from safe(r) ones?* What's the safest way for an addict to give up heroin, say -- given that methodone (often prescribed to them) is itself pretty nasty?
I'm sure we could set up a charity to fund that. I'd pay.
(* should we be inclined to want to do that, which would probably be illegal, of course, so we wouldn't.)
Okay, a *mini*-Apple wobbler then. Point taken.
I still don't understand why these apps are closed source anyway. Do Google make money from them somehow? (I know, comparing fish and elephants.)
And as Dave 120 suggests, there must be 100 ways to sort this without the use of C&D letters.
I may finally have to come around to the view that Google are no longer living up to "Do No Evil". (I'm sure some of you will think I'm slow. Tough.)
What this looks like is Google throwing an Apple-style app-wobbly. Perhaps there is something else behind it.
Surely the real "Do No Evil" move would be to offer to make this guy's code official? Or if they can't do that, release an API for their proprietry apps, or something?
What exactly do they have to lose, except a product that makes their phones more awesome?
Comments are the equivalent of the guy singing outside your bedroom window at three o'clock in the morning. You can applaud, or blow rasberries, or shoot him dead*, or ignore him. But at the end of the day, it's only evens he's doing it for you.
It has to be said ... commenters don't necessarily care what the people at the site think, either.
(*This is a metaphor. I can shoot people dead in a metaphor. It's even legal.)
... you'll never know what we actually think of not having the ability to comment, because we don't have the ability to comment.
And what's even more annoying, if we find this logical paradox amusing, we can't tell you, because ... well, you get the idea.
The cause of this is that fact that the word "party" can have two meanings: a political group, campaigning for representative rights in parliament; or a gathering for social purposes, often involving music and/or alchohol.
"Sex party", you see. It's a pune, or a play on words.
This is the sort of humour that has politicians rolling around in the isles. Or, indeed, the aisles.
* No, forgetting your password is not an excuse -- you go to jail.
* Ditto claiming it's not encrypted. You have to prove it's not encrypted (I know, I know...)
* Not only is the point about not incriminating yourself not going to work, I think there was even a case that went against the idea in the US (it was about a TSA search of a laptop, if I recall correctly).
Since the onus is on you to prove your innocence, technically you could still be done for even with plausable deniability. "Prove that you don't have a hidden second tier!" "I can't!" "Then it's jail for you, sonny boy!"
Believe it or not, if it weren't for the campaign against it, RIPA would actually be *worse* than it is; check the Reg's archives for details...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019