Posts by PatientOne 412 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Nov 2010
It really doesn't matter what systems you have in place, what policies or procedures: Users will always find ways to circumvent it and risk loosing data. No system is secure once a user gets their hands on it. All you can do is try to educate the user, but most just don't think and certainly don't care.
Well, obviously you're not obliged to take her call. You are paying for that telephone line, not her.
According to the Telecom's Code 1984 (don't think it's been revised, and I am working from memory here), it is an offense to call someone who has not invited you to call. So, telesales, marketing and all that stuff is actually illegal.
Why? Well, the telephone is there for you (the person paying for the line) to be able to contact or be contacted by people of your choice. It is there, also, to allow you to call the emergency services in the event of an accident/incident. It is certainly not there for some company to use to harass you with vexatious calls.
Unfortunately there are a lot of businesses out there that don't care about the law. They flaunt it quite happily and then deny it was them. Last example I had of this was yesterday with that great favorite: Auto-dial call with recorded message. It tied up my line for 5 minutes even though I'd hung up due to what I consider a major design flaw: There's no way for the exchange to know I've hung up so it can break the connection for me (had to call BT via another phone to get my line freed).
You are mistaken.
If I work at home, in my own time, with my own materials and tools, on a project I am doing for me, then that work is mine. If I choose to market the results of that work, then the rights and royalties are mine, too. Only if I use work resources, or do the work during the hours I'm officially at work for my employer do they have any claim to rights over that work. I am aware of some of the dodgy clauses in employment contracts, but I am equally aware of the legality of said clauses: They generally don't stand up in court.
If, as a teacher, I write a book during a holiday, then the rights to that book are mine. If I decide to use that book as part of a course I'm employed to run then, by implication, I am granting the school a fee free license for them to use the book (copy and distribute). They do not, however, have the rights to market that book themselves - and this is what this IPO idea would change. This is dodgy, in my view, but it plugs a source of abuse that some might be exploiting by forcing schools to buy books written by their teachers (which was happening when I was at University, only the University put a stop to it by requiring rights to such works be transferred to the University before they were used. Strangely, when the University started charging for copies of the texts, the lecturers writing the texts started giving the copies out free for 'proof reading'...)
However, what it also seems to be saying is that if I go write a book on programming and a school decides they want to adopt it as a text book, they can do so without paying me a penny, even though there has never been a contract between us, nor is there any implied license granted them by myself. That, in my view, really is copyright theft.
I believe you're correct: The courts can't compel the accused to give testimony in court. It is even advised in some cases for the accused not to speak.
However, as I understand it, if the accused breaks that silence, they can then be compelled to answer all questions asked. It's to do with 'telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'...
I know of two companies with Electric cars in their fleet.
In both cases, the electric car was brought in as a 'green' option. In both case, there have been problems.
In one company: 3 electric cars, 1 back and forth to the dealer as it keeps developing faults, the other 2 are run alternately - 1 on charge/maintenance, 1 on the road. Current view: Nice idea but bloody expensive.
In the other company, they were building a small fleet of electric cars. They had a dozen in at the time with another dozen on order. They had 2 that were proving faulty - not holding a charge, the rest seemed okay, but they were setting up a separate garage for them for charging. Of the others, they were, again, running half the cars while the rest were charging or undergoing maintenance. Again, it was a lovely idea but bloody expensive.
Electric cars are a nice idea. I've looked at them when considering my last car purchase. Unfortunately they are rather expensive for what you get. Worse than hybrids, and they priced themselves out of my budget.
Petrol might be quaint, inefficient and so last century, but electric isn't ready and while Hybrids are better, they're still too expensive.
Okay... When Apple 'gave' the patents to Kodak, did Apple retain any rights to them?
Don't think so.
So Apple decide to use the technology they no longer have any rights to use, and they get sued for doing so.
That's how it should be, surely?
Just because Apple *used* to own or have a share in those patents doesn't mean they still do. And if they don't, then they deserve to be prosecuted.
Or do you think Proview are right to sue Apple over the name iPad, which they apparently sold to Apple years ago?
I might be being cynical here, but the way I read it is Apple are worried they'll lose against Kodak, but with Kodak in financial trouble, Apple are trying to bleed Kodak dry of funds so they can't continue with the case. Apple get to walk away without paying a penny in fines, and Kodak... cease to exist.
This seems to be a common tactic deployed by the big, wealthy companies: Tie up the weaker companies in legal tape and bleed them dry then pick over the carcass for anything interesting. Predatory, evil, vile and ruthless, and apparently quite legal. The only defense seems to be to get a wealthy company backing you so you can see the case through the courts. Of cause, by then you owe your sole to the other guy...
"The reason so many firms, from computer makers to tee-shirt and jeans makers, sub-contract their work to China, Taiwan, Hungary, Tunisia or wherever is very simple: people like us will or can not pay the prices if these things were made in our own countries."
Not true. There are many manufacturing companies in the UK alone that compete with the import market. Yes, they are more expensive, but not so expensive we can't afford them. Better yet, they're better quality, so last longer. Take Jeans: I was buying imported Jeans as they were cheap. They lasted a few months before they fell apart. Buying a locally produced pair (the factory isn't far from where I live) was more expensive (nearly double the cost of the imported pair) and lasted three times as long, so I saved money in the long run.
So, people see cheap and buy cheap, and a huge profit is made all down the chain (apart from the workers in the sweat shops), or they look for local produce and buy quality and a smaller profit is made down a shorter chain, including a reasonable wage in the not-so-sweaty sweat shop.
Your money, your choice, but the only reason we're reliant on China is companies want bigger profits, and that means buying from China.
Or this is smoke and mirrors.
They may never have had access, but claim to have had to distract the FBI from where this recording actually came from. For all we know, this could have been discovered on some retired bit of equipment they skip-dived. They might have been given it by someone inside one of the groups involved in the call. They might have ghosted the call and recorded it due to lax security.
Still, wonder how long it'll be before the FBI/Met go kicking some doors down and make some arrests.
Just to point out the blindingly obvious: This isn't about a Swedish prosecutor traveling to the UK to make an arrest, it's about them issuing a warrant.
As some would argue, in Sweden the prosecutor does have that power, but is it in keeping with the terms of the EAW? A citizen in the UK can make an arrest, but that lacks the authority of a police arrest, which lacks the authority of a court issued warrant for an arrest (they can each be as valid, but the power to back up the arrest and the scope of the arrest increases as it moves to wards the warrant). So could a citizen issue an EAW? I'd hope not. The police, perhaps as they have additional authority, but does the Swedish prosecution have equal or greater powers in that regard? That's what's being argued over.
Personally, I think the Prosecution should have gone to the Swedish courts to get the EAW issued. That way there is no argument. But if the courts would not issue the EAW, it lends credibility to Assange's grounds for resisting (in my eyes at least).
Anyhow, popcorn's ready.
1) Yes: We do expect the jury to base their decisions solely on the information they are given *IN RELATION TO THE CURRENT CASE*. Unless there is evidence to support a link to a previous case, and said link is accepted by the Judge, then previous convictions and certainly accusations are irrelevant.
2) The Internet and the media are full of lies, half-truths, opinions and deceptions. You don't have to look far in the news to see examples of this, and unless you research those stories carefully, you'll be led to the wrong conclusion.
3) It's the courts' job is to filter out the misinformation and focus on the supportable facts. No personal opinions, beliefs or judgements: Just the facts. Professional opinions are allowed from independent witnesses, who may appear for the defense or prosecution, but are reminded to remain impartial.
4) It is the job of the prosecution and defense to ensure that all pertinent facts are presented.
5) The whole purpose of a trial is to ensure the jury can make an INFORMED decision. Otherwise why bother presenting the evidence to them?
Does that make sense now?
Okay, I'll bite: How many failures did you have?
And how do you know they all had an orgasm?
How does a woman know she's had an orgasm? This isn't a boast, but a former girlfriend claimed she'd had them before, then was was rather surprised when she had the real thing (well, that's how she put it, anyhow).
You're thinking in terms of getting someone out of the UK (specifically) without extradition proceedings. Sure, that's going to be hard and it's going to be expensive, but not impossible. However, popping over the boarder to Mexico to grab someone isn't difficult. Dangerous, perhaps, but not difficult.
The point about bounty hunters is that they're private citizens: They can go anywhere they want as they don't need official sanction to travel. What they do outside of the US is at their own risk, and the US keep their hands clean if they're court. If they did kidnap someone in the UK and successfully sneak them over to the US, the US courts would likely approve the extradition of the accused, but they won't return the person kidnapped if they're wanted within the US - and that was the point being made in that interview (BBC I believe).
Basically the US don't care about how they get their 'man', just that they do. Why this isn't common place is the backlash. They've weathered the Pakistan backlash when they went in after Binladen, and they'd endure the disapproval of the UK if they wanted someone badly enough over here, but most people are either not worth the cost and effort, the risk of political sanctions, or there are safer avenues to pursue first.
So sure, dismiss the possibility, but just be aware the US has ignored foreign sovereignty before to get someone, and will do so again.
As I recall, a statement was made during interview last yet that American courts don't care *how* you wind up in America, you'll be prosecuted if they think you broke American Law (possibly including illegal immigration at that point).
Or, to put it simply: They are happy for bounty hunters to kidnap you from other countries, regardless of if an extradition treatise exists or not.
Yes, I read the coverage. The matter of the message was a bit vague. Yes the lawyer declared he was not contacted, then admitted there had been a text message.
Now, here's the thing about text messaging: Last I heard, it wasn't considered legal notification (I've had to deal with legal matters, both professionally and privately and through out it all I was advised to support text messages and e-mails with a phone call and/or letter, simply to create a legal record of events). Why? Well, text messages can be spoofed, lost, ignored, deleted by error, intercepted and tampered with and proving any of that can be next to impossible.
So legally, the lawyer was not contacted: The prosecutor would have had to phone and speak directly to the lawyer for that, or to an official representative (secretary) or there would have had to be a formal, legal letter sent with acknowledged receipt.
I think that would be why the Lawyer is off the hook. It is also why I called to question your assertion that the Lawyer aided Assange leave Sweden to avoid prosecution: There is a lack of evidence (in the form of a timed sequence of events) to support that claim.
Again, not saying the Lawyer didn't game things, just that I've seen nothing to support that belief.
I think the issue is more a confusion between Extradition and an Arrest.
The EAW is working as both an arrest warrant (hence the name) and a request for extradition (which is being challenged).
After all, if you were arrested in Manchester for something that happened in London, you are not automatically sent to London for trial - you can be tried in Manchester or anywhere else in the country. London Police would have to request your transfer (extradition) as part of their investigations, although they could send someone up to Manchester to question you.
Now do you see why there is some confusion and concern?
And as for the treaty: That can be challenged in court, which is in effect what is happening here. Poorly, true, but that's what's happening.
Interesting points.
You mention Assange's lawyers helping him leave Sweden before he could be charged. I understood that the message was sent, but I understood from the BBC article that this was along the line of a call to the Lawyers office where a message was left. No indication as to when this call was made, or who received it (voice mail perhaps?) or when the lawyers were made aware of the message. Neither was there any indication as to when Assange had left (before or after the message was sent?) or why Assange was not stopped at the boarder when he left (presumably the boarder control was not informed or not checked).
I agree that there are games being played, but I do wonder who is holding the aces and who has the jokers. I also doubt the prosecution are being as honest as they pretend. Then again, I doubt Assange's lawyers are, either: They're lawyers, after all! :p
As to the EAW: It has to be challenged in the UK as this is where it is being enforced.
Testing the EAW process: This does need doing to help refine the law.
Assange and his lawyers seem to be doing a poor job challenging the EAW process. A shame as failure on their side will reinforce the validity of the EAW process, and may well open it to abuse.
Please, let Apple do this!
Then watch the oil industry walk up, pat the little kid on the head and advise them to go home to mommy.
Not that the US, the Patent office or anyone else would be allowed to let this happen. The Oil industry has far deeper pockets and much greater influence than some small time, corner electronics sales company (relatively speaking, of cause).
I think you need to read the other poster's comment again:
ZTE produce a more powerful product for a lower price. That means they had to either develop their own product or *improve* on someone else's. Either way that requires investment in R&D, and if they copied, they would also have to reverse engineer the product first at additional cost. Oh, and they would have to hide their copying so Apple, or whoever they copied off, wouldn't see it and drag them into court for the infringement, meaning even more work at more cost.
So, chances are they didn't copy: They developed their own, at a lower cost, which is not that difficult considering where they're based.
My recollection differs: I recall reading that the Judge held up the devices and that the *Apple* lawyer could not tell the difference, but the Samsung lawyer picked the correct one after a few seconds looking at it.
Now, according to a previous story, the law says an informed person should be able to tell them apart. However, there was nothing about how long they could spend looking at the two devices. Also, at what distance? That was missing from the previous story.
For a conspiracy: No evidence is needed.
However, there is little here that is new. e-mails can be intercepted, read, altered and faked, and that's been available since the first e-mail client was written. 20+ years ago, students were getting shocked by e-mails they apparently sent to themselves while they were asleep... or were sent from... no one.
Just about everything they claim about phones already exists, has existed for years and has been abused by students and others for years. It just hasn't been associated with phones until recently when phones became 'smart' enough to run such applications.
As I recall, it was explained: Susan was learning about human culture. She was also learning how to fit in and failing. As a 'child' this could be dismissed as attention seeking or wild imagination. An adult would have a much harder time explaining it. So it would make sense for Susan to mingle with different races/cultures so she could learn to blend in.
The Doctor had somehow acquired property so had an address. A birth certificate isn't hard to get around if you consider the technology available (or just claim it was lost). Also, consider where the Doctor obtained his wealth from to buy that property - he had to have valid resources or a very effective method of forging money/documents etc.
In all, Susan being at school is not unbelievable.
Anyhow, now I know what I'm doing tonight... watching the film again to check :p
Journalism is a bit of a broad term.
Broadly speaking, a journal is a record of events and a journalist is one who writes or edits a journal. This includes newspapers and magazines, but is not limited to such.
He gathers information about events and publishes as is - so he is creating a journal, hence he is a journalist. It does not mean he is a *good* journalist, or that the journal is accurate, unbiased, relevant, interesting or even in good taste, only that it is a journal and he, by creating it, is a journalist.
...what a 'Legitimate Interest' is?
Public and private data should not be treated the same. Let's say you have two phone numbers: One is public (in the phone book) and the other is private (unlisted). According to this ruling, people have as much right to share and use your private number as your public number. It means marketing firms can use both of them, with no regards of your wishes. It means things like the Telephone Preference Service, and the Telecommunications Act are both effectively overruled (as if anyone bothers with them anyhow) and it means businesses have been given a green light to accumulate private data as well as public without your consent.
There are times the EU and the ECJ do something brilliant. Then there are times with things like this happen...
If the patent is proven invalid, then doesn't IPCom have to pay compensation for lost revenue for blocking the sales of HTC kit in Germany? If so, that would mean IPCom are taking the risk, although I would anticipate IPCom going bankrupt before that happened - or that they close down, sell off all their patents to company X, which may just have a similar line up of owners, and then it's business as usual without the liability. If IPCom are not liable for damages, then I would describe this as legal extortion (Pay up, fight us in court at *your* expense or get banned from selling in this market).
Also, if this is an essential technology for 3G standards, isn't it covered by FRAND? And if so, wouldn't it be part of the 3G license HTC paid for? Seems silly if it isn't.
It would also raise the question amongst conspiracy theorists about IPCom getting paid by HTC's rivals to do this. After all, Apple blocks Samsung sales then IPCom block HTC... who benefits the most from this?
Regardless, as ever, the customer suffers, all in the name of greed.
There was some blurb as to the rational of the design of the Enterprise (justifying it after the model was made, perhaps, or this is what they thought of when designing the ship - I'm not sure and I don't have the book with the background anywhere near me.)
Warp engines were kept separate from the main body due to radiation. Most Star Trek ships kept to this design. This did change later on (The Bird of Prey from the films) but for the TV series it was mostly adhered to. The saucer of a Federation ship was intended to detach, both to operate independently, and to allow atmospheric landing. ST:NG used this quite a few times, but the original series and the films also referenced this technology. It was not unique to the Federation, either: The Klingon ships were supposed to be able to detach the front and back of their ships, too, for similar reasons.
As to why there is an 'up': In battle you need to have a clear reference as to where an enemy ship is in relation to you. So, starboard twenty degrees would be twenty degrees from your axis to the right. But up or down? Well, Positive ten degrees would tell you that, wouldn't it? And you can only do this if you have a standard reference plane to work from. And if you're doing that, why not set gravity to that standard plane? As to points where artificial gravity might intersect: You'd get Lagrange points within your ship: Points of zero gravity. These have appeared in other films and series where they have explored such concepts before (I remember seeing it, but can't remember where...)
But the main reason why all these ships look so outlandish is so people can recognise them. You need to know which are the good guys and which are the bad, and you need to know which series or film you're watching just by seeing the ship designs. I guess they learned their lessons from the old B-movies: You could watch those and see the same ships used, and the same space battle scenes used time and again (Battle Beyond the Stars, Star Chaser, Star Crash... just to name a few).
She was given a laptop, so presumably she took it home to work there.
They fear she used the laptop (presumably at home) to help set up and run this business. That is why they are checking it to see what she had been up to.
So she was not using the school's bandwidth, just (potentially) using the laptop.
Would you really fire someone who might have used a laptop you gave them to run a business from their home?
The definition of 'Girl' varies, depending on context.
'Girls night out' is a favorite amongst what you would call an Adult, and 'Golden Girls' tend to refer to grandmothers.
Girl can be used to refer to a child, Juvenile, Teenager, young woman, or a female of pretty much any age, although in their latter years it is more an affection than an accurate term. Girl is not, in and of itself, defined by their age, only their gender.
Plus you need to remember that the age at which a person can consent to sex can be lower than the age at which they are viewed to be an adult.
Anyhow, I think the study is flawed: We are told of a comparison of two points in time: 1999 and 2011. What about looking at the 70's, 80's and 90's. Are we seeing a change in attitudes, a change in awareness or just things returning to normal?
One would think they checked carefully using acceptable techniques. After all, they're expecting to measure to the nanosecond, so everything would have to be calibrated carefully and accurately to give any credence to the results.
Of cause, what should happen now is the test needs running elsewhere and confirming. Unfortunately the only place I can think where there might be a facility capable of running the same tests would be in the US.
c is the speed of light in a vacuum. It was specified.
However, I do wonder if Einstein would have presented a different theory had he known about the speed these neutrinos travel at. After all, he presented a THEORY based on what was known and conjecture at that time. We now know a lot more, and science has moved on.
I would add that someone needs to test the legality of this, and that someone has to have the money to spare to do so, as well as the inclination. Like him or loath him, Assange is doing just that. I just wish his legal team was doing a better job of it so we could get a better look at the system and how it works.
'Also, Rory is ace.'
Erm, no... Ace was a girl for starters and tended to carry around explosives.
Rory is a guy. Unless he's taking after Spot from ST:NG and changing sex as required by plot, which would make his relationship with Amy something of a conundrum...
Anyhow: Ace is. Rory is merely okay.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
