Just cause someone is stressed or frustrated, doesn't mean they should be taking it out on other people, and doesn't mean the person they take it out on should be expected to just take it quietly. Ironically I'd say your example shows exactly the problem with this approach, how many good programmers have gone through the equivalent of what you did with your music and abandoned making contributions? How many more people could have been contributing solid code and improving the Linux kernal, or improving other open source projects, but aren't because they got abuse when they tried to?
676 posts • joined 13 May 2013
Re: I prefer honesty
That's not really what she's complaining about though, she actually praises the technical standards, her complaint is the lack of respect between the kernel managers and the people contributing code. Rather than "oh jesus ***** hopping *** on a *** horse, that's some truly shitty code", which you said yourself is a personal preference, you could instead point out "X and y don't work, there's bugs in Z and you haven't followed the style guide". It's a hell of a lot more useful than just calling it shitty code, and means that people who are contributing the code are going to know a) what's wrong and b) what standard they're expected to meet with the code, both of which they can then go and fix. It isn't a choice limited to "allow broken code into the code base" or "curse out anyone who's code you find a bug in", you can turn down code without getting personal
There's a checkbox in the adblock plus configuration to ignore the Acceptable Ads thing and just block everything, which in fairness to them was mentioned in the popup I got when it recently updated the extension to include the feature. Whether it actually *does* ignore the whitelist is another matter, but I still don't seem to be getting much in the way of ads
Re: Cost Efficiency
@Lobrau - There was the revenge attack for Lee Rigby's death just a week or two ago wasn't there? The guy survived, but trying to behead a random guy who fit the ethnic profile seems to fit the description, especially since he was basically trying to replicate what happened to Rigby (except he attacked a random dentist rather than soldier on leave)
I don't really have too much of an issue with it as a concept if it isn't a requirement to carry it everywhere, but the implementation they were trying to go with was horrendous and would have made it fairly easy for people to access any data store on them (and it wasn't just going to store an ID or something, they were going for full biometrics stored on the card as well as other personal details iirc)
Re: when will this madness stop?
As per the article, the photographer hadn't dropped the camera, it was on a tripod with a remote trigger set up and pointed at a group of monkeys with the aim that one of them would trigger it. He was lucky that it happened to be looking at the camera when it was triggered, but that's a long way from the monkey picking up a dropped camera and pressing the trigger by accident.
By PETA's logic, any motion triggered photographs would be owned by whoever moved in the photo , which means you could argue that anyone who set up cameras like that was infringing on your copyright by storing copies of the photos you triggered without your consent
"The prosecution argues that it only needs to show that he is possibly guilty of an offense in the US."
From what I recall of earlier articles, the restriction is that the crime committed has to be a criminal offence in New Zealand in order for him to be extradited. He might not have *committed* the crime there, and so not be liable for charges, but it does have to be a crime. eg Saudi Arabia couldn't extradite people from the US for violating blaspheme laws, even if the blaspheme was accessible in Saudi, because those aren't criminal acts in the US.
There was a lot of talk early on that there was a particular charge (I can't remember which, something to do with conspiracy I think?) which was really shaky in terms of evidence but *was* a crime in New Zealand and therefore gave grounds for the extradition The suggestion was this had been tacked on purely to fulfil the criteria for extradition but would be dropped as soon as the extradition was done, and that was the reason why the US prosecution was pushing against claims they would need to provide evidence of criminal acts before the extradition
Weird as it might be for a comparison, the comments about "commercial confidentiality" kind of remind me of a Watchdog episode involving people getting gas delivered because their town wasn't on the grid. All of them had been told they were being a discount, but that to get that discount they had to keep it confidential, and when the Watchdog guy went about asking everyone it turned out that all of them were paying more than they had to and some were paying about twice what the cheapest ones were. They just hadn't realised it because all of them were told they had to keep quiet about what they were being charged
It's larger scale, sure, but I can't help but wonder whether MoJ has been told they're getting a fantastic price for what it is and actually are being charged significantly more than other departments, they just don't know because all the departments have been told not to discuss it
There's a good chance they would argue that getting rid of the licences for those projects would mean earlier discount agreements no longer applied, and so they would threaten to charge more for any future contracts. Since at least some projects aren't going to be easy to port away from Oracle, this means you could be looking at having to pay *more* to get support for less licences initially if you want to retain support
Although that said, I would be curious what the response would be if the government opened up the procurement bids for supporting Oracle to non-Oracle companies, since there's at least a few that sell themselves as capable of supporting Oracle databases for a decent chunk of money less than Oracle charges
Re: Where does she draw the line?
Even then it gets pretty fuzzy, you'd probably need to hit actual self awareness with the ai before consent actually became an issue, but judging whether it's hit that threshold. If you've programmed it so it's capable of saying no, but it gets so much out of the sex that it never really has a *reason* to say no then arguably you have consent in everything except a very small edge case, but the question then is whether the edge case is a bug or if it's an actual consent issue
> I'm old enough to remember The Winter of Discontent, socialism doesn't work.
Well no, a purely socialist government doesn't. Nor does a purely capitalist government, a purely libertarian government, or any form of government which takes a particular idealism to the extreme. That's why you look at all of them and try take the best parts of all and leave the parts which would cause problems. If you find something you thought would work well isn't working, try something else, ideally chosen by looking at what results other people get from what they've adopted in the past.
It's worth mentioning that Doki Doki Panic was actually built on a prototype Mario engine which was intended for Mario 2, but Nintendo wanted to get another game out for the Japanese market faster than they could build it and released Mario 2/Lost Levels. They might have decided to hold off on releasing it over here because of concerns over difficulty, but the Mario 2 we got was originally intended to be a Mario game anyway
The thing that worries me here is the precedent this sets. We're essentially setting off a bomb in a civilian area to kill people suspected of being members of ISIS, and we know that there have been civilian casualties at least for some of the American ones. How is this any different to ISIS setting off a bomb in London to kill off-duty British soldiers? Or bombing the parliament who authorised this? Are those legitimate military actions on the part of ISIS, or are they terrorist attacks which should be outright condemned? If the latter, how do they differ to us setting explosives off in Raqqa?
Yes, we are essentially assisting Iraq in a civil war against ISIS, but killing people without trial outside of the battle field raises a *lot* of ethical questions about what point things tip over from military action to terrorism, and make it far easier for ISIS to justify their actions
You have to wonder whether those accusations of "cheats" might be considered libelous, consindering at least a few of the people who were included were outspoken Labour supporters and might see their reputation damaged if they were branded as "infiltrators"
Also, didn't Labour lose a lot of supporters to the Greens as they moved further to the right? Why is it any surprise that a decent chunk of the Greens would be interested in Labour again if they seemed to be moving back in the direction those people supported before leaving?
Re: Nuclear have life
The main restriction on thorium based reactors is finding a fuel rod container which can withstand the heat of the reactor and the corrosion of the salt solution the thorium is stored in. Otherwise it's a fantastic idea though, and definitely seems like something we should look to put money into along side renewables
They're annoyed that Oracle put the full amount on official documents rather than charging it as part of a support contract or something else which would be easier to "lose" in the bureaucracy of government. Means they have to deal with the embarrassing situation of either people knowing they agreed to pay it or having to put forward actual practical policy, which is a lot of work they can't be having with
Re: Better lawyers
The point is to make sure that party A has the opportunity to investigate and find counter arguments for evidence that party B presents. Otherwise weak evidence can be presented and not challenged because there was no opportunity to investigate it and find evidence it was incorrect
In this case Apple would have been required to provide the list of phones they were going to be presenting to Samsung, who should then have provided evidence that one of their phones existed prior to this or simply dropped that piece of evidence
Re: @My-Handle ... The sad fact is...
Sorry, what do you mean Ellsberg had access to the information and Snowden didn't? Snowden was given full access to all the data he copied by the US government when he was employed there, he didn't hack or bypass anything
Also SCOTUS kicked out the charges against Ellsberg because of government misconduct in preparing the case against him, not because of some decision about the probative value of the case
Re: @Redneck ... @ 6x7=42
You realise he's stuck in Russia, right? The US cancelled his passport, meaning short of either getting an official pass from another country which he's travelling directly to (which would only happen if they were giving him asylum), the only place he can go to right now is back to the US. Yes Russia has a worse track record, but it was supposed to be a temporary stop before he moved on somewhere else
edit: Also, after what happened with Manning just grabbing anything (it was one of the main arguments against her in court), Snowden only grabbed information on things he thought were illegal. In the case of the NSA, the courts in the US apparently agreed in at least one case
Re: @AC Not a chance
Or he's not actually worried about the US and he's using it to drum up support for him skipping bail and dodging out of Sweden when he (or his lawyer anyway) knew there were additional charges they wanted to question him over. Ecuador is only protecting him because (publicly at least) they've said the prosecutions in Sweden were political in nature and intended as a way to get him in custody then extradite him. If the US dropped any charges against him then it would be much more difficult to spin the Swedish charges as politically motivated, meaning he might lose their protections.
"The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate, and those who are willing to engage in it here at home."
Where congressmen can push for them to be executed without trial, as several of them were advocating for when the papers were first released. And how exactly can we have a "robust debate" if all information is considered classified and anyone telling us about it is imprisoned?
Also, slightly disingenuous to claim he's "hiding behind an authoritarian regime" when the only reason he's still there is the government cancelled his passport to stop him moving on
Re: What's up DOC?
The Gendarmerie did a full transition to Linux for their desktop environment in 2013, so the French government has plenty of documentation on the costs and benefits of retraining. They started the transitioning by mandating everyone use open formats, then switched to open source applications. If nothing else this'll make it easier for other departments to make the same transition in the long run
@len: The Gendarmerie has actually already migrated most of their systems to Linux and open office, although they've kept a few machines with windows to maintain compatibility with external agencies. Apparently they've made fairly significant savings with the switch, and having a large government department with experience in transitioning things might reduce the risks enough that they'll try shifting more systems over
Re: Just like the UK gov?
Er, kind of backwards there. Open/Libre Office focused on implementing the open formats. MS pulled their usual BS of saying they were going to support the open formats (embrace) and then modifying how those formats were implemented (extend) while keeping the modifications propriatory so that competitors wouldn't be *able* to support files created in Office, meaning anyone using office would struggle to migrate to another system and using Microsoft's market dominance to force others out (extinguish)
Re: Typo's happen
True, typos happen, but the system should have safe guards so that one typo doesn't result in an innocent person have police break into their house, restrain them and take their property. I mean an apology is all well and good, but there were probably a lot of personal details on those computers they seized and scanned the contents of, not to mention the trauma of a full on police raid of your house
The vast majority of benefits doesn't go towards people who are unemployed and still of working age. Based on 2013 numbers, 47% of money spent on benefits goes towards pensions, which is by far the largest portion of benefits payments, with only 6% going towards incapacity benefits and jobseekers allowance. This jumps to 16% if you include housing benefits, but a large part of that cost is from housing shortage in cities and this isn't exclusive to people who are unemployed (people earning under £16k can claim it).
In terms of savings, the estimated cost by DWP for Universal Credit is 12.8bn, which is about 2 1/2 years of jobseeker benefits for the country, or just over a year of combined jobseekers and incapacity. Those savings are going to have to be pretty damn significant for this system to pay for itself in any reasonable time scale
There's two parts to it. The first is whether they were actively encouraging people to download illegally copied material (which they did occasionally do on the home page), which makes them more likely to be liable for things. The second is whether the court understood the technology well enough and whether they were able to provide a detailed break down to the court (the judge may well have considered it irrelevant if he didn't understand it)
Re: Is this a good analogy?
Not really, an impossible to enter house is essentially impossible to build and, as shown with Assange, the police have the option of just camping out until you leave the property. Also a house has a broader range of ways evidence can be discovered and it's possible that someone could be imprisoned there and need rescued (whereas with encryption your never really going to have that "immediate threat to life" angle on needing access)
If you want to use houses as an example, it'd be more accurate to say that they want police to have access to keys for every house in the country but without any public reporting on how often and for what reason the police use those keys
Re: Spurs - In Wales
The "verdict" from the RSPA in that first one seems bizarre. How does hanging a pot rack on the wall and accidentally hitting wiring which wasn't fitted to standard by the builders (ie the experts) highlight that any electrical work in the house needs to be done by experts? Second article even mentions that the husband had made a point of keeping it clear of where he expected the cable to run (because the cables are supposed to run either horizontally or vertically, and these were diagonal and not even consistant)
Re: so he scoffed “a huge handful of ibuprofen and acetaminophen”
I'd thought it was difficult to kill yourself with paracetamol, but that it did large amounts of damage to your digestive tract. A quick google tells me I'm wrong on that, but that it *is* difficult to kill yourself quickly with it. It's your liver that's destroyed by it, it takes 3-5 days for you to die and is incredibly unpleasant since your liver is slowly dying
So about those claims that Russia had managed to access the Snowden files and get details on US intelligence officers. Seems quite the coincidence that there's the "most devistating cyber attack in US history" happening on the people who store those details at exactly the same time the Russians apparently managed the decryption
edit: Snowden, not Assange. Bit of a difference there