They *really* didn't see this coming? It's not as if there haven't been plenty of examples of this...
6902 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
They *really* didn't see this coming? It's not as if there haven't been plenty of examples of this...
... Extra-galactic neutrino. Ah-ha-ha-haaa!
Mine's the cape...
... I do not think it means what you think it means...
"...has space for eight million books, and has an 11-floor reading room."
And hopefully a better fire suppression system than the original...
... people will be paying the writers of Ad Blocking software to let their rubbish through (along with any associated malware...)
... Howard Wolowitz...
... but how many of the people named are actually going to face any sort of criminal charges?
They will no doubt say "Well, it was legal under the tax laws of my country" without saying "of course those laws were written and/or voted in by *other* people on the list..."
One law for us, another one for them.
How do you say "Pour encourager les autres" in Romanian?
And Yag goes for the desperate "It was a joke, didn't you get it" tactic.
(Hopefully followed by "When you're in a hole, stop digging...")
> Politicians are, in theory, accountable to the general public.
Yes, in theory. However the fact of the matter is that in the USA they're pretty much bought and paid for by big businesses.
As the old saying has it: If voting could actually change anything, they'd ban it.
Remember: An honest politician is one who *stays* bought...
> Absurd?! This is the future. Get with it!
Twenty minutes into the future...
Janie Crane: "An off switch?"
Metrocop: "She'll get years for that. Off switches are illegal!"
- Max Headroom - Episode 1.6 "The Blanks"
And how is her "bill to prohibit the anonymous sale of pre-paid mobile phones in America" going to stop someone from buying a boat-load of these phones and then flogging them out by all sorts of clandestine methods?
Another idiot politician whose knee-jerk reaction to a problem is to pass a law banning it.
I love this bit: "if people could see – which they obviously can’t [...] I believe they would be greatly reassured."
Why am I reminded of Russell's Teapot?
"...and to bring it up to modern-day standards"
Translation: Flog it off to one of Call Me David's rich mates and leave the plebs at the mercy of a system which is rigged against them because they can no longer get Legal Aid or even afford a competant solictor :-(
Meanwhile: "making pleas by mobile phones"? WTF? Sure, you leave your phone lying around, your mate picks it up, sees the message saying "Plead now" and, for a laugh, types in "I'm as guilty as sin and throw myself on the mercy of the Court..."
> it might benefit drivers to have law enforcement tracking us
Here in the UK, the last Labour Government wanted to introduce ANPR cameras at all junctions on major roads (ie motorways and dual carriageways) with the idea that if you got from A to B faster than the speed limit, they could automatically issue you with a speeding ticket.
Fortunately saner minds prevailed after it was pointed out that not only would this create a massive Snoopers Database (even bigger than the current ANPR database) that could be used to track the journeys of road users, but it would also result in many people leaving the major roads and, instead, going through the small towns and villages which said motorways and dual carriageways were designed to bypass, in order to avoid the cameras, thus clogging up those roads instead.
If traffic laws are not enforced well, this is not the way to improve such enforcement.
> I wouldn't mind a car system that just prevented speeding in the first place.
Then fix the nut behind the wheel...
> None of the "get Win10 now" manifestations has forcibly updated anything overnight when I wasn't looking.
And because Lysenko hasn't had this happen, obviously *nobody else* has had this happen either, have they?
Of course the fact that most people don't know how to avoid the GWX bullshit and stop it installing on their systems is not relevant to him...
> I. Don't. Care.
Fine: your life, your right, your choice.
But neither you nor Microsoft have the right to make that determination for *us*!
MS forcing people to opt in to their spyware is arrogant and unethical and shows a total disrespect for the wishes of their customers.
And if your response is "if you don't like it, don't use it", you don't even get that CHOICE because they have chosent to first make KB3035583 an "optional" update, then an "important" update and then, after I've chosen to hide it, UNHIDING it again to try and force it onto me!
So, fine, dance around naked if you want to, but don't expect others to do the same.
... 65 million years ago they'd maybe have been able to say "Oh shit..."
"...and unilaterally asserts UK jurisdiction overseas"
Ah, I see they're learning from the Yanks...
... for a comment from amanfrommars1...
But why should journalists bother with all that tedious investigation and researching of facts when they can just get ill-informed, ignorant or bigotted Joe and Josephine Public to rabbit on for a while about something they really don't understand?
"Doesn't matter which party is in power, you're going to be screwed either way, so bend over and smile..."
"...to substantial reforms to respect human rights and international law,"
And on that day, Satan will be seen ice-skating to work.
I've downvoted you because you miss the entire point about Human Rights and Civil Liberties and trotting out a variant on the "I have nothing to hide" nonsense we hear so often.
These protections are there for *everyone's* benefit, including yours (whether you want them or not). More importantly, YOU do not have the right to decide that OUR Rights should be treated with such disdain simply because you don't understand how important they are.
> I fear we will lose some of our liberties in the name of safety.
Do I really need to quote Ben Franklin again...?
If they haven't listened to the feedback already, why should we believe that they're going to listen to it now?
"MOPAC is also minded to pursue a claim against Northrop Grumman for costs and damages arising from the supplier's failure to deliver a command and control solution in accordance with the contract"
But if they do, will they have a good chance of getting their (our!) money back or will we end up with an even bigger bill as their lawyers' fees are added on top?
it will be prohibited from carrying out such misrepresentations in the future and will require people it has paid to display its goods to clearly disclose the fact. [...]
The FTC did not impose a fine
This is barely a stern telling off, it's just a finger-wagging.
There was a film "Cat's Eye" based on a Stephen King story which had a similar idea...
Good job I never started then.
(There's an advantage to being the geeky kid at school, you don't tend get into the sort of peer group that thinks smoking is cool)
Is that the new Onesie?
... there should be Dilbert Cartoon from this lot with the Elbonians running their "cloud" server which is a bunch of guys in a building with *lots* of filing cabinets and keyboards...
The problem is not with the ad blockers, it is with the adverts that get pushed out by the people who they *allow* to put their adverts on their sites.
What they *should* be doing is telling the advertisers to stop producing all the bandwidth hogging, malware laden, irrititating, noisy and intrusive adverts which make people HAVE to use ad blockers in order to have a less frustrating browsing experience on their sites!
Until then they are just shooting themselves in the foot with this idiotic stunt.
> are you still not over the thrashing you Lefties took in the General Election?
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the election, it has, as I said, to do with the Government forcing laws through Parliament to retroactively make legal something that was illegal when it was done.
Which part of that didn't you understand?
And "Lessons have been learned"
(The "Lesson" being "Don't get caught next time...!)
It wouldn't matter, Treasonous May and her merry band would just rush a quick law-change through Parliament, retroactively making it legal.
Is that Neuromancer or Wintermute...?
As far as many (from Parliament and the ACPO downwards) are concerned, laws are for the Little People, to keep the plebs in line, but it's perfectly acceptable for those who have the power to ignore them or interpret them creatively "for the greater good".
... the people who wanted to introduce ID Cards, ANPR cameras at every junction so they could track our journeys and issue automatic speeding tickets if you got from A to B too fast, who wanted to monitor the development of every child *just in case* they might turn out to be a potential juvenile delinquent...
They *think* they're exempted - see the Wilson Doctrine for details...
> She is either stupid or has some other, hidden, purpose.
I don't see that as an either/ or question...
> I've stopped taking Windows Updates on my Windows 7 boxes.
I haven't, because some of the updates *are* actually beneficial.
However each "Important" update is checked out carefully to see if there's nagware included or, worse, that a previously rejected (and hidden!) update has suddenly reappeared in another guise.
No? Then sod off!
... had the right idea: Don't interface all your systems as it leaves you vulnerable!
Yes, of course Security has to be given due prominence, especially in these days of the IoT etc, but it should not be so incredibly frustrating when you have to create a password with an upper case letter, a lower case letter, a number, a punctuation symbol, a Norse rune, a colour, a Haiku and a DNA sample and then get told three months later that it needs updating but you can't use *any* of the aforementioned in the new one...
PS "ask yourself whether you'd break down the door of your secure data store to rescue the guy inside in the event of a fire"
Or ask the BofH...
There's a privately owned Fire Appliance parked in Goldsmith Avenue in Portsmouth which has been there for the last year or so.
It occasionally changes position, so presumably it gets driven around once in a while, but by whom, I don't know.
> If someone was to hack in to a system in order to delete a database of illegally held information, would it be a crime?
Unfortunately, yes. It's what you do, not *why* you do it that tends to count.
Of course that doesn't apply if your the Police/ Security Services/ Government/ whoever because it's one law for us and another one for them (or, at least, one that they can ignore...)
And if so, was the first Q: "Mr President, do you have the *slightest* clue what the hell you are talking about???"
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017