Re: RE: arctic_haze
You can ask the astronauts to wave to Great A'Tuin as they go by.
95 posts • joined 9 Feb 2018
This is trying to strip me of my right to vote. I do not have a driving licence or a passport, and there is no legal requirement for me to do so. The version of this ID scheme that requires photo ID would mean I would have to pay for a provisional licence to be able to vote. Doesn't "paying to vote" sound an awful lot like a poll tax? Haven't we been here before?
Instead of capitulating and paying for ID, I'd rather run the risk of incurring much greater costs by bringing a legal challenge for removing one of my fundamental human rights.
The initial speed-of-light delay would be most important for the initial "handshake" to make contact. After that, both parties can send information without waiting to be asked, passing on whatever they want to transmit and adding any questions they want answered. This allows much more to be communicated than "ask question.... wait.... receive answer" model that a lot of people seem to be assuming.
Credit to Isaac Asimov short story "My Son, the Physicist": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Son,_the_Physicist
Crapita's screw-up means the army is short of 5000 troops. So conscript 5000 people from Crapita, starting from top tier of management and working down. Yes, they might be as useless as soldiers as they are at everything else, but getting them all killed would still be a net benefit to the country.
This doesn't sound like it's too serious yet. A gyro they knew was near to failing has failed, and one of the reserve ones they could have powered up to replace it isn't performing up to standard. Seems like they're keeping things in safe mode while they try to diagnose the problem and sort it, but they do have other gyros in reserve.
This has been addressed numerous times already, but as you are apparently too lazy / stupid to read, I'll spell it out again.
A billboard is potentially visible to anyone.
These job adverts were specifically restricted to be visible to men only.
Denying an entire gender the possibility of seeing a job advert is obviously discriminatory.
"Plaintiffs have shown the threat of real harms to their constitutional interests"
"Defendants introduced substantial evidence from Elections Directors from counties with major populations regarding the fiscal, organizational, and practical impediments and burdens associated with a court order that would require immediate implementation of paper ballot and ballot scanning voting systems"
So it's OK to harm someone's constitutional interests if doing otherwise is impractical. Wow. That seems like a pretty far-ranging call. Vote at risk of being stolen? Tough, it's impractical to take action. I think the USA just gave up any claim to being a democracy.
@ SImon Hobson "as you have chosen the wrong option, you are going to be punished". Let's have some examples of this, please.
Can you do better than the average Quitling and come up with something that's not
a) complaining about losing access to something that's only available to EU members
b) complaining about being asked to keep our promises
c) complaining that the EU is looking out for its own interests
d) complaining that the EU won't do your homework for you
Disclosing patient data is unacceptable and staff should be disciplined for that, but I'm concerned that the NHS thinks it has the right to police its employees private life. Why discipline staff for gossiping about drinking? I work Monday to Friday, so would they seriously say I can't put anything up about going out on Friday or Saturday? I'll be sober and ready to work on Monday, it doesn't affect my ability to do my job.
Yes, discipline staff for revealing stuff that should be confidential, but don't discipline them for being humans and having a normal social life. That's not acceptable.
@EvilDrSmith: The referendum was by no means free and fair. The Electoral Commission has now proved that Leave committed "serious breaches of the laws put in place by Parliament to ensure fairness and transparency at elections and referendums." (https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/vote-leave-fined-and-referred-to-the-police-for-breaking-electoral-law)
If you think the result should stand, you support criminals cheating to win votes, not democracy.
It seems to me that the Internet Archive is basically taking timestamped photographs of the internet. Its primary aim isn't use in trials, but it's something that may be useful as evidence. If a crime was committed in meatspace and someone had a timestamped photo that supported (or refuted) the prosecution case, it would make sense to allow it to be used as evidence unless there was reason to think it had been faked.
This complainant is making an argument that is without merit. Strip away all the nonsense, and it seems fairly simple - ABC doesn't want to identify himself for fear of his identity being published. But there's already an anonymity order in place, so the court has already used its powers to prevent ABC's identity being revealed. There's no good reason for ABC not to identify themselves to the court and the defendant.
I'd like to see more human exploration of space, but this isn't really a good argument for it. Satellites and drones don't just reduce risk, they're also a lot less expensive than sending humans. Humans need bigger craft to move around in, additional systems for life support, additional weight for drinking water, food etc - the list goes on.
I'd say to keep sending out the satellites, landers and rovers as a way to find the really interesting stuff, but then think about sending humans to investigate the most promising areas.
This reminds me of when it seemed an experiment had spotted particles travelling faster than light. Like practical-temperature superconductors, it would be an amazing breakthrough if true. But just as the particle speed measurement turned out to be an experimental error, this seems likely to be incorrect.
Let's get trying to replicate this and find out the answer.
Someone needs to create a system to evaluate this kind of software and judge whether the training data was biased, meaning the outputs can't be trusted. I suggest something big and impressive with lots of flashing lights, maybe even a Jacob's Ladder or two. It can put on an impressive show, then just print out "BIASED TRAINING INPUTS. SOFTWARE CANNOT BE TRUSTED".
Astonishingly enough, some people go to the beach and swim simply for fun. Yes, swimming shorts aren't the best for swimming in, but they have other advantages. It's socially acceptable to walk through busy areas & shops in shorts, not so much in Speedos. Shorts also tend to have pockets, useful for hanging on to anything that doesn't mind immersion in salt water - coins, keys etc.
Although I fail to see the attraction of a "sport" that consists of feigning being mortally wounded if someone so much as touches your idiotic hairstyle, I reluctantly concede its popularity and accept that people are going to cheer when a goal is scored or a match won. What I don't accept is people doing this, then deciding to drive round and incessantly use their car horns. The first flush of emotion has passed by then, they should be more considerate of others. Summary execution is a tempting solution, but probably not defensible. Instead, I suggest they've shown they can't be trusted to use their car in a responsible and considerate way, so it should be taken away from them and crushed.
EU procurement rules allow discretionary exclusion of companies "where they have committed offences or undertaken activities relating to misrepresentation, undue influence on procurement procedures, grave professional misconduct, agreements to distort competition or demonstrated significant or persistent deficiencies in the performance of a public contract". That seems like ample grounds for the UK government to exclude their usual outsourcers; that they choose not to do so is purely the fault of the UK.
As for your suggestion that UK voters will be able to affect this stuff more after Brexit, I have seldom seen such stupidity. In case you haven't noticed, cabinet ministers - who are theoretically responsible for this stuff - tend to get given safe seats where a donkey could get elected if it was standing on behalf of the correct party. That's not going to change.
It'll be interesting to see the ruling on the right to privacy argument. Taking the photo will be deemed allowable as there's no general expectation of privacy when in public. I'm guessing it will be argued that taking the photo is one thing, but using it in a system that can automatically identify, track and monitor people is different. It's not a slam dunk, but I could see that being ruled an invasion of privacy.
The free expression argument seems more likely to succeed, in my opinion. The police have been deploying this system at protests, and I can't see there being a legal justification for using this system instead of a less intrusive one. The only way they might get away with it is if they can demonstrate the system is only looking for those that have a warrant for their arrest and discarding all other data.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018