We can make money with your data.
Therefore it's OK for us to use your data.
Therefore your data is safe with us.
3313 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Dec 2007
It's the American system of justice. Either you plead guilty and get a long sentence, or you plead not guilty and get an enormous sentence and probably never leave prison.
Very efficient, and avoids having to fiddle about with trivial little details like whether you actually committed a crime or not - even if you are totally innocent you can't risk the longer sentence so have to plead guilty.
Depends on the particular circumstances of course, but in general a company that has a downturn in business may not be able to justify keeping all its staff. Should they destroy the company and all the jobs rather than lay some off? What if business gets better? In that case they hire more staff - same thing. If a firm isn't allowed to make staff leave, should staff also be forbidden to leave a job to get another?
Ah, but they can only search your car if they have reasonable suspicion. Such as a drug dog alerting on the car.
When this is studied, it's found that drug dogs give a *lot* of false alerts.
But of course that's in a controlled study. It doesn't include cases where the driver is obviously suspicious due to being Uppity, or Driving While Black, and the police accidentally give the dog the covert signal which it has accidentally been trained to respond to by giving a false alert. Accidentally like.
So every plod in every car can trivially pull up huge amounts of data on you.
Or at least on people with the same name as you (or similar name, for such as Muslim names which can be transliterated in several ways).
Or on people who have at some time lived at the same address as you (or a similar address).
And at least some of that data will have only a few errors in it.
What could possibly go wrong?
Legal hate speech? Yes, of course there is.
"that which publicly incites violence, or denies or trivialises crimes against humanity."
means violence and crimes against us. You can demand the extermination of funny foreigners as much as you like - look at any US fanatic's opinion of Moslems, or of any Moslem country.
US politicians can brag about drone assassinations of anyone the US dislikes, while denouncing those awful terrorists who might attack the US.
The US can invade any country it wants to, with trivial or no justification.
We've made the rules, so they don't apply to us.
I got paid double time for an hour that didn't exist.
We had to get a machine out to Hanover Fair, so we came in to the factory on Saturday morning to finish it. (I was coding the EPROMS that actually drove it). Sunday morning we'd finished all we could in that time, and it was packed and shipped.
To thank us, they paid us all double time for the hours worked, specifically including the hour skipped when the clocks went forward.
The problem is that we can fix pretty well anything in our technology, using other bits of our technology.
A Carrington event would take out pretty much everything, leaving sod all to do the fixing.
How do you fix stuff when you don't have the transport to bring the parts from the factory that can't make them? And what transport you do have is desperately trying to distribute food.
Some bits take a long time - I seem to recall that the big transformers needed to get the grid running take many months to make, and they can't make more than a very few at a time.
I'm having trouble working out what he thought he was doing.
A sock is not a very accessible place to keep a gun.What did he think he would use it for? Even in the US fantasy of being a hero and foiling crime, he wouldn't have time to get to it. If directly mugged he could have problems if he asked the mugger to wait while he got the sock off.
So presumably it was to resist searches? Did he expect to be searched coming onto the grounds but wanted to smuggle the gun in anyway? Is he a criminal wanting to get a gun past police? Or did he have a fantasy of being prepared in case he was kidnapped?
Or just the apparently widespread idea in the US that you have to have a gun with you at all times just in case?
Yes, can we please stop the countries which are terrorising people by continuously flying drones over their homes, and every so often swooping down and killing people at apparent random? And then they wonder why people hate them?
What have the drone campaigns done to the ordinary people trying to go about their business?
What have they done to the children who have lived their entire lives with lethal demons flying over them every day, killing their friends and neighbours at whim, and nothing whatever can be done about them? Because some politician thousands of miles away thinks it will boost his ratings. Can you imagine what effect that has on those children? We might find out decades from now - Oh gosh, why can they possibly hate us so?
It's accountancy. It makes it nice and easy for the accountants, and everybody else has to do what they say or they don't get any money.
The accountants have all sorts of rules and systems for controlling the money flow, and if the real world clashes with the accounting system, the accounting system wins. Even when this ends up costing lots more real world money.
That's fine if you are a top professional photographer who spends their career developing that skill.
The enormous majority of photos are taken by amateur photographers, or by people with a camera on their mobile who don't even consider themselves any kind of photographer.
They don't conceivably have time or need to develop that kind of expertise. Why should they?
Do you really think that even a top expert can stroll out and get a perfect shot every time?
"outlaw the taking of “multiple [two or more] images of an individual unless it is in the public interest to do so”"
The way to get a good photo of someone is to take lots of photos and delete the duff ones. This applied even with film cameras. With digital photos it's ridiculous to only take a single photo of a subject.
"wider use of two factor-authentication, among other security controls, is needed."
Naah - two factor authentication has been used for years for things like personal bank accounts and social media accounts - surely they don't need to do all that work for something as trivial as the central bank of an entire country.
"It's just variations in measurement accuracy over time."
"One lot of very old measurements by a few people in a particular field may not have been interpreted accurately - so that proves that a completely different set of measurements, vastly larger, by far more people, checked and tested and re-checked in every possible way, using multiple different techniques and instruments, agreeing very well with past and current actual events, must also be inaccurate - because I don't want it to be true and I'll stick my fingers in my ears and shout "I can't hear you!" until it goes away."
Yes, from a report elsewhere it seems it deleted his WAVs, and then only made MP3s available. This included his own original tracks - so without the backup he would have lost the high quality version permanently.
It's also possible (the report I saw was unclear) that Apple would then offer those original tracks to other people for download, without his permission or knowledge.
And some of the music he had was unusual, rare special versions of particular tracks which got deleted and replaced with generic versions.