Posts by Intractable Potsherd 4161 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Yep - I have four (or maybe five) SIMs in different phones - my main Android, my Jolla, and two or three old phones in the car which I keep for emergencies or to give to rally marshals to call me if an incident occurs. My wife has two or three as well.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot the SIM in my camera.
If this was being suggested by a medical devices company, it would need to go through all sorts of research approval. Personal data, storage who knows where, the ability to diagnose things about the person that the person does not know about ...
Insurance companies will be looking at this with great interest. The world isn't going to be better for it.
My basic philosophy of "If there isn't a good reason to update, leave it alone" seems to have worked - version 7.0a from 2010 here. I'm not going to move to a Microsoft "solution" unless there is a pressing need. I'll look for other options that might not be as compromised as anything coming from a company with strong links to people who want to know everything.
I most certainly don't want "... all the benefits of personal, door-to-door transport, without the hassle and danger (and inefficiency) of human drivers"! I'd prefer to stick with the ridiculously low chance of an incident that causes death or injury to me or someone else in order to have some freedom and ability to exercise some control over my world. Driving is the most complex and dangerous (despite the tiny risk in most Western countries) thing most people do these days, and life will be diminished by removing it.
That said, I would like the option of having a vehicle with enough room for me to get comfortable (so lots of leg-room) which will get me to a destination 400 miles away cheaply, quickly and using the fewest number of changes, whilst still being able to get some work done. Aircraft, trains and coaches fail on several of those requirements, so a self-driving car might fit the bill - though I still maintain that driving without due care and attention would prevent me working whilst being the nominal controller of the vehicle.
You clearly have led a very fortunate life. I have lived in areas where kids would do this routinely, especially if they didn't recognise the car. One area I had to go for work purposes had a gang of adults who would do it - your option was to stop and be verbally abused/have the car damaged/get into a fight you were unlikely to win, or risk hitting the pair in the road (pre-mobile phone, so no easy way to call for help). The ability to do a reverse-flick was the only way to avoid problems, and usually got a round of applause if done well ...
My recent comment above still stands - because of that kill switch, the nominal driver (which actually raises some issues - how will that be determined when there is more than one occupant?) will have to be capable of operating it safely. Drunk, poor eyesight, shagging on the way home, reading a book, watching a movie etc, will still put the liability firmly on you in the event of collision that you could have avoided through the use of that switch. Let's face it, Google are not going to make themselves responsible for every accident (and there will be some) that occurs in these things - someone is still going to need to be insured to operate it.
More like a "Google is not liable if you hit something" switch. That switch means Google can plausibly say "The occupant had the ability to prevent the collision, so that is where you should be looking for money." I suspect people are still going to need to pass basic sight tests before being allowed to use these - that blind man on the video isn't going to get his automotive freedom.
If these wrist-accessory things for phones have the ability to tell the time, notify of calls/messages, and have a microphone/speaker, I'm getting to the point of having one. I hate headsets (my hearing is bad enough without losing a significant portion of my capacity to an ugly lump of plastic), and quite like the idea of talking into my wrist like a secret-service operative. OK, the speaker might be a problem, but why should holding my watch to my ear be any less weird than holding a phone?
This is why I downvoted Don Jefe on this topic (something I don't often do). Middlemen are fine when they know their place (or a forcefully put in that place). When the middlemen think they are the sole reason their sector exists, it all goes woefully wrong. The creative sector is a prime case - publishers, music labels, film distributors all think the market exists for them to make money from both seller and buyer, when in actual fact they have become simply a form of parasite which may have some benefits, but are just as likely to kill their hosts. They ensure that any risk is strictly one way, and regard their existence as being ordained as a fundamental part of the universe.
At some point, Amazon is going to need challenging, but whilst it is shaking up cozy entrenched attitudes which are generally harmful, I'm quite happy for it to do so.
The "terrorists and criminal scum" that you seem to be referring to are such a small number, doing such a tiny amount of damage to the common citizenry that the surveillance is totally disproportionate. Intelligence gathering on the state level makes sense, as does surveilling the shit out of big companies, which, in most cases, are run by people almost indistinguishable from real terrorists and criminal scum. Pissing about at the micro-level is a waste of time - the six dead people in California this weekend proves that only too clearly.
A bit late, but let me add my plaudits for your paper. The humour is marvellous, and your conclusion that homeopathic practitioners must never observe their patients by moving city or, better yet, committing suicide, is wonderful.
Oh - the ability of cats to end up where they couldn't possibly be has been proven in my houses for years. One feline quantum particle, blind and brain damaged, could be found upstairs when, mere moments before, he was on the settee next to me - and had not passed me on the stairs. Another, not quite so adept, could move without being seen, but could be heard. We had had a little song about him:
You can hear him,
But you can't see him,
Clio is the invisible cat ...
This is a case of choosing one's battles. There is nothing sensible to be gained by Mozilla taking a Canute-like stance against the waves coming in (except in so far as it would prove Canute's position that no-one can successfully command the tide). Giving people the choice over whether/when to use the plug-in is a sensible move, especially if data can be collected (with the permission of the user, of course) on how it is used if downloaded - the bare numbers of downloads will not be sufficient. I expect to have the plug-in disabled most of the time, but enabled occasionally, for instance.
Point taken, and agree with almost all your points except the implied criticism of the law that allows someone to do things "underneath someone else's property". With the caveat that there should be a reasonable distance (which can be argued, but should be less than 30 metres*) between the surface and the working, there can be no sensible way that a person can hold that it should be stopped. The suggestion that everyone owns a cone or slice of influence below (and therefore above) their property on the surface is just weird in a world that got to where it is by mining, oil prospecting and flight.
*Note, I'm from a mining area originally. I know the damage that can be caused by underground workings, yet I'm more than happy with the compensation schemes in place rather than a lunatic concept of owning all below the land.
Yes, it is quite amazing how Adam Smith has been hijacked by hard capitalists. I was amazed the first time I read Wealth of Nations when I did an access course to go to university in the late 1990s. It is very reasonable: argues ideas of high taxation for high earners and a welfare safety-net for those without to the extent that the great phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" could have been attributed to Smith, not Marx. It is a truly wonderful read, and an object lesson on how a work can be completely misrepresented by people with an axe to grind.
The thing with newspaper archives is that they have *always" had this kind of information available. There has never been a process by which a notice went out for all copies of a certain edition to be censored of the details of details pertaining to a crime, or anything else. This is good, because they are a historical record, and nothing should be deleted from them. Let's face it, if this is taken to its logical extreme, court reports will have to be destroyed after the spending of a conviction - they are all online these days. It's going to make the UK's doctrine of precedent really difficult to maintain, but hey, it's a small price to pay for having "the right to be forgotten"!
There needs to be some sensible discussion about this, not driven by a bunch of idiots so embarrassed about what they did that they want to forget it all. There are some arguable cases where being able to vanish is something to be allowed, but being able to rewrite (or completely remove) history to soothe wounded pride doesn't fall into that category.
@big_D: are you claiming that, in Germany, a private individual, cannot send a letter (envelope contains PII by your definition) to someone who has not expressly said they wish to receive it? Or that someone cannot send out a group email to members of a club they all belong to unless it is channelled through one of the committee who holds a list of approved addresses? What about contacting someone I briefly met at a conference who I look up and then call, write to or email?
Based on work I have done regarding the Data Protection Directive and its implementation throughout the EU, it seems to me that the rules you are working to are significantly over-the-top. The DPD does not require anything close to what you have described, and it is hard to see how those rules are even close to workable.
Well, I pay for good apps on my phone, and I doubt I'm the only one, so there is a market. I don't like being force-fed ads, and so one value-added way for FF to go would be to introduce a "sorry folks, we need money, so it's ads or a small fee". By small, I mean small - about the same as a decent app on a phone. I wouldn't pay the same as CoPilot premium (£36 at the moment) for a browser, but I'd pay £3-4 a year for, say, four machines - I want the option to clearly vote with my wallet if Mozilla continue making such a pig's ear of the browser as they seem committed to doing at the moment.
Really, though, we need someone to produce a light, effective browser like Firefox used to be.
Thanks for your reply, gg.
I know about the legality of refusing drunk and abusive potential customers, and I have no problem with that. I didn't know about the 12 mile rule - is that just London? That seems to be wrong to me, but there well may be a justification somewhere.
The screen idea is one that doesn't require the customer to use gps and data (bearing in mind that it would cost a lot on data for overseas travellers). The screen would have the same information displayed as you, the driver, have. Delays, roadworks etc - all displayed in as near realtime as possible. Satnav is fairly good at working out the best route on the fly these days - the days of The Knowledge are reaching their end (plus, let's face it, nowhere else requires taxi drivers to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of their patch - maybe it was always over-rated).
Fair comment about the complaints - the only complaint I know of was from a friend who lives in London, who realised he'd been conned by the "round-about-route" dodge soon after he'd moved there only after he'd got more familiar with the city. He discovered it when another cabbie took him the "proper" route, 15 minutes shorter, and several quid cheaper ... Arguing that there aren't complaints when people haven't a clue who it was that took them, and didn't realise they had been conned for days or weeks is a specious argument. As I said in an earlier post - the customer should always get a receipt, and I'll add another rule - make sure the name and licence number are legibly printed on it. In fact, it should be made mandatory that a card with the details of the driver and cab are supplied to customer when they get in the cab.
I haven't actually argued that there shouldn't be any regulation of ply for hire - you are quite correct in arguing that it has a purpose. It isn't perfect, and could do with tweaking in line with some of the comments I've made in order that honest cabbies can be seen to be honest, but it isn't bad. However, I don't see that Uber are causing that much of a problem - a journey and a rate negotiated and agreed before the two get together, and not at the kerbside, is going to be good for all. If Hailo is as good, it should have the backing of cabbies and be pushed widely to compete with Uber. On the other hand, if you are simply buggy-whip makers trying to resist progress that empowers the consumer, then good riddance.
I'll accept your assertion that you are an honest bloke just trying to do a job. Would you then support a screen readable by the customer that shows the ideal quickest route between current location, any blockages/congestion etc in real time and the corrected route, and any deviations from that? The problem at the moment is that the customer does not know when you are using "The Knowledge" to avoid a problem, and when the mythical (according to you) dishonest cabbie is taking the scenic route. My suggestion would level up the playing field.
Regarding tourists - it is fairly easy to spot at least a proportion of tourists, and so the unscrupulous cabbie can take advantage. There are enough complaints circulating to suggest that not all are lacking in evidence.
A point you didn't answer is the refusal of your colleagues (I'm sure you never do it) to take people where the cabbie doesn't want to go. If you want special treatment, then the customer should not be refused transport merely because it doesn't suit the cabbie. There should be an automatic suspension of the licence of any cabbie that refuses to go "south of river at this time" - which could be easily proven/defended by evidence from the recorders in the cabs.
If your profession started considering itself a service, instead of each taxi being a small fiefdom of its own, and there might be a change in our attitude towards you. As it is, Uber starts to look like a good thing (except for surge pricing, which I think is atrocious).
Do you really think the taxi-mafia will allow Google cars? Driverless taxis will have a lot of "accidents", from four punctures all the way to mysterious dousing in petrol near naked flames.
The buggy-whip manufacturers didn't have a clue ...
As others have said - never, ever use a cab anywhere, unless you know the route like the back of your hand and are willing to argue the toss when - not if - the driver deviates from the route. If going somewhere you don't know:
1) Find the number of a couple of private hire companies (if on business, ask someone at the place you are going who they use), and book ahead (which can be as you are getting to the destination if there could reasonably be a delay - e.g. Edinburgh to London).
2) If you got the number from the place you are visiting, say so when you book - no private hire company wants to lose the good opinion of regular customers.
3) ALWAYS get a price for the journey when you call.
4) Use a trip-logging program on your phone to make a record of the route for comparison later.
4) Be sure to get a receipt, even if not on expenses - it makes complaining easier if you need to do so later.
I can't remember if I have told this before: had to go to Glasgow on business last year. I hadn't formulated my above rules at that point (only recently started using the car less and public transport more). Got a cab outside the station - took almost 15 minutes to get to the main hospital, cost about £12, but was shown lots of Glasgow's "main tourist attractions". Three other people attending the same training who were on the same train (didn't know then at that point, so couldn't share with them) also got a cab outside the station - 25 minutes' journey and £16. On the way back we asked the organisers to book us a private hire car - 10 minutes, £8.50, and I didn't recognise a single road after leaving the venue and arriving at the station.
I don't trust cabbies - they might not rape you, but they will certainly screw you ...
Another vote for the Galaxy Camera from here. Easy to use, reasonably fast, good low-light performance on auto, solid case, very good battery life, wifi and mobile data links, big screen, huge zoom range, good macro if needed. Potential downsides are the relative bulk compared to some of the others mentioned, and the amount of reflection off that big screen if there is any light source at all within about 170 degrees of the back of the photographer's head!
Ah yes, the M6 toll road - one of the most underused pieces of tarmac in the country. There are unsurfaced roads in bits of Scotland with more use per mile. When I lived down in the Midlands I occasionally used the toll road just to have a few miles without seeing another car, compared to the still overcrowded M6 untoll, which people seem to prefer, despite the regular roadworks and accidents that can easily add half-an-hour to a journey.
I used to think it was just Brits who are too tight to use a decent bit of road for some money, but I was recently in Portugal for a holiday. The choice to get from Faro to the west is the toll A22, or the free N125 (once listed as one of Europe's most dangerous roads). I used the autoroute several times, and was really worried about the state of Portuguese tourism - hardly saw a car (the plus side being no lorries). However, I took a journey on the N125 from Portimão to Lagos ... and discovered all that missing traffic - tourists, artics and locals all - stuffed onto a hugely inferior road, and still dangerous. Again, people too tight to pay for a safer, more comfortable journey.
I've just read it - if you think that is "an excellent article", then all I can say is that we have a very different interpretation of "excellent". Hearsay, recycled rumour, a lawyer that claims the executives of (another tech firm) "couldn't lie to save their lives" ... all rubbish slanted towards the American view.
Oh, and using "Vanity Fair" as a reliable source? ... No, just no.
I know - it was remiss of the author not to clarify this in the article. Oh, wait - he did: "Internet traffic was designated an information service, rather than a telecommunications service, back in 2002 by the then–FCC head Michael Powell ..."
The thing is, there isn't a major problem on Earth to which the answer isn't "We need to get into space". Energy, natural resources, population, security from major disasters, etc ... all require diversification off the one planet we have. Now is the time to do it, whilst there are still energy and natural resources to invest in getting at all those resources out there.
We have to many eggs in one basket - the future requires huge steps at high cost.
I'd rather live in any form of socialism than any form of capitalism. Looking after the weaker members of society is a duty on all members of that society, not just those who it makes feel better about themselves. Those who abrogate that duty (by e.g. not paying taxes) deserve to be be punished and forced to pay.
By the way, your nom de plume is fitting - a parasite with no thoughts for its host ...
There is a local project up here in Scotland to make health-related information accessible to researchers, using a safe-harbour system. Data-sets of a minimum size are fully anonymised by the staff in the safe-harbour, and the data is accessible only through a portal - there isn't a way to download the data to a local machine. Any manipulation of the data is done through tools available through the portal.
NHS data *should* be used for research, and this is the way it should be done.
There has been a complete change in the anonymisation procedures for research projects going through my local research ethics committee since I joined it. The first time I read a project that was going to "anonymise" by initials and postcode I had a fit - and then read through two others that had the same idea! My colleagues on the REC fortunately didn't take a lot of persuading to my point of view, and now it is a standard question to ask researchers if they haven't specified what "anonymisation" process they are going to use. Unfortunately, there is no way in the current system to get this transmitted to other RECs ...
Dumbing down is a hallmark of the BBC these days. Why a public-service broadcaster needs to chase ratings is beyond me. Whilst there are occasional gems (I hate to say it, but I like the format of the blind auditions in "The Voice" - though once the selections have been made, it becomes just another talent show), I almost never watch BBC 1. BBC2 gets the occasional viewing (University Challenge, mainly, with recent time spent on W1A). The BBC station I view most (and that ain't a lot), is BBC4, with its programming about music in the mid-C20th. I don't watch any TV news channel regularly - too monotonous, making headlines out of total trivia (I think the most irritating was recently when some footballer was sacked from being manager (or captain) of some team (Manchester?), and that was the headline - was there really nothing more important than that in the country/world?). I do use the BBC News website most days - learning how to use it as a tool to find actual information is worth the time (except for technology - don't get me started on the utter shite spouted by those clowns!), and it leans I can avoid the AGW propaganda quite neatly.
Odd - I'm a supporter of the BBC, and would hate to see it lose its funding model, but you wouldn't be able to tell from my comments ...
Just to back up what others have said - you don't deserve to live in a decent country with real people. There are plenty of places, listed by another poster, where your psychopathy can be put to good use. You need to remember that Robert Heinlein was writing fiction, not handbooks for sociopaths.
For the record, I think the tax rate in the UK is too low, there is inadequate social provision, and everyone who is a citizen* should be given a minimum income by the government. People not yet citizens should have an entitlement too. Oh, yes - fuck the idea of immigration curbs.
Oh, and you have no idea what a chav is.
*I know - we aren't really citizens, but that should change too.
And so they should - the world is actually no different than it was 40+ years ago. The whole point of the protections in the US Constitution is to make it hard for the State to override the interests of the individual. The weakening of the protections has led to an unwarranted (pun genuinely not intended) intrusion of the lower parts of the State apparatus (police in this case) being able to breach reasonable privacy rights without the correct recourse through a judge (though some of the small-town judges are so far up the arses of the local plod that they are indistinguishable from them).
Unfortunately, I don't share your analysis of the likely outcome - the Supreme Court has become the enabler of the continual erosion of rights. They are more likely to give carte blanche to the police to increase their reach.
Not fines - as mentioned before, they are simply costs. Personal liability for the directors and staff working in the country where the breach took place in the form of arrest, bail restrictions, and a court hearing with the possibility of custodial sentences - that might focus their minds.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
