Posts by Intractable Potsherd 4162 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
The world needs fewer languages, not more. By all means have a dead language if you want it (and this applies to any minority language, not just Welsh), but don't expect it to be supported by anyone else. It was a bleak day for improved communication when the Welsh got road-signs in their dead language, and I was appalled that it is the same in the west of Scotland ...
I've only seen the trailer, and couldn't see how it is different from "The Matrix" - strange things happen, people in life-support pods, and a black man wearing shades in a dark room promising to reveal the truth.
I'll probably go to see it, but only to tide me over until Iron Man 3, and then Star Trek.
The law in common law countries requires guilt to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. When the evidence is coming from one person, and being refuted by the other, there is always reasonable doubt. The truth is that, without further evidence, which, by the nature of the offence is going to be hard to find, it *should* be hard to prosecute a rapist if the rule of law means anything at all. Feminist jurisprudence cannot insist on a change to that principle for rape and other crimes againt women and claimat the same time that it has anything to do with equality.
"Still, the headline "Phone + expensive transmitter can be used to hack planes" doesn't have the same ring to it ..." But how does the headline "Phone + trivially-inexpensive-to-bad-guys transmitter can be used to hack planes" sound? "Expensive" is a function of many things, not just financial cost.
You have hit the nail on the head. Up here around the land of "Jam, Jute and Journalism" there seem to be three types of driver - the ones that completely ignore the indicator stalk, the ones that use the indicator stalk as a "curry hook", and people that don't come from here originally - with the former in the majority. I don't know what the locals are taught, but it isn't the same Highway Code I know ... even (some) driving instructors omit the use of indicators!
Thanks for the tip about fotpathmaps.com, but just visted it: got, "Sorry, we've run out of our allocation of data for today. The problem with a free service is we cannot afford to buy more data. Some tiles may appear blank.
Please try again later/tomorrow." It looks as if you may have Slashdotted the site!
I'll stick with Google Maps and the OS site, thanks.
I was a big Multimap fan - IIRC it also used to have OS mapping when the OS site was an absolute pain to use. I was seduced away to Google maps by the fact that it was better to use and had extra information - Streetview, I think, was the thing that weaned me away completely.
"... Streetmap provide proper Ordnance Survey mapping ..." Yes, and if I want that level of information, I'll go to the OS website and find it. It isn't difficult, and allows me to have the two sites open at the same time for comparison.
The OS site used to be really poor unless you knew the grid ref, but now it is more friendly once you know roughly where you need to be. It could still do with some work, though.
So Google should not give people the information they have searched for easily at the top of the page for reasons of ... well, what? What is your solution to this - that Google randomly select a map provider site to put in that position? If so, why? Or do you want Google to adopt the same sort of required statement as the BBC used to have regarding their publications - "Other map providers are available"?
"... try not to celebrate and rejoice in the fact that another human being has died, regardless of what you think of that person..."
Why? I hated her when she was alive - I'm not a hypocrite like so many others to change my views just because she doesn't breathe any more. I will, however, not state my opinions regarding how she died for fear of being mderated off the board.
For those who haven't seen the link from the BBC website or elsewhere, you can leave messages for Iain at http://friends.banksophilia.com/guestbook/. There are some great ones already (though I only got to about page 15 this afternoon).
Let's hope this is one of those situations where the doctors have got it wrong - or that there is an SC vessel being diverted our way with an important mission.
"Check up on reports of people communicating with severed heads at executions if you dont believe me."
I don't, because there isn't a single reliable source of people "communicating with severed heads". All the ones I've seen fall into the homeopathy category of reliability
By your definition, anyone that fought for the end of the Soviet Union from within is a criminal that made bad life decisions. They should not have hated those that enforced the laws, because it was a distorted view of reality. They will hopefully be found, prosecuted, and shipped off to prison to live with other folks in serious denial.
In other words, you are a total moron who does not understand that laws can be bad, and even good laws can be applied badly by those with a vested interest in doing so. Those who do so should have a little "skin in the game" to keep them closer to "honest".
The benefits of the EU are not what you think they are. The EU for many years did exactly what it was supposed to do by ensuring that no single country can get so far ahead of its neighbours that war is a possibility. It also wrapped up the leaders of individual countries so closely that they fight through bureaucracy and diplomacy, rather than belligerance and military. It also made the governments of Europe have common economic enemies - the USA being the biggest at the beginning, China coming up on the rails.
The Euro fucked all this up, of course, because it didn't allow countries with weaker economies to do what was necessary to keep afloat. War in Europe is closer now than it has been since 1939.*
*Not that I'm expecting it to happen, but without the EU the instability in Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Spain etc would be extremely worrisome ...
Dan, until you understand the differences between EU Regulations and EU Directives, you are unqualified to comment on this topic.
A Regulation is, in effect, the same as Federal law - it exists and is applicable in every state without any action required on the part of the government of each or any individual state. They are used very, very rarely.
A Directive sets out a set of priciples and goals that need to be addressed by every state. However, how these are addressed is up to each state. In essence, they set a minimum level of compliance in order to level the playing field for commerce. However, some countries (e.g. UK, Germany, Sweden) tend to take it as a minimum and then tack some extra on. Other countries (e.g. Italy, Spain, Greece, the newer member states) tend to treat them as a ceiling and try to do the bare minimum to comply.
And, until you actually know what "socialist" means, you aren't fit to speak at all ...
"So, let me get this straight, hysterical newspaper reporting is bad, but the state over-riding parental responsibility and forcing children to be injected with arbitrary substances is ok?"
Yes, hysterical newspaper reporting is bad.
No, the State overriding parental responsibility where it is unwarranted is not ok.
Yes, the State overriding parental responsibility when it comes to clear public health goals is okay.
Unless you are going to claim that we were better off with polio, whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella etc, then you are clearly barking up the wrong tree.
Committing suicide is just about the most selfish thing a person can do.* This person proved Littlejohn correct - and is therefore stupid.
*My past career as a psychiatric nurse, and being someone who has been close to killing myself, give me the insight to say this.
I was going to pick up on that - why is there a bigger subscription for tablet users? I don't care - I don't have a tablet and I won't pay for a subscription to a news-service*, but it would be interesting to know why one method of reading downloaded material merits a significant price differential over another.
*I can't remember the last time I looked at any UK newspaper's website, or print edition, for that matter. Like many others, I get Private Eye every couple of weeks, read BBC and Al Jazeera websites for general news, and El Reg for most of the rest.
Since they are not involved in any market-bending lawsuits of their own, then I would say that the answer is "No, why should we be?" Quite simply, the Apple/Samsung case is hugely important with all sorts of implications for the future. The courts should be very slow to allow corporate entities to put any evidence under seal - they are not real people, and should have limited rights to protect information.
If you can't see that there is a world of difference between truly private information pertaining to individual "natural persons" (to use the legal term) and quasi-private information pertaining to "corporate entities" then the capitalists have successfully worked their magic on you ... and that isn't a good thing.
And Friedman was a seriously sad man. Many of us are far more careful with others' money than with our own. If I'm on expenses, I do not stay anywhere that I wouldn't if buying it myself, and when it comes to subsistence, I never reach the limit set. Indeed, I sometimes decide that it isn't fair to charge someone for expenses if, for instance, I enjoyed it. I also ensure that I book flights and accommodation myself, rather than through the fleecing "travel agent" the organisation insists on using, because I can usually save the organisation a fair percentage. On occasion, I have been on the end of "Spend lots - we need to get rid of this money before it is taken off us." I don't understand that mentality.
So, back to Friedman - he, like so many right-wing economists, are essentially fraudulent bastards who think everyone is out to get what they can. They demean the honest majority, and so do you by believing it,
If she actually had any expertise in areas that matter, such as people skills and marketing, she wouldn't need to be charging an entry fee to the shop (incidentally, how is she going to enforce that if people walk in and go out without paying their "rent"?)
This is another example of the sense of entitlement some merchants (movie and record industry, I'm looking at you too) have to earn a living without changing a damn thing. This daft woman deserves to go out of business - perhaps the clue-stick will bless her with a pummelling then. After all, Rampant Spaniel has come up with several good ways to increase footfall, sales, and - most importantly - loyalty in just a few minutes. It isn't hard, ffs.
Telling smutty jokes to others who you know won't take offence isn't "discrimination". Hell, telling smutty jokes isn't "discriminatory" at all. "Discrimination" is something everybody does every day of their lives, and that there it is a value-neutral term. Only where the discrimination can be perceived as unfair, i.e. to the detriment of the person being discriminated on grounds that are not legally acceptable, is there an issue. To put it another way, the fact that you have your current job means that someone else discriminated between you and the other applicants.
This woman is part of a very unhealthy attitude towards humour, and an increasingly unhealthy attitude against men, much worse than that the feminists rail against, because it is deliberate, and calculated to demean men. The only downside is that this daft woman will probably take her case to court and get damages for being sacked (though that is quite correct - what she did was not a sacking offence).
Whereas, given the choice between two equally good [whatever-it-is-I-want-to buy], I'll always take the PayPal route because it is easier, I'm not giving my payment details to the seller, and my credit-card company doen't know what I'm buying whilst giving me payment protection. Win all round, I'd say.
"Alternatively, lets make it so that there are a 100 different things the terrorist has to get right every time in order to not be caught."
Or - and I know this is from completely outside the envelope - we could stop being so f***ing paranoid and allow going to airports to be a pleasure again. I know it isn't going to happen anytime soon, but it is a pleasant dream of mine.
I obviously have imagination failure - what can you possibly get for $30k a night that you can't get for £500 somewhere else? All you need is a bed, an internet connection, possibly cable TV, a bath/shower, and someone to bring food and drink when you want it, but it will be added to the bill. Oh, and some reasonable security and privacy - make the top figure £1500 a night.
I genuinely am baffled ...
Not necessarily. A suitably placed employee could have been paid in some way, or threatened, in order to get the required access. There is mention in the article of a VIP handler (or similar term) being sacked - this may or may not be related to the access to the cameras etc.
"The first fail was thinking that spying on your customers was a good idea." Ironically, this is done in all "respectable" gambling establishments in order to identify cheating. There are levels of security in casinos that would make a government weep. Everything from straight observation to pattern recognition, both by humans and machines. Security in depth at its best.
"The second fail was consolidating the information from the spying." Well, maybe yes, maybe no - part of the security comes from consolidating and integrating the data. Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is a different question.
"The third was the security/social engineering breach." Which are almost impossible to eliminate. If the person you want can't be bought, s/he can be threatened either directly or by threats to significant others. Not so much a "Fail" on the part of the casino, because no-one is immune from social-engineering one way or another.
I was hoping Bruce Schneier's blog would have something on this, but I don't see it.
"A reasonable country wouldn't allow gambling full stop."
"Yes, because banning gambling, like banning drugs, will immediately result in the complete cessation of all such activity and no-one would ever gamble illegaly."
I upvoted both these, even though they are contradictory, because they represent how I feel myself.
Whilst I don't use drugs and I don't gamble, I can see the utility of one (drugs), but not the other (gambling). In an ideal world, gambling would not be state sanctioned, and certainly advertising wouldn't be allowed (I am actually repelled by the averts for the various gambling establishments that have recently been allowed on British TV). However, in order to be consistent, since I think that drug-use should be legalised and brought within the remit of the State because it is an aspect of freedom,* and because it reduces harm to those indulge, then I logically have to accept the legalisation of gambling.
*Unlike libertarians, I don't think that freedom resides in being free to die at the hands of someone less scrupulous than you.
"Did he have a hidden earpiece, going to he loo a lot or was he taking calls on his mobile?" I was wondering that, too. Getting the information was relatively straightforward, if complex in practice. Relaying that information is the real trick. I doubt the old "hearing aid" trick wouldn't work, not when money was being lost hand over fist, and surely the casino has those private suites screened from radio anyway (if they don't, then they may well have to show it isn't negligent failure). I am intrigued ...
"- it's a pity we don't have any judges that are independant." I can't decide if you are trying to be ironic with that comment, but I downvoted you just in case you aren't. There is absolutely *NO* (did I emphasise that sufficiently?) that the UK judiciary as a whole are anything other than independent of government and Parliament in terms of their judgments. There have been some questions as to their politics, being white male barristers for so long, but, if you had any clue about English Legal History, certainly over the last 50 years, you will find that ministers have regularly criticised the judiciary because decisions went against what the government of the day wanted.
Note that I do not speak of the future - the new Court structures, and the potential for "affirmative action" to hurry people who are not white males into judicial positions raises the spectre of political interference and a more tractable judiciary - and I do have serious worries about where we are going.
"BUT AT WHAT COST AND WILL THE PUBLIC AND BUSINESS FIND IT OF USE???"
This is one of the things I find head-bangingly irritating about the current crop of civil-servants: they don't ever try to dress it up as "This is how it is going to help you/make your life better/[whatever]", where "you" is the person on the Clapham omnibus. People are willing to overlook a lot if they perceive they are getting some benefit from it - that is why Google etc are so successful. There would almost certainly be ID cards already had they focussed on "This is how it makes [insert market research determined point] easier/better for you". The same with this. I'll leave it for fellow commentators to decide whether the overriding reason is: a) arrogance; b) cluelessness; c) something else; d) all of the previous.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
