Posts by Dr. Mouse

Re: Jurisdiction

Thought experiment: a sniper in Canada fires across the border, killing someone in the US.

It is an interesting one, and one I have considered.

Where it is a crime in both places, I would argue that it should be prosecuted where the crime is instigated (i.e. in Canada). I would expect international relations to be involved, and a great deal of cooperation between the two countries to bring the perpetrator to justice, but the shooter was on Canadian soil, and should be able to expect to be under their jurisdiction.

If we continue the thought experiment and consider a situation whereby the murder was not illegal in Canada for some reason (e.g. a quirk in the law which meant they couldn't prosecute because noone died in Canada), I would expect the US to initiate extradition proceedings.

This applies well to this case: As the crime was committed on UK soil, and is a crime here, the UK authorities should be prosecuting. The US should accept our jurisdiction and cooperate in the investigation. I believe these cases are a failure of our own police and CPS.

I accept that others may have different interpretations, but that is mine. I also accept that extradition treaties are whatever they are written as, but that's a whole other kettle of fish which I won't delve into at this time.

Re: Autopilot on an aircraf.....

Autopilot on an aircraft is seen as an aid to the pilot, no pilot would think of going to sleep just because the autopilot is turned on to help with the easy bits of the pilot job.

True, but pilots are given years of training, including in how to use the autopilot. Drivers are trained in the basics of driving a car on the roads (normally the bare minimum required to pass the pathetic driving test), then told to get at it. Most have no idea (in spite of all the warnings Tesla scatter throughout their literature) that the Tesla Autopilot is just an advanced cruise control.

As I have said from the start, the Autopilot name was the only mistake Tesla made (IMHO). A different name would have brought very different expectations.

Re: Lesson here

No, they should not - in those circumstances you'll need evidence to protect the police as well.

The footage should be marked as sensitive so that only select people can access it

The problem is that this will discourage some vulnerable people from talking.

AFAIK, the first step with many abuse victims (etc) is often for them to admit what's happening "off-the-record". If the camera cannot be disabled, nothing is off the record. Even if the cop tells them it will be "marked as sensitive", they are still being recorded, and the victim may be scared that this will fall into the hands of their abuser.

The camera must be capable of being disabled. However, there must be strict guidelines, the action should be logged, and the cop should have to provide a statement explaining why it was turned off. All such records should be reviewed independently, and the cop subject to disciplinary action (or, in serious cases, legal action) if it is deemed that they should not have turned it off.

Re: Bad references

AFAIK, it's nothing to do with the reference which is "illegal" (as pointed out above). The legal conundrum can come from possible libel/slander*.

If you have evidence to back up what you say, you are entitled to say it. However, as with anything, if you say something bad about a person they can take you to court for libel/slander and (AFAIK) you must prove that what you said was accurate. According to Wikipedia:

In the common law of libel, the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory. These things are generally relatively easy to prove. The claimant is not required to prove that the statement was false. Instead, proving the truth of the statement is an affirmative defence available to the defendant.

So, if you can prove that what you say is true, by all means say it. If you cannot, or just don't want to risk a lawsuit, just refuse to give a reference. This will be taken as a bad reference anyway, so does pretty much the same job. This is why companies rarely give a bad reference: Purely because they can't be arsed with a lawsuit, and refusing to give a reference has the same effect with no risk.

* I can never remember which way round these are.

Re: 2-factor authentication

Absolutely. It's bad enough that I had to replace my mother and shoot my dog. Now I'll have to get a finger graft.

This is the type of comment the acronym ROFLMAO was invented for!

I think you mean Honey I Shrunk the Audience!

D'Oh! Yes, of course I did.

In my defence, it WAS over a decade ago, and I struggle to remember what I did yesterday...

Re: Like to see them try...

Private property still not give license to commit an illegal act, in this case, the blocking of users right to their own paid-for signal of their choice.

They didn't block the users' right. They asked them to turn it off (to comply with the T&Cs they agreed to). If they did not, they asked them to leave. They are perfectly at liberty to ask anyone to leave their own private property at any time and for any reason.

If you went to a hotel, and the management found out you were pissing in the wardrobe instead of the toilet, would it be violating your right to void your bladder when they asked you to leave?

Re: Musk seems to be losing it

He might find a few loons wanting to spend the rest of their (possibly very short) lives on Mars, but, no one sane.

Most of the explorers of the last few thousand years (and more) could be classified as "loons". They set out on journeys which most people thought were death sentences (and they probably realised their chances were slim). In fact, most of them did die, but a handful (those we remember) survived their journeys and discovered strange new lands.

Without these explorers, we would not have discovered or colonised many places. I view this mission the same way: Very risky, not something I'd be able to do, has a lot of potential to be a complete disaster, but a very worthy goal which has the potential to benefit all mankind. Kudos!

Re: Fighting over cities

so you want all those farmers who sell direct to the public to move into the Cities? (ok, so I'm being simplistic)

I know this was tongue in cheek, but there is a very valid point to be made.

As I mentioned above, reasonable investment needs to be made in rural areas to provide reasonable speeds. When starting out, this farmer will be a small scale operator, and a 4-8Mbit pipe would be more than adequate (heck, 1-2 would do). His website will be hosted elsewhere, and other things can be done to allow more work to be done over a limited pipe.

If he gains traction, he has options. He can pay for satellite internet, for instance. Or he can open a small office and/or warehouse closer to a city. As he starts to grow the business, more options open to him.

So, for a small start-up, a relatively modest connection will do. As the business grows, he will have to ensure he exploits the best available options to keep up. But nothing is held back, as long as a reasonable basic service exists from the start.

Let's face it, the only reasons he would need "super-fast broadband" from the start are:

* He has lots of staff from day 1, which most wouldn't,

* He is self-hosting, which would be insane,

* He want's to stream Netflix, which really has nothing to do with the business.

Re: I honestly don't know who'd be worse

Mrs. Clinton has lied so long and so often that it's easier to just assume she's lying whenever she opens her mouth.

So she's a politician. It easiest to assume that any politician is lying whenever they open their mouth. I know of very few politicians who would not openly lie if it suited their agenda, and those few will never get to the front benches.

I tend to go by a line I read (I think in a David Gemmel book, one of the Drenai saga): "In any broth, the scum always rises to the top".

Re: Dear Fuzz- here's how it goes.

The problem is not investigating that lead and gaining information. The problem is convicting on that basis alone.

I would suggest that getting a warrant to search and seize someone's computer equipment based on IP address alone is also the problem.

Search and seizure of equipment is a massive deal, and is effectively punishment without conviction. How many of us would endure serious hardship if all our tech was seized by the cops? It would likely disrupt our work, potentially costing us our jobs or contracts. Damage to our reputations would be severe, and that's before looking at the effect on our personal lives.

There are many reasons the cops could link an IP address to us when we have done nothing wrong. Someone could have gained access to our wifi network, we could have been infected with malware (yes, it even happens to techies), the ISP could have out of date records, etc. This is without looking at the ones noted in the article, which could all be deemed our own fault (open wifi, Tor exit node etc).

The cops should need more than an IP address to gain a warrant. There should be some other way to link a person at that address to the crime they are investigating. In addition, should the search throw nothing up, the cops should compensate the suspect for damages.

Then again, there are many ways in which the criminal justice system can punish someone without a conviction. Just the fact that you cannot claim back costs from the CPS when found not guilty is a large punishment: You spend tens of thousands on defence, the CPS brought a charge with little evidence, you are cleared, but you have effectively been fined that tens of thousands, plus months (or even years) of stress and wasted time, potentially lost earnings, damage to reputation etc.

The law is an ass, and I don't expect anything to change about that.

I would guess it means that's the price for the lowest capacity model of each. So it'd be $129.99 for the 256GB EVO, and $329.99 for the 512GB Pro.

"Using the autonomous driving facility in inappropriate conditions, perhaps"

It specifically mentioned driverless vehicles. In this case, it's use autonomous driving or don't go anywhere. Therefore, I would expect the system to refuse to operate if it is unsafe to do so.

If it's a dual-use vehicle, the autonomous system should refuse to operate where unsafe, and the manufacturer should be held liable for accidents where the autonomous system is enabled. If the autonomous system is not in operation, it is no longer the driver, so the responsibility lies with the person controlling the vehicle.

Re: Umm

I completely disagree. A link is a signpost, no more, no less, a set of directions describing where something is. It does not "deliver the infringing material into someone's possession", except by telling them where it is. It has nothing to do with a "distribution chain".

Re: Submit Offshore Tax Returns

But the profit generated by online advertising is not by selling consumers widgets to consumers in another country but by selling consumers to advertisers.

I wasn't talking about advertising, but the argument applies equally to advertising and other services.

Take Google's ads. The are not only selling eyeballs to advertisers. They are also selling a service which, in theory, chooses the right eyeballs to sell them. Therefore, a portion of their value is the consumer, and a portion is added through Google's expertise and services.

Re: Pretty meaningless metric

I've not seen that before, it's an interesting explanation both of how our tax system works and how "let's tax the rich, they can afford it" can affect things.

Let's just say for a minute that, before the bar bill reduction, the eighth person looses his job. He joins the lower 4 and pays nothing. Now there is a $12 deficit. As the 10th person "can afford it", the 9 decide that he should make up the shortfall.

The tenth man thinks this is unfair: He is already paying 59% of the bar bill, why should he pay the extra? So he decides to stop drinking with this group, who are treating him unfairly. Instead, he joins a bunch of better off friends who split the bill equally at a swanky bar. He still pays $59, but in a nicer place, with people who aren't trying to treat him unfairly.

The 9 remaining friends try to recalculate, leaving the 9th person paying the most. He decides this is unfair, too, and leaves. Eventually, the remaining parties can't afford to pay anymore, and rail at the others for leaving.

Most people agree that progressive taxation is the best way. However, push the top too far, and they will leave (or try to find loopholes). These are the people who are most mobile and have the most options about where to live and work.

Re: @ dan1980

I think the majority of those of us who voted to leave (myself included) realise that arguing with the Remainers - who are hacked off because they lost - is... pointless

I have the same opinion of many Leave voters: Their beliefs that the EU, and the foreigners taking their jobs, are the root of all evil border on religious extremism. They will brook no debate on the issue, and believe that, as soon as we leave, Britain will become the most powerful country on earth, the land will flow with milk and honey, and all the problems in the country will magically be fixed. Oh, and more importantly, the brown-skinned family next door will be deported back to their own country (no, that isn't Britain, even though they are the 4th generation born here they are still foreigners and should be sent "home" to a country they have never set foot in!)

On the other hand, I (a remainer) have had intelligent discussions with some of the non-racist, intelligent leavers. I agree with most of their points and they agree with most of mine, we just weight their importance differently and come to different conclusions.

Time will tell, noone can predict the future. Let's see what the next few years brings.

Re: Carp

The IWF watchlist might be covered by (a)

As far as I understand it, it is not. The IWF is a voluntary scheme. No ISP is forced by legislation to block child abuse images. Exemption (a) only seems to cover things the ISP is forced to do by law, like honouring a court order or complying with a specific piece of legislation.

Would this also apply to mobile telcos filtering adult content? Or someone like The Cloud filtering on it's wifi (it could easily be argued that the Cloud is acting as an ISP)?

Personally, I would say there should be a (d) option, allowing an ISP to offer filtering services, but:

* They must only be enabled at the specific request of the customer, not by default, buried in T&Cs or opt-in-by-default on a form etc.

* They may charge for the filters if they wish, but may not offer discounts for taking the option (to stop them basically forcing customers into it by charging huge sums for their service but discounting down to nothing if you accept filtering)

And, as mentioned by others above, this is why the most effective way to combat this propaganda* will never be used: It would harm politicians as much as terr'ists.

*Teach people proper critical reasoning, research skills, and generally to think for themselves, not just accept what people tell them on face value.

Re: Roundabouts...

Sounds just like a roundabout in the UK which we have everywhere...

I don't understand everyone's* confusion over (full-sized) roundabouts. There is only one simpler junction: A T-junction onto a one-way road.

The reason that's the only simpler one is that a roundabout is just several T junctions onto a single circular one-way road. Someone's already on the road (i.e. roundabout)? You give way to them. It's neither difficult nor complicated.

Part of the problem is the complicated methods people use to describe a roundabout and it's usage. But if you consider the roundabout a circular one-way road and the exits/entries as T-junctions, you will have no problem understanding, and there will never be confusion over who get's to go and when (unlike 4-way stops or unmarked junctions).

* I obviously don't mean everyone, but there are a significant number of Brits who can't understand them, let alone foreigners.

Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

No that's not what "not guilty" means. It means what it says - there isn't sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. They could be innocent, or they're actually guilty but there's not sufficient proof.

Our legal system presumes innocence. Unless a person is found guilty of a crime then, legally, they are innocent and should be treated as such. If a person is found not guilty, they are legally innocent of that crime full stop*.

I find it incredibly disturbing the amount that a person can be punished for a crime he has not been convicted of now in this country. This case is yet another example, and it is a completely draconian punishment, with few restrictions. I really hope it gets quashed: Whether this guy did anything wrong is irrelevant, unless he is found guilty of a crime by a jury of his peers, he should not be punished for that crime. His life has been destroyed by this. He can not work in his field with this order in place, or in any office environment. At best, he may be able to work as a labourer, some unskilled job. He has no right to privacy, would be unable to have a relationship, has none of the basic freedoms we have a right to. In short, he is practically an unperson just for having "abnormal" sexual fantasies.

*Yes, I know that he could be retried, given the seriousness of these charges. However, this is only if sufficient new evidence comes up AND an appeals court overturns the original verdict. Until then, he is legally innocent of the crimes he was charged with.

a) With Uber, you normally input your destination before the cab even arrives. They do not need to know English to get you to your destination, they just need to follow the directions on the app. They don't even need to talk to you (which is a huge win in my book!)

b) As with a), as the destination is already selected, they needn't know anything about the area, just follow the directions.

c) This should be taken care of separately. Personally, I believe driving with paying passengers should require an additional driving test to be taken, and retaken regularly. This should apply to all such drivers, not just private hire, but it's not contingent on understanding English (except where needed to understand road signs).

Re: figuring out at their leisure what its weaknesses are

you have to send the thing back to Lockheed Martin just to have its anti-virus software updated!

Erm... Anti-virus?!

Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/463/

Re: As a rule of thumb...

More likely to avoid having to meet the (fairly detailed) requirements for handling payment card details.

I wan't clear. The website was hosted by the ERP provider as part of the system. There would have been no additional PCI requirements. All that would have been needed is a CNAME record and a decent SSL certificate.

Re: PR stunt

Then by definition the driver was driving too fast for the conditions.

I don't remember seeing what speed they were travelling at, but your statement is not always correct.

I once hit a dog with my car. I was doing less than the speed limit at the time, a sensible speed for that road, noticed something speeding down a driveway out of the corner of my eye and hit the brakes. The dog shot out into the road, and the car hit and killed it. Was I driving too fast for the conditions? No, I was driving sensibly, but a highly unexpected event occurred and there was not enough time for me to avoid it.

Unexpected situations happen all the time when driving. No matter how careful you are, you cannot avoid every one of them. The best you can do is drive sensibly (baring in mind that driving too slowly can also be dangerous), and take the best avoiding action possible when something unexpected happens.

In this case, an idiot stepped out into the road unexpectedly. Even at 20mph, this can happen, and the results can be serious. The driver noticed, and would have taken avoiding action had the car not reacted quicker. That avoiding action may or may not have prevented an accident, but the car's automated reaction did.

If driver aids help a driver to avoid an accident, they are a Good Thing.

Re: Well, here's your problem

I don't understand the benefit of so-called "partial autonomy."

So you don't understand the benefit of ABS, traction control, cruise control (regular or adaptive), automatic emergency braking, automatic headlights and wipers etc.?

"Autopilot" is, in essence, an advanced evolution of cruise control. It should be touted and named as such, because that's what it is. Used correctly, it increases safety. Used incorrectly, it becomes dangerous.

I, personally, used cruise control all the time. It allowed me to set the car to the speed limit where safe to do so and fall back to manually controlling speed where conditions required. While on cruise, more of my attention could be focused on the road, junctions, pedestrians, and any other hazards. When I saw a hazard, a quick flick of the lever or tap of the brake knocked cruise off.

Used as a driver aid, these systems are a great idea. Misused, they can be hazardous, but not as much of a hazard as the idiot meatbag who isn't paying attention.