Posts by Bernard M. Orwell 1177 publicly visible posts • joined 12 May 2010
""....Security Service suspect someone, imprison them, and then try to extract information from them with no interest in due process....." Fail! The Secret Service does not have the power to arrest or detain."
Take a look at the remit of the newly formed NCA then. Covers that "judicial gap" very nicely.
You're quite right about attempting to uncover just how many potential terrorist attacks have been prevented by the intelligence and law services, but what we can do is look at the attacks that have "got through". In many of those cases it has become apparent that the services were often aware of the potential terrorist activity before any incident took place, and yet did not act. We can, from these examples, infer that the services allow attacks to take place in pursuit of some higher, often unknown goal (perhaps as simple as finding "bigger fish", perhaps something more clandestine, who knows?).
So, we can compile a list of failures if not successes, and we can draw conclusions from that. It *may* be that these failures are in our scope of awareness due to the propensity of the media to highlight bad news and failure, and the tendency of the security services to not publicise success (though, there are some notable examples of that too, which places their claimed need to keep success secret in some doubt) would simply reinforce that illusion, but I doubt this is entirely the case.
If nothing else, we should be keenly aware of the cost of these operations; politically, socially, and economically, and in light of the publicised failures we should, and must, examine the cost/benefit ratio of those operations.
Simply put, we need evidence that the security operations are *worth* the cost, and right now it appears, from our point of view, that they are not and we are being asked to accept the fact of the threat on trust by a governmental system that has demonstrated, or is at least perceived, that it cannot be trusted.
"PI said that GCHQ is starting to see itself as “above the law”.'
"“There are no legal penalties for misuse of this information..."
And the governments response to these criticisms, the ISC findings and other commentary?
This....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/15/case_against_gchq_scrambled_by_under_the_radar_legislation/
Good luck, PI, but I think you're scuppered right out of the gate.
Some may call me a paranoid conspiracist nutcase for suggesting that this is a pilot for a larger scheme (indeed, some have in the last hour or so), but consider the alternative explanation:
That the Powers That Be, believe that attendees of a major music festival are more likely to be criminals, untrustworthy or international terrorists than any other section of the population. It seems to them that its a good idea to surveil this very specific cross section of the community, for whatever reason, and to prevent them using cash in the cause of crime reduction.
Personally, I'm not sure which explanation is worse.
Hello, AC.
So, yes, theories, that's what science has. Not facts. A theory stands, by definition until and unless it is disproved. Each of those theories remains un-disproved. "Laws" are theories too, they can and are occasionally disproved and then science adjusts and continues to grow and learn.
"Where did the original something come from? Your answer is still a question, not answered."
A question that you didn't answer either. Your theorem states an answer that is disproven by a simple, logical question. This one. Tell me where God came from? Easy enough isn't it? And when you resort to "He is eternal" I shall ask "Why then cannot the universe be the same?". God relies on "something from nothing" just as much, if not more, than any "Big Bang" theory. Problem is we have *some* evidence of the big bang and none for the existence of god(s). That, I believe, puts science ahead in the race for truth.
"Virtual particles, you proved that by scientific method as well? Or is it still theorized?"
Yeah, here you go. I hope its not too difficult for you to grasp the science. I'd like you to compare its validity to the bible please: http://physics.about.com/od/physicsutoz/g/virtualparticles.htm
"Weather cycles? Random at best!"
Random? Where is your god in that then? I thought "random" couldn't happen and that was your disproof of evolution. So, random in weather, but not in genetics. Perhaps you ought to get your story straight and decide if your god is omnipotent or not.
Also, here is some reading on chaos mathematics and the nature of fractals. Again, I hope its not too hard: http://miqel.com/fractals_math_patterns/visual-math-natural-fractals.html
"Platonic Idealism, or the World of Forms... really? Still theories, where is the reproducible science?"
You missed my point here. Platonic Idealism was a scientific theory predating any interpretation of Christianity by centuries. It has been overturned and discarded by science. Show me an element of religion that has been discarded or supplanted by new thinking in the same time scale.
"The Origin of Species was never pier reviewed..."
Not as we do so today, no, that's true. Can you show me the peer review for the bible please?
"standard set of responses, which all point to yet more theories, based on more theories etc. etc. [...] So where is the real scientific evidence, testable, reproducible evidence?"
Someone doesn't understand the concept of scientific theory, or the scientific method do they? But, even pushing that fundamental lack of knowledge aside, I am forced to ask which bit of your creationist cobblers is factual beyond dispute, and thus superior?
"So where is the real scientific evidence, testable, reproducible evidence?"
Science has lots. Where is religions?
"Stop trying to disprove evidence with weak theories to suit your religion"
I do not practice a religion.
I have nothing to lose, you on the other hand stand to lose your faith and childlike assumptions about the universe. You stand to lose the comforting thumb you have stuck in your mouth.
Next troll please, this one is done.
"The big bang cannot directly be reproduced or tested..."
Yes it can. Heard of the LHC?
"Creation - Something came from something"
Where did the original something come from? Turtles all the way down is it? This line leads to the conclusion that god is an atheist. After all, god clearly does not believe that god was created by anything else, such as a further superior being, but exists in and of itself as sentience. Therefore, god is an atheist. Your argument is just as ridiculous.
"Can any scientist demonstrate something coming from nothing?"
Virtual particles. Someone doesn't know aught of quantum physics either.
"Can any scientist demonstrate complexity coming from chaos by random forces without any intelligent input?"
How about weather cycles? the spots on a ladybird? Mandlebrot patterns. Chaos maths. Someone doesn't know much about pure mathematics, do they?
"Creation - Random mutation damages the genetic code reducing fitness and degrading a species over time"
Are you familiar with the concept of Platonic Idealism, or the World of Forms? This idea that there is a "perfect original" for all things predates the bible by some two thousand years, but that aside, even accepting the premise of this argument, why would god allow the degrade of his perfect design? To teach us some sort of lesson in humility? Or, if the degrade is part of the design and god is infallible, then the perfection he envisages has not yet been reached, indicating your statement regarding genetic evolution is wrong even by the standards your argument sets.
"Can any scientist demonstrate selection that removes enough genetic damage to cause a species to become more genetically fit than the preceding generations?"
I'll leave this one to Charles. Please read the Origin of Species. I think he demonstrates it rather well. If you find the language hard, there are *thousands* of books on the subject by *hundreds* of scientists.
"The second law of thermodynamics, things tend toward disorder unless energy is put into a system, simply states that left to its own things decay over time. "
You need to do some basic reading about entropy. This is *not* a good definition at all. Even if you can't be bothered with that, perhaps a refutation like the Poincare recurrence theorem might do. There are plenty of others. If entropy increases, order has been lost. If it decreases, order has emerged or been created. The point of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that entropy can’t decrease without increasing by at least as much in some connected object or area. In other words, it can’t decrease overall in a closed system. Please indicate where the bounds of gods closed system might lie.
"Whether you are currently a creationist or evolutionist I challenge you to become an evidence-based thinker. "
Done and done a myriad times, old chap. I think you could do with some schooling in the arguments you have championed here. Not a bad shot, but not up to scratch.
Yours,
BM Orwell, Atheist, Scientist, Philosopher and Ex-Methodist minister.
Thank you for the timely reminder to retain balance; it's easy for me to get angry about this. The school is not teaching religion as history alas, and my evidence for that is the instruction about "daily prayers" they've also spouted. This is a pro-religion/Christian agenda.
As for arguing from a position of knowledge, I should probably mention that I used to be a Methodist preacher....
Quite so, even in western mainstream education the "religious education" is there.
A few days ago, my seven year old daughter came home singing hymns and talking about "Jesus who was gods son and died for our sins". She does not go to a religious school, and the one she attends is most definitely "inner city" multi-cultural. I can't even begin to talk about how outright offensive this is, not only to me but surely to the other parents in the school.
It's also taking some careful thinking and words to address the difficult conversations that this now raises with my daughter. (I've settled on "It's a story that some people choose to believe, but that doesn't mean its true").
I have decided to stand as a school governor.
Heaven help them if I get in, one might say.
Superb response, needing more than a simple upvote. The US, and those that sing the "obey the law because you don't know better" song should remember how the US was formed in the first place; people defying an unjust law imposed on them by an unjust power.
*applause*
They appear to have an objective of sorts: provoke the west (Rome, as they think of it) into a "final battle" at a specific location in Syria (can't remember the name of the place).
They want this to happen because, according to their prophetic scribblings, once they are defeated in that battle (yes, they know they can't win), then the end of the world will be heralded and what is left of "true islam" will inherit the earth and the remaining kufir will be destroyed.
ISIS entirely understand that they are outmatched, and that they will be utterly defeated by their enemies, but want to provoke that battle anyway. That's why they are carrying out atrocities, destroying world heritage sites, performing mass executions and putting the lot on social media. They *want* us to fight them.
This linked article is highly insightful and worth a read..
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_facebook
" I've never heard of any innocent person being the slightest bit harmed by any use of it"
I'd like you to do a search for "Extraordinary Rendition". After that, please read about a place called Gauntanamo, with a specific eye on the nature of the interns, their legal rights and, most importantly, what they have been charged with. It is reasonable to assume that NSA data collection was responsible for a proportion of those activities.
You notice how quiet MB has been on this subject and related items lately?
Perhaps he's finally realised that his argument, of how everything that the Gov(s) have done is all good and legal and fair and honest, has all been "male bovine" all along?
We can but hope that enlightenment has dawned.
Because Anjem Choudray, as objectionable as I find him, has not broken the law. He is entitled to speak his mind and I am entitled to argue with him and criticise him. This is why we are not the state than Mr Choudray wants us to be; it's why we are better than that. The moment we surrender that freedom take steps closer to the totalitarianism that he, and thinkers like him, want us to have and we lose ourselves another tiny piece at a time.
Let him speak, we'll point and laugh.
if that's too complex for you, perhaps we should imprison Roy "Chubby" Brown, because he upsets lots and lots of people with his comedy?
Or what about our very own Matt Bryant? I mean, we can clearly see by the downvotes over the years that he is found highly objectionable by the masses and therefore should be silenced immediately!
Beware of "liberal censorship", wherein we take a sharp breath when someone says something "illiberal" and we respond with "you CAN'T say THAT!"
Yes, you can say that. Speak up so we can all hear you.
as a "neo-socialist", I'd be delighted to see a fight-back from the centre/moderate left, but please, not TUSC. Anyone who thinks quoting Bob Crow as a source of profound political wisdom and believes that unions should be a voice in foreign policy decisions may need a rethink.
I don't want to swap one uninformed extremist for another one, ta very much!
You're almost certainly right, but how do we feel about that? I've been a gamer for....oh...far too many years, and I've always stood on the side of content being free of censorship (If I don't like it, I don't buy it), but is Hatred a step too far?
It's set out to be provocative, and has provoked a reaction...
Hmmmm.... I have played all three Witchers and just about every other RPG ever released on a PC and I'm giving Witcher 3 7/10 if I'm generous. It's no Skyrim, that's for sure. I'm playing on a GTX Titan based rig, with a 4k monitor.
For:
* Nice framerates, very nicely optimised.
* Stunning lighting
* Great landscapes and scenery
* Beautiful soundtrack
* Best texture work I've seen in some time, especially on skin.
Against:
* Clunky animation, especially running anims. Makes it hard to stop where/when you want to.
* Little skill required for a very repetitive combat model.
* Voice acting is awful in the main
* Script is stilted, B-movie stuff.
* Character is not tabula rasa, but we're given "moral choices" often.
* Gameplay feels a little dated and "on rails".
For a similar gameplay experience, done better, I think you're best off taking a look at Batman: Arkham Knight, Shadow of Mordor (my Game of the Year) or Assassins Creed Black Flag. If you want a more immersive RPG, head right back to Skyrim. The Witcher isn't a bad series, but it is over-hyped, and isn't "all that".
""You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
Look familiar? If the plod asks you questions, you may refuse to answer. Note that your rights include mention that it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned.... nothing in there about you being required to answer or that it may harm your defence if you do not answer, only that your answers may be "used against you".
Don't answer. Get a lawyer.
The Daily Telegraph and Wikileaks are not, to my knowledge, nor have ever been, listed enemies of your state.
The accusation against them is that they published openly and thus allowed known enemies to read the documents in question.
What garuantee is there that patraeus' bit on the side didn't/wouldn't do the same thing, even inadvertently?
If manning committed treason, so did patreaus. The difference is his social status, nothing more.
....Please be upstanding and give your applause to Matt Bryant who will now materialise and explain to all of us why and how this was a fair and reasonable judgment completely within the bounds of law and why everyone except Patreus got a harsher treatment than the very stern finger wag he was subject to....
Come along MB, lets hear it.
Oi. MB,
You remember when you challenged myself and others to find actual harm caused by NSA activities? Well, this is the sort of thing I meant.
If this suspicion and trend continues, there will be measurable harm to the USAs technology economy and that will, inevitably, spread to other sectors.
I note that you've challenged others to answer the same question since, but you've added a keyword; "Personally". You ask people to produce evidence of "actual harm caused to them *personally*", neatly avoiding the evidence of more indirect harm caused to a nations political, legal, social and economic systems.
Now, your philosophy of "I'm all right, it doesn't affect me, so its not my problem" may suit your view of the world, but most of us think more broadly than that, so I would advise the dropping of the word "personally" from your question which would actually allow for a reasonable answer.
Feel free to post your usual invective, side-stepping answer or ignore this with a simple down-vote as you usually do with arguments you can't answer without demonstrating your signature total disregard for the welfare of others members of the human race.
"At some point you're going to have to accept that a certain number of deaths through terrorism are unacceptable and require a surrender of part of your inviolable shield of privacy."
It won't stop the terrorists, will it? They'll keep coming regardless, won't they?
Well, in light of that, you can die on your knees if you want to. I'll face it standing, thanks very much.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
