* Posts by Mad Mike

1379 publicly visible posts • joined 30 May 2007

Kiwis collar Megaupload kingpin, Anonymous exacts revenge

Mad Mike
FAIL

Those who don't do as they're told.

I'm not going to defend this idiot or many of the people involved, but let's be honest about the reason why this site was taken down and not others. Megaupload had copyright material being pirated over it (just like every other online repository of files), but took it's time taking it down. if they got a request, the material did disappear, but not very quickly. Other sites were quicker at it. So, they were considered to be beligerant and this caused the takedown. Others are considered to be 'co-operating'.

So, this is nothing to with whether material is being pirated through the website and everything to do with if you do what the USA says. Youtube does what it's told. So do some of the others. They actively try to help the USA. Other sort of go along in a slow sort of manner. That's the difference between being taken down or not.

So, over time, sites will simply move away from countries like the USA and now NZ and Aus as they have done what their master (USA) says. They will be hosted in places unreachable by the USA. The more the USA does it, the more business they will loose. Eventually, the USA will become a place where it's too difficult to do anything at all. They will loose in the end. It will take years, but it'll happen.

I'm not defending pirating, but simply saying you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Sometime, someone has to acknowledge the issues and problems around Hollywood and the music companies and deal with them. Eventually, someone will realise that no matter how compliant the population seems to be and no matter how much they seem to dance to your tune, there is a line. There are so many examples around the world of what happens when that line is crossed.

Mad Mike
Meh

Anon - Not the same thing

I'm not sure what the law is in the USA, but in the UK, there are laws that say you can only make a 'reasonable' profit and not operate a cartel etc. There must also be competition in most markets. The last thing obviously helps to ensure a reasonable price. So, it's all about operating margin and profiteering. I fully accept this sort of thinking and laws may not exist in the USA and I don't know about NZ or Aus either. That's why people like Tesco have to be careful in the UK. Just because you can (whether through market penetration, buying other companies or whatever), doesn't mean you can in the UK.

There are too many examples of this to list. Insurance companies have regularly been hit by accusations and actions for lack of competition/profiteering. Supermarkets the same. Any hint of price agreements and the fines roll in. Again, numerous examples recently, one of the latest being on milk.

So, in the UK, you cannot use a copyright to make unreasonable profits. Just because you're the only person who can sell it, doesn't mean you can charge anything you like. Of course, what the definition of 'reasonable' is, is open to some debate!!

Nuke support in UK hits record high

Mad Mike
Thumb Up

An0n C0w4rd

And therein lies the problem. From my experience of them, tree huggers don't expect people to go without electricity. To them, it's simply that another solution needs to be found. They start pointing out windmills etc. and once you point out the flaws, just start on about 'another alternative has to be found.' In other words, I haven't a clue what we can use, but these are bad and shouldn't be used. It's not about them wanting us not to have electricity, or to live in caves, it simply that they know what they don't like, but are clueless to come up with an alternative that works. They tend to hold out on some future panacea that somehow will majically appear from nowhere.

There are also a lot who say windmills are the answer and yet when planning permission is sought near their home (say within eyesight), they are the first to complain!! They always want it to be someone elses problem.

Mad Mike
Trollface

Some great questions of our time.

Ah, well that's a good question. I have no idea which will happen first or even if one will and one won't. One thing I can be sure of though........it'll cost a lot of money to find out :-) What's the latest budget estimate on ITER?

Mad Mike

@Gabor Laszlo

This depends a bit on what type of fusion reactor vessel you're talking about. Yes, the reaction stops pretty much immediately, but I wasn't talking about the contents of the torus etc. Most of the designs have interesting engineering around the central reactor vessel. For instance, some use liquid Lithium as a coolant. Now, a failure of the reactor vessel using magnetic containment could result in an explosion of the magnet. This could be contained within a building, but the liquid Lithium coolant could well be damaged. If it is damaged, a fire within this Lithium could easily occur. Do you think a fire in a significant amount of Lithium would be good for the surrounding area.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use fusion, but the common information put out is fission equals nuclear bomb, fusion equals perfectly same, lovely and green. I was just trying to say that an accident at a fusion plant would probably not be nice for the surrounding area either. Whole differerent set of issues and it depends on the reactor design, but people should stop thinking fusion is the panacea. It has safety issues as well.

Mad Mike
FAIL

@Stephen Sherry

What an hysterical posting.

You say criticle rather than critical and from the text obviously have no idea what 'critical' means in a nuclear fission sense.

You then criticise everyone else, in a holier than though way, complaing about people not doing enough research etc.etc. and then post a reply with absolutely no links to appropriate research or any technical information at all. The majority of your post is a ranting paragraph!!

Finally, I do know the implications of detecting Plutonium in the southern hemisphere from Fukushima, but only if you add some actual information, such as concentration etc., which is all important. At very low concentrations, it doesn't matter at all. Indeed, it is even found in nature at very low concentrations. Perhaps you would be better off understanding the Radon that appears in peoples houses and cellars and how much more dangerous that is, although most people know nothing about it.

Fail. Well obviously. Epic one might say.

Mad Mike

@Big Boomer

Er.....no. A fission reactor is not a slowed down atomic bomb. This is the kind of talk that causes problems. A fission reactor cannot become a bomb even if it is allowed to go uncontrolled. The Uranium within a fission reactor is at a whole different level of refinement than that used in an atomic bomb and cannot achieve the same feat. Now, a fusion reactor is, in many ways, a controlled fusion (e.g. thermonuclear) device. However, again that is scaremongering to a large extent. It's interesting how a fusion reactor is sold as being unlimited, clean and environmentally friendly etc.etc. However, what they don' tell you, is that it is a plasma being held in a magnetic field. The slightest fault in that magnetic field would result in the uncontained release of plasma. Look at the area around afterwards and you might not think it's as nice as people make out.

Mad Mike
FAIL

@Ben 50.

The first thing you have to realise about these figures is they talk about generating capacity. Now, for coal, gas, nuclear (especially) etc., the difference between actual production and theoretical capacity (which is what they're using) is not a lot. The different with virtually all 'green' methods is vast. Ask someone how much electricity their xMW windmill produces in a year and work out the actual production amount is. You'll find the figure is vastly different. So, the 20% quoted for Germany by hippies and greenies is utter rubbish. Theoretically, it is if it generated at theoretical capacity, but in reality, it's probably somewhere between 25 and 50% of that.

To go to renewables, any storage mechanism has to be capable of storing enough electricity to make up for the total loss of the renewables for a period of days, even weeks. Solar PV has to last all night, so maybe up to 14 hours ish. For wind, it has to potentially last for weeks. This became abundantly clear in Britiain during the last couple of cold snaps. At the point of peak demand (e.g. when cold and people using additional electric heating etc.), windmills produced damned close to nothing. Cold snaps like that are associated with calms. I don't have the figures to hand, but the figures of aound 1-5% of theoretical capacity have been shown. Unfortunately, this has to be maintained for days and potentially weeks. So, the storage has to be absolutely huge.

That's why wind power has to be subsidised and why wind power in this country has conventional generation backing it!!

Mad Mike
Facepalm

Too little, too late.

Problem is, it's all too late. We've been pursuing a power policy based on utter fantasy for years and now the time to build new nuclear plants is too long. We need to get cracking right now, but planning consents, public consultations etc.etc. will ensure it'll take years. Nuclear is our only option at the moment and has been for years. All the alternatives pursued for the last couple of decades were so obviously flawed for a variety of reasons.

If we start getting power shortages, I just hope someone has the bottle to turn off the people who caused it first. The greens, anti-nuclear etc. Leave those of us sensible enough to see reality alone. The whole thing has been one big con for 20 years.

Government launches hydrogen motoring task force

Mad Mike
Thumb Up

Filling a tank.

Yes, hydrogen may well cost a lot in electricity to produce, but at least you could fill a hydrogen car in less than the 4-10 hours it takes for an electric one. Would probably have a longer range on a 'fill' as well. I don't see why a hydrogen car needs to have additional batteries above an ordinary one to get up hills. Surely, this depends on the size of the hydrogen cell? If the cell is only sized to propel the car on the level, extra power would need to be stored at this time for release when driving up hills. Presumably, the answer is simply to have a large hydrogen cell?

Flog secondhand MP3s at your peril - law guru

Mad Mike
Meh

Bit of both

I'm sure there are plenty of bands who just want to make music. I'm sure there are plenty who just want the lifestyle and I'm sure there are plenty who just want the money. That's all their choice and that's fine. It's interesting that a lot of bands/artists complain about the music companies taking all their money until they have enough profile to start dictating the situation. So, there are plenty who do complain about the music companies, but normally only after they've made it. To do it at the time, would be asking to be dropped and loose everything. So, I've heard plenty of big stars lament their treatment by the music industry.

If the bands use music companies to get on, they are both a victim of the companies and part of the problem. However, maybe that's something they have to do initially to get on. Like working for an employer you don't like. Most people have experienced that. Would like to tell them to shove it, but you can't, so you stick it out with a bad taste in your mouth.

Mad Mike
Thumb Down

Proving my point.

So, you say it was late 80s before significant computer based MP3 sharing was occuring. So, we're talking about mostly tape recording if anything. So, it must have been people nicking your music and not paying for it? Perhaps, it was actually your music that wasn't popular for whatever reason? Maybe as a person running a business (effectively), you failed to provide the public with what they wanted? So, therefore, you got no money. That's a failed business, not piracy. There were plenty of other musicians who did make it big and earn a lot of money at the time, so was the piracy specifically against you? Maybe, you just need to realise the world doesn't owe you a living and maybe people didn't buy your music because they didn't like it?

Mad Mike
Thumb Up

Absolutely.

SleepyJohn; you're saying what loads of people have been saying for so long and are absolutely correct. Their business model has become outmoded through technology. Rather than taking it on the chin and changing their model (as any business has to do), they are just sitting tight and insisting everything else has to change.

It's a bit like the building industry insisting modern building techniques are wrong and everyone should build with wattle and daub. The building industry has moved on with technology and so has just about every other industry. Media though.....no. Has to stay the same. Hopefully, they will go the way of all species that don't adapt, but as long as they have the money, they can buy the law and prevent that glorious day.

Mad Mike
Unhappy

Grease Monkey

It's really interesting how you seperate yourself from everyone else. Obviously, you know it's wrong and therefore don't do it. However, you 'think the majority of people finding a site offering to sell MP3 files for them woudl think it was a great way of selling their music files and keeping the files.' So, you're then judging everyone else (or at least the majority) as being freetards looking for a quick buck!! I think you need to come down off your pedestal and realise that most people are probably just like you. I doubt you have a particularly high set of morals and are therefore somehow 'special'.

As I've said before, I would encourage everyone to be morally and legally correct and do things properly. But then, I would also say the media companies should have been prosecuted many times for their flagrant breaches of the law. Unfortunately, when you treat one group (media companies) differently and preferentially than another (customers and normal Joes), then you can't really take the moral high ground. The law requires everyone to be treated the same and when this doesn't happen, there is no moral authority available to play the moral card. This is where media companies are. Yes, pirates are morally wrong, but so are the media companies for many of their actions. Either prosecute both or prosecute neither. But, prosecuting only one is as morally wrong as being a pirate.

Mad Mike
WTF?

And look who's talking about it.

The thing I find most amusing is the people showering the world with moral outrage and indignation at copyright violation and the moral right and wrong are the media companies!!! How hysterical is that?

Sony et al. If you want to see moral wrong, just take a hard look at yourselves. It's amazing how executives of these companies seem to be able to seperate their actions from the actions of the company.

Sony put DRM on music that knackers peoples equipment en masse without warning or option and legally pretty much gets away with it. Various organisations use Crossley to extort money from people with unproven threats and get away with it. And they think they have the moral high ground. Who are they kidding.

Mad Mike

Calm down dear.

I think you'll find that nobody or very few on here are defending pirates. I do not defend them, but have gone so far as to say the industry have treated their customers so badly that it's hardly surprising and it's a problem (certainly at current scale) that they've largely brought on themselves through their own actions.

I don't think anyone on here has an issue with pirates being prosecuted provided the following two things are addressed:-

1. Media companies are prosecuted for running cartels and excessive profiteering by the DTI/competition commission etc. They have broken laws in the past and escaped prosecution. Why are they different? They've even openly admitted to running cartels which is explicitly against the law.

2. The law is changed to allow people to legally sell what they have rightly purchased. I'm not talking about copying and selling on. Simply the same process for MP3s as has existed for CDs. You buy the product, finish with it and sell it to someone else. Same with movie content, books etc.

As to your comments on stealing.....it isn't. It's copyright infringement, which is totally different. Yes, it's morally wrong. However, the law is currently owned by these companies and they choose to prosecute whoever they want and leave themselves above the law. That can't continue and is morally wrong as well.

As to killing the creative industry......utter rubbish. As has been pointed out earlier, copying has been going on since the compact cassette was released and did the industry die? No. Several bands are also giving their music away for free and making all their money out of merchanise and gigs. Perhaps that the model to go with. Just because your business model has worked in the past, doesn't mean it shouldn't adapt to new times. Maybe the creative industries will start releasing stuff people want to see/listen to rather than the rubbish most of it is today.

If they don't know their customers well enough to identify the good projects, who's at fault there?

Mad Mike
Unhappy

A band is a business

Yes, assuming you pack the venue, you will make a lot of money. A band is a business just like any other. If you have poor product, you'd expect the business to fair. Poor music leads to no packed venues leads to no business. Pay the manger too much, bad business practice, business (e.g. band) fails. So, bands should realise they are a business and behave as such and stop thinking the world owes them a living. I appreciate touring might be a real chore.......Well, I find getting up in the morning to go to work a real chore, but if I want paying, that's the reality.

Bands and media companies need to realise the world doesn't owe them a living and that if they want to be successful and earn lots, they need to put the effort in. Some do and have become amazingly successful.

Mad Mike

Absolute, but wrong.

Yes, the law is to stop them. I don't think anyone would have a problem with someone being prosecuted for copying their MP3s and selling them. That's the same as copying the CD and selling it. If copyright holders can provide someone has sold copies without deleting the original, then prosecute away. No problem there. However, what they're doing with this judgement is stopping people selling something they own on the ASSUMPTION they will do this.

That's called being assumed guilty until proven innocent. A dangerous road to travel.

Mad Mike
Meh

Jim in Hayward

I don't disagree at all with the idea not being practical, but banning the selling of MP3s because some might copy them and then sell the copy is finding everyone guilty before the fact. Anyway, exactly the same can be done with CDs and you can still sell them. This has nothing to do with sense or moral right and wrong. It has everything to do with protectionism and profiteering. Just the thing that made it happen in the first place.

The industry have profiteered and taken with p**s out of their customers for years. CDs costed more than tapes. Why? They're cheaper to produce. DVDs cost more than VHS. Why? Same is true. etc.etc. With many other crimes, the activities and provocations of the industry would be seen as mitigating factors.

Mad Mike
Thumb Down

Jim in Hayward

Your argument is spurious and silly. Yes, a CD is a physical item, but so is a digital file!! It's a physical item (i.e. 1s and 0s on a hard drive rather than 1s and 0s on a CD), the difference being the physical item is not seperate from everything else and individually saleable. A CD can be sold and only the tracks on the CD will be sold. However, if you sell the hard drive, you have to sell not just the hard drive, but everything else as well. The actual trade is effectively identical though. You're selling one set of files on CD or a set of files on hard drive. You're simply asking the recipient to supply their own storage medium. In all intellectual senses, the tracks in MP3s are identical to tracks on CDs.

If you can see the tracks on a CD and be prosecuted for making a CD copy and sell it, why can't you sell your MPs and be prosecuted for copying them and selling the copy? Same thing. The difference is that one is easier than the other. However, the law doesn't and shouldn't differentiate on whether something is easy or not, just on whether it is right. So, removing your right to copy because it makes it easy to break copyright simply states they believe everyone is inherently a criminal and therefore should be prevented from doing it to stop the crime which they would undoubtedly commit. It's effectively Minority Report territory.

They are finding people guilty of the crime BEFORE the event and crime ever happens.

Mad Mike
FAIL

Jim in Hayward

Whilst I appreciate I could have redownloaded all the music, my friend happens to be a very prolific customer of ITunes. Therefore, he has many GBs of files. Now, would a sensible person simply download it all again, annoying their ISP and hogging their internet connection for many hours, or would they simply copy it computer to computer? Takes minutes rather than hours and everyones a winner? My friend happy, ISP happy etc.etc. According to this posting, only one group unhappy..........the copyright holders. They would rather you buy it all again, or annoy everyone by downloading GBs again.

Yes, what I did might allow illegal content, but then letting you out of your house might allow y9ou to murder someone, but it doesn't mean I can't. If banning everything that might allow an illegal act was the way to go, nobody could do anything. Stupid argument.

Mad Mike
Facepalm

@Charles 9. Not so.

If you look at the strict letter of the law in the UK, there is no provision for backups or changing of media type, hence recent proposals for law change. Indeed, for many years it was technically illegal to install software as that involved making a copy and the way round that was changes to company EULA to give you an automatic copyright permission to do it.

However, recently many judges and the like have realised this is stupid and basically put a common sense interpretation on the law. If someone was take to court for ripping CDs onto his MP3, most (and I do say only most) would simply laugh it out of court. However, what's interesting is that they are under some circumstances assuming a person is guilty. For instance, it someone wants to sell their MP3s, they are assuming foul play and strictly adhering to the law. Why? In a digital economy, it makes no sense to treat a digital version any different to a physical version of the same product.

It is also not right that judges choose to ignore explicit wording within law even for some events when it's a sensible decision (as most people would see it) and yet choose not to apply the same principal for other events, whether it could be an illegal act or not. Interpreting the law differently for same basic principal (just different) media etc. is not logical.

Mad Mike
FAIL

Only Solution

At some point, the obvious solution simply has to be observed. You can spend fortunes trying to enforce copyright on this sort of thing and will never succeed. As has been pointed out previously, it has gone on for years, long before computers were around. Taping from a vinyl was effectively the same. Never did music any harm and bands/companies still got very rich. So, the reason the issue is considered worse these days is that it's easier. You no longer have to 'know' someone with the music, but simply look on a download site. However, this is massively impacted by the cost of the music in the first place. Make it sensible and people will buy regardless. Those that don't would pirate it no matter what you do. It's interesting that most studies show the 'pirates' actually spending more on music than others!!

I wouldn't be at all surprised if music companies are spending more on trying to enforce copyright than they are actually loosing in sales. This is insanity. Record companies always claim their expenses are very high because if they take on and promote 'x' bands, only 1 or 2 will actually make it. Well, the simple answer is stop trying to make your customers pay for this, get to know them better and therefore punt a smaller number of bands that are more likely to make it!! Just because the record companies don't know their customers well enough to punt the right bands, doesn't mean they should pass the cost of their ineptitude onto said customers.

Mad Mike
Unhappy

Real world

And the entertainment industry wonder why copying and copyright abuse is so large!!

The whole concept of copyright is made unenforcement in any sensible way by modern technology. You could go to a personal license. You have purchased it, therefore you can listen to it. But then, you couldn't play it on a hifi to your girlfriend. Not allowing copying effectively makes huge entertainment companies in breach of the law. MP3 players etc.etc. aren't legal as they make a copy.

You can sell a CD, but you can't sell a download!! WTF. They're effectively the same thing. Either way, they're simply a music (or whatever) file and if you can sell one, you should be able to sell the other. Anything else just doesn't make sense.

It's all a nonsense and the more they keep coming up with these stupid cases and media profile, the more copyright violations will occur and increase. People are fed up, the risks are low and their customers are now revolting.

I suppose I should be looking over my shoulder as well. A couple of weeks ago, I helped someone move all their files from their old computer (disposed of properly) and onto a new computer. As part of this involved copying his ITunes files, presumably I'm guilty and so is he? After all, we copied digital music files. We deleted the original (before disposal of the machine), but that's simply what this company did!! Has he made something out of it? No. Have any of the media companies lost anything? No. So, how in gods name is it an offence?

Crossley cops two-year suspension

Mad Mike
Big Brother

Lifetime suspension

Given the charge list against him, any reputable enforcement agency would give them a lifetime suspension. Solicitors, just like any other profession, have good and bad within the profession. Problem is, they don't like dealing with the bad, often because they end up having the power. By his actions, this man is clearly unfit to practice and there's no reason to think this will ever change, so the ban should be for life.

According to the charges, he's abuse the people he's sought money from (extorted some might say) and also abuse his own clients, who even had to pay for it!! He's failed at every level, both criminally (almost certainly) and definitely morally. Kicking him out might make people think better of solicitors..........but then, money talks.

Anyone who thinks he's broke or we won't be seeing him again is extremely nieve.

Videogame piracy figures show decline

Mad Mike
Pirate

Good law

People here seem to haev forgotton the basic principles of law and order. Firstly, a good law has to be enforceable. Having an unenforceable law on the statute books is both pointless and simply complicates the matter. Another feature of a good law is simplicity. The law in this area passes the second test (in that it says copying without permission regardless of reason), but fails the first test in that it is effectively unenforceable. Yes, some people have been prosecuted, but it's a tiny, tiny fraction (even smaller if you believe the companies) and therefore effectively zero.

Another point of a good law is to act as a deterrant to people breaking it. Clearly, it has failed in this area too. The other aspect that is always missed, is that a law is supposed to enforce what society sees as a reasonable moral code. That's why murder is illegal.............almost everyone finds it morally wrong and it impacts other people. Now, as with most things, morality is a moving target and if societies morals (on average) change to move things from the bad to good (or vice versa) categories, laws should move with them. Given the companies claimed figures around people pirating software, games etc., it could well be argued that societies morals have moved to find this acceptable, at least to a very large number, even if it isn't a majority. Therefore, the validity of the law should be called into question.

Of course, what has to be remembered is that morality changes for a variety of reason, including how companies treat their customers, competitors etc. if you treat your customers badly (and many would claim that's exactly what these companies have been doing), their customers morals would tend to change and therefore maybe the law should as well.

Of course, the above fails miserably when you realise the law is not there to enforce a fair or morally (as most see it) correct society, but simply to benefit the top few percent of society, exactly the same people who own these companies. That's why moral changes so rarely result in changes to the law when those changes would impact on the companies or top few percent. Until we get back to a more equitable society with laws based on the needs of the masses rather than the few, the divide between the top and bottom of soctiey will continue to grow and so will the lawlessness. It's directly cause and effect.

The copyright holders tend to be at the top and generally are using the people at the bottom.

Mad Mike
FAIL

Nonsense figures again

Yet again, we see a host of nonsense figures. The software houses will be screaming out about lost revenue etc.etc. Is every download a lost sale......of course not. Have they correctly counted all the downloads.......only if they know about every copy of the game online, which absolutely will not be the case.

So, the reality is, these figures tell us absolutely nothing at all. They could be massively too high or massively too low. All we do know, is that we don't know. Until these nonsense figures stop being bandied around (both by individuals and companies) can the sensible debate start. Until then, it's just one side trying to scream louder than the other.

Cops arrest cop in alleged corrupt cop-bung probe

Mad Mike
Thumb Down

Random

The problem with then police is that investigations into police officers misdeeds almost always leads to an entirely random result, at least from what we see. Police officers who commit relatively small offences, sometimes quite innocently, get hauled over the coals and their lives ruined. Others who commit really serious offences (such as beating people in the cells on camera) get clean away with it. The investigation, punishment and justice in these cases (whether for the police officer or victim) seems really quite random. And I don't believe it is necessarily press pressure in these cases. There are plenty of examples of this.

In Hastings, a naked man is shot dead in his bedroom after a botched raid. What happens to the police........absolutely nothing. How? He was classified as dangerous requiring an armed raid. But, how does a policeman justify shooting someone when they are stark naked and clearly not carrying a weapon. If the police couldn't see properly, that's their fault. They chose to do it at night.

Someone above has said two police officers were dismissed for drinking a bottle of lemonade they found rather than handing it into lost property. Well, if that's true, it seems the opposite; far too draconian. The punishment (or lack of it) never seems to fit the crime.

Ofcom grills pirates, loses report under fridge for two years

Mad Mike
FAIL

@h4rm0ny

I think what he was really saying is that he's willing to pay the "middle men" a reasonable amount for their efforts, but not be ripped off by them. He's saying that the "creator" should control the industry and release what they want, when they want using "middle men" as a route. Some music is released this way by big bands with enough clout to do it. However, in reality, the "middle men" are not really providing a service as such, but running the entire business and own the "creators". They then jack up the price stupidly and rip people off, which is actually an offence in this country!! They have been shown to have run cartels (another offence), they produce (Sony) devices which cannot be legally used, but are quite happy to turn a blind eye to peoples use of them if it makes them a profit (that's called aiding).

People would be quite happy to pay a reasonable amount that allows each party in the business to make a reasonable profit. But, in reality, some parties are seriously profiteering and often playing both sides. They are engaged in illegal actions, but don't get prosecuted. Peoples morals get affected by what they see going on around them. When they see companies who are morally bankrupt and treating people with contempt and as a cash cow, the individuals moral compass also tends to become askew.

To use history, look at the cassette tape. Sony (amongst others) made lots of money selling cassette recorders knowing full well they were being used to rip off other companies music. Did hear a whimper from them then. How, that their music is being ripped off (often with their own products!!), they suddenly get all moral about it!! Simple answer, stop selling MP3 players!! Can't do that though, they make too much money out of them!!

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Which laws do you enforce.

The whole issue with this is simple and nothing to do with copyright and extends much further afield. The question is, which laws do you uphold. In this country (UK), it is still technically illegal to copy a CD onto a MP3 player.....even if you own it. Copying anything (even for private use) without the copyright owners permission is illegal.....period. How come then, that various corporates are quite happy for us to do this sometimes, but not others. You can use a VCR/PVR to record a film and watch it as many times as you like (technically illegal....copying) and yet try to watch the same film using streaming over the internet from a download site.....illegal (technically it is). Who chooses when to prosecute a crime and when not to.

One of largest corporates complaining about copyright theft is actually the same corporate that created or took advantage of many of the mechanisms to break said copyright.....Sony. The VCR, PVR, cassette recorder, mini disk recorder, computers etc.etc. So, they've created and made money out of producing the means to break copyright and profiteered from people using them to break copyright and yet then complain about it??? How does that work?

If you give someone a hammer knowing they are going to use it to commit a crime, maybe murder or breaking and entering, you can be prosecuted for aiding that crime. Maybe Sony should be prosecuted for aiding the crime of copyright theft. They can hardly claim they weren't aware of what people were doing with their products as they're the ones pointing it out!!

So, the reality is, the corporates have lost any moral authority at all and the 'people' now have the ability to enforce their law. Corporations like Sony have broken the law to a far greater extent than any individual and yet they get away with it. They do so because the law works for those with the deepest pockets. Politicians are for sale, one way or another. Politicians create the laws businesses want and then the police/CPS etc. investigate and prosecute those the businesses want and leave alone those individuals who are providing a nice profit for the businesses through breaking the law. Wouldn't want to arrest one of your highest profit customers!!

Paris? Because she has considerably more morals than these corporate, the judiciary and politicians.

Mad Mike
FAIL

Some yes, most no.

I agree with your statement to a limited extent. Yes, some people will download regardless of the cost and these you will never deal with. However, most people have some moral code and generally believe in paying for things provided the price is right and sensible. Lower down someone says how can an old album cost more than new material. Well, if purchased on CDs, the manufacturer might need to allow for a production run that either doesn't get fully sold or takes a long time. The beauty of downloads, is that this simply doesn't matter. You're talking about a few meg of disk space........nothing in terms of cost.

It would be a better service, with more available whenever the customer wants at a better price. Sheet music is an interesting area as well. Unpopular and old pieces are generally hard to get because they can't justify the print run. They either won't get sold or the price will be so high that people will photocopy it. Obviously answer? Downloads. Cost would reduce dramatically, all for the cost of a few meg of disk. Problem solved. Again, better customer experience, lower overheads, easier life for suppliers etc.etc.

However, all the industries have one thing in common................they have unrealistically high expectations of profit. Therefore, they can't support this model as they can't milk the customer. Eventually they will loose.......it might takes years, but they will. The genie is out the bottle and the first to offer a really good service might well take out all the others. If only the company execs had the brains to think beyond the next 12 months and into the medium/long term and see their companies fading away.

Mad Mike
Facepalm

Which laws have been broken

The issue here is who is prosecuted and for what. Yes, people who download illegal copies of whatever are guilty of copyright theft whether you think in a legal or moral sense. However, there are also laws against cartels and such like that the industries were undoubtedly in breach of and yet there were no prosecutions. From a moral stance (and should be legal), if you prosecute one, you should prosecute the other. Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, the industries are rich enough to effectively buy the law.

So, the moral argument for prosecuting illegal file sharers is almost impossible to justify on the grounds that those calling for the prosecutions are guilty of crimes as well, and some might consider them more serious!! Nobody expects any person, company or industry to be whiter than white and never make a mistake, but the wholesale profiteering, cartels etc. in the music, film and software industries are so obvious and so large, you can hardly consider them a minor wobble in an otherwise decent life.

As the writer has said, if the companies had taken notice of what was obviously happening at the time, they would have created their own online sources, charging a reduced amount (no CD production etc. needed) and could have avoided all this. Instead they tried to carry on profiteering etc. and got what was coming to them. Morally, the companies don't have a leg to stand on, but as they own the law, legally they do.

NASA finds first Earth-sized planets outside the solar system

Mad Mike
FAIL

Obvious!!

I don't understandn the great clamour over this. It was entirely predictable. Once they had found gas giants, it made it pretty certain smaller, rocky planets existed, just that we couldn't detect them. Unless we are arrogant enough to believe Earth and the solar system in general is a one off, of course they were going to be out there. Given our understanding of how our planets formed, it was obvious they would be. I'm not sure how this helps us now though. Unless we can develop a means of getting there..........so what.

James Bond savages the Kardashians

Mad Mike
Thumb Up

Just as James Bond would have said.

Danial Craig as James Bond forever. I think that's exactly what the fictional character would have said. A Hollywood star with some brains for a change. Daniel Craig is the first Hollywood star I can think of to state the bleeding obvious. Not only does he have the right view, but in another first, a Hollywood star lives by his own mantra. Can't ask for more.

As for Rachel Weisz................do at a pinch, but I can think of better. Always thought she was missing some flesh in one or two areas.

'Rebel' biologist and neo-Darwinian skeptic Lynn Margulis dies

Mad Mike
Happy

@Richard. Evolution is both random and non-random. The mutations that create new species and gradually adjust a species are effectively largely random. However, the means by which they are tested, is not random, can be predicted and sets evolution in a direction. If stampeding buffalo are being used as the selection method, then the radom mutations to genes are tested according to their ability to allow the host a better chance of avoiding the stampede and surviving. The mutations are random, but the test is always the stampede. Obviously, any mutation is actually tested by many different methods of selection, not just one.

Oracle dubs Solaris 11 world's 'first cloud OS'

Mad Mike
Unhappy

Dead in the water

Oracle has completely destroyed the Solaris and Sparc market even better than Sun managed. Their Exadata salesforce insist Exadata (or Exalogic) works for everything, the the best thing ever and Sparc, SANs etc. are all legacy. Obviously, others in Oracle believe the reverse. The Sparc T range of servers are OK and servicable. The Sparc T chip is being amended to work in larger systems to refresh the Sparc M range. Unfortunately, this makes Sparc exactly the same as every other chip out there. They ploughed a new furrow originally, but now are just the same. So, Sparc is more expensive in every way, hence dead except for the rump of applications that can only run on Sparc.

Oracle has killed Itanium (which desperately needed it) and with the Sparc issues, p-Series and AIX is now the only Unix in town. Shame really as it could have been so much more.

Virgin Media, TalkTalk snub kind offer to block Newzbin2

Mad Mike
FAIL

Stupid courts

This whole sorry tale is stupid. This particular website is doing nothing that you can't achieve though a quick Google search and yet they are being singled out. Surely, if indexing illegal content is illegal in itself, then Google is also in violation? The court order is also pointless in that the wording of the court order will become very important. If they name a specific website, just change the name. If a specific IP, just change that etc.etc. Until the MPA finally come to their senses and realise it's their previous activities and business model that's wrong, they will never sort this out. Thisis just causing cost and irritating people for no benefit, short or long term.

Swedish court confirms jail for Pirate Bay cofounder

Mad Mike
WTF?

Law is optionally enforced.

The real issue here is not whether they have broken the law or not, but the haphazard enforcement of the law. In the UK, it has been illegal to copy music or films for ANY reason for a long time. Copying music onto an iPod was illegal. Unfortunately, because this would have got in the way of the music industry, everybody declined to enforce this law. It didn't matter if you'd purchased the music or not, just changing it from how you purchased it was the offence. Copying under any guise. So, what's the difference between copying music you've purchased onto an iPod and 'copying' music from the internet? Morally, a whole lot. However, as far as the laws concerned, it's just the same and both are illegal.

How then, can one be prosecuted, whilst the other isn't? You either enforce the law or you don't. You can't pick and choose when to enforce and when not to. That simply means the law is up for purchase, whether due to someones power, wealth or whatever; normally both.

Also, there are various laws in this country about running cartels, closed business practices etc.etc. IBM was a very famous company that fell foul of just this sort of law in the States some decades ago now. Don't try telling me the music and film industry aren't guilty in exactly the same way, so why aren't they being taken to task? They change medium from record and tape to CD and the price goes up, even though the production cost is less!! They change from VHS to DVD, the same!! It's blatant profiteering and there are laws against that. So, yet again, the powerful and wealthy buy the laws they want and when they want them enforced.

Now, a very powerful medium (computers) has been put in the hands of the victims and it would be unrealistic to expect them not to use it. Not matter what happens, the film and music industries can never put the genie back in the bottle, not matter how hard they try. They will loose......eventually. It's just how much pain and suffering that occurs in the meantime.

I don't concur with what TPB did, but when the law is so blatantly enforced in a one way manner, what else are people to do? Ernest Saunders even managed to perform what medical science believes is a miracle and yet they didn't seek to reimprison him. Why not? The justice system (stupid name given how it works) hounds people forever for a purely financial loss and yet people who have caused untold deaths through lies (step forward Tony Blair) get clean away with it...........

Security by obscurity not so bad after all, argues prof

Mad Mike
Go

Quite Correct

The prof is quite correct in what he says. Encryption per se is useless. As technology gets better, you have to use longer and longer encryption keys and more computationally intensive methods to ensure brute force can't work. This is a battle the defender will always loose, especially when dealing with items that need a long service life, such as smart meters etc.

People keeping missing something very important. What one piece of information does an attacker need to brute force encryption, no matter how complex? He needs to have a way of determining when he has cracked the encryption. If he can't work out he's cracked it, he can't know to stop and will simply move onto the next key. So, the secret with ecryption is not to make the key longer, but to simply create data packets where it is almost impossible to determine when it is decrypted!! This, in essence, is security through obscurity and will work regardless of technological advances. The big mistake companies make all the time is to encrypt too much information in one go and therefore give people the chance to determine they've succeeded through looking for words etc. If you encrypt shorter packets of information, this becomes harder. Additionally, using XML or any other standard that uses primarily clear text is an issue as this removes large numbers of permutations. For instance, if a number is held as digits, the vast majority of options are removed as a decrypted version must be digits only. However, if it's held as binary, all options are in play.

Too many security professionals these days use the simple, thoughtless processes rather than putting themselves in the hackers shoes and seeing it from their point of view. Stronger and stronger encryption algorithms with longer and longer keys is not the way to go. Security needs to get smarter, not simply longer and more complex.

Don't bother with that degree, say IT pros

Mad Mike
Unhappy

Comptence

If you look at the competence of people in their jobs, a degree has little to do with it. There's good and bad people both with and without degrees. You only have to look at the people often provided by the top consultancies to see the 'quality' of many with degrees. Degrees have been devalued by every Tom, Dick and Harry taking them and are now of little use as a determinator. I've met many an idiot with a degree, whether IT or not.

Q: Why do defenders keep losing to smaller cyberwarriors?

Mad Mike
FAIL

So speaks the man selling defensive products!!

I think you only need to look at what he's selling to understand his point of view. Current conflicts like Afghanistan have shown that relatively small numbers of poorly armed combattants can cause mayhem at relatively low cost to a much bigger force of heavilty armed soldiers. The internet is exactly the same. You can be anonymous provided you are careful and cause mayhem to companies etc. (such as Sony) with relative ease. So, what he says is completely wrong and driven by his desire to sell more products.

All military personnel know that defending a small base is realtively easy and various conventional wisdoms exist over the force ratio required to attack such a base. The internet used to be like this, with small areas needing defending. However, the internet has now sprawled massively and the war is much more like Afghanistan. You can hold bases, but this is relatively useless without holding the ground as well. In Afghanistan, this is what's taking all the personnel and is largely a failure. Small numbers of insurgents are wreaking havoc, pretty much at will. In the same way, now that the internet has sprawled, you can't just hold the bases, you also need to hold the ground. And, at the moment, this is largely a failure as a small number of people can wreak havoc.

Even being anonymous on the internet isn't necessary anymore in some cases, as it rather depends on where you live. Someone in Iran sabotaging American websites is not likely to feel too threatened!!

UK's first Stealth fighter in successful catapult test

Mad Mike

@IanPotter

Ah yes, but that's different. From a sales point of view, it is vastly different to give information which would render an already purchased product useless and simply refusing to sell any more. What I assume Yag is talking about (and what I replied about) is information regarding the locking frequencies used and various codings unique to each missile. If this information is available, it is effectively possible to send the missile off course and ensure your safety. The missile becomes effectively worthless. it's not a self-destruct code or anything that James Bondie, but technical information that allows countermeasures to work pretty much at 100%.

Mad Mike
Happy

@Yag

Errr.....no. The French did not give us the codes for the Argentinian Exocet missiles. That's why we lost quite a few ships to them!! Having said that, I still agree it's not wise to build all your kit abroad in case they like your enemy!! The French wouldn't give us the codes, as quite simply, it would have killed their arms manufacturing in one hit. Nobody would buy from them anymore, knowing they might give the codes away.

Film studios thrash BT in Newzbin site-block test case

Mad Mike
FAIL

Idiot Judge

This judge obviously has no concept of modern technology or enforcement. Firstly, whether it's against the law or not, they won't stop it. No way. It's a self-inflicted wound caused by the music and film industries prior practices that the same governments and courts failed to act against.

As the site is simply giving the location of content, they are not actually breaking copyright as he suggests. That's rubbish. At best they are aiding and abetting. The breaking of copyright is being carried out by the person downloading from the target website. Also, if you take the logical argument to it's conclusion, any indexing service is now liable for the actions of the entities they target. So, if yellow pages points you in the direction of a tradesman who commits a crime against you, aren't yellow pages guilty as well? After all, they indexed the tradesman and made his contact details (effectively his URL) available!! Same difference.

The argument about whether a person or company makes money out of the link isn't relevant as nowhere does it say you don't commit a crime if you don't make money at it. So, this argument is irrelevant. Google is just as guilty as anyone else as they are the ultimate in indexing all sorts of illegal content. Every search site would be the same.

In essence, they are introducing a legal precedent which they will enforce at THEIR choosing, against people and companies THEY choose to. Other people and companies will be allowed to keep doing the same thing because they're too big or too important or too whatever. So, they will be breaking the law just as much, but they won't be touched. Google will be amongst them.

And what will this result in? The rise of more and more encrypted networks and sites doing this underground where nobody can see them. They will spend millions (if not billions) simply chasing around after these people. As soon as they take one down, another ten will be created. It's a war they can't win, even if they have won the first battle. And in the meantime, you can bet a lot of innocents will get hit in the crossfire.

LulzSec say they'll release big Murdoch email archive

Mad Mike
Thumb Up

LulzSec new police?

If LulzSec have managed to extract emails that show the guilt of senior people at NI, that would make them better than the police!! Even with all the laws in the world working in their favour, the police failed miserably to get the evidence and charge the miscreants. It would seem that criminal investigations are better handled by just about anybody than the police!! Unless, of course, they found the evidence, but it went........missing.

Sunspot decline could mean decades of cold UK winters

Mad Mike
Angel

Foreheads

Sounds to me like scientists pendulum is hanging from their foreheads!!

UK will obey Euro unisex-insurance rules from 2013

Mad Mike
Thumb Up

@Martin

Errrrrr. You've just agreed with me!! I never said why men are better at some things and women are better at others. I just said it was scientifically proven. Whether it's due to genetics, chromosones or early conditioning, I didn't specify, don't care and neither do the insurers. It's still statistically true.

Also, whilst some is about early conditioning, some is also directly to do with the persons sex as has been shown many times in university studies. They've mapped peoples brains whilst performing the same task and men and women show radically different results, indicating greater or lesser use of certain portions of the brain. Men and women are different and no amount of legislation or good intentions will change that. It's just that society needs to accept it and play to peoples strengths rather than be fearful of differences all the time.

And yes, race also makes a difference. Statistically, if you want a good long distance runner, there are certain races that you would look in as statistically they show a greater aptitude for this. Same with other things as well. It's not being racist. It's simply accepting that different races have developed different traits due to the conditions around at the time. Of course, this is now reducing due to increases in inter-breeding and greater freedom of movement. However, when one group of humans largely interbred and stayed within a small(ish) area of the world, nature would naturally tune them to that environment. And this is exactly the circumstances that have existed throughout human history until relatively recent times.

Mad Mike
Happy

@Mark 63

Certainly premiums are based around marketing to some extent as that's how they grow customers. However, the very limited difference between TPFT and comprehensive insurance actually has a very simple reason. The value of your car (which is the primary difference in the policies......repairing your car if your fault), is largely irrelevant in relation to risk and costs. Most of the insurance costs are not around the insured drivers car, but around the damage they do to others. So, the value of your car makes little difference, hence the limited difference in cost. This varies from insurance company to insurance company to some extent, but the principle remains.

The protected no claims discount is actually a con really and has limited effect. Your base premium is based, amongst other things, on your claims and accident history. Even if your no claims remains the same (as you've protected it), your base premium will actually increase due to the accident anyway. So, if you retain your 50% no claims, but put the base premium up anyway, sort of evens itself out!!

Mad Mike
Thumb Down

Gender does matter

For those of you who say gender doesn't matter in insurance, I'm afraid you're scientifically wrong. Men and women have different brains and it is scientifically proven that (for instance) men (on average) have better map reading and spatial awareness than women. Similarly, it can be proven that women on average are better than on other things. All this is averages and obviously there are exceptions to this all over the place. However, the averages are true.

In reality, women have more accidents than men (contrary to popular belief), but they are significantly smaller in value and therefore the overall value of the claims for women is less than men. So, as premiums are based on averages for some factors (such as sex) and are personal for some factors (driving history), it makes perfect sense to use sex as a determinator.

Some existing laws make rating difficult as there are claims differences (on which these averages are based) between races, ages and all sorts of other factors that are rapidly becoming 'isms. Some of these are already banned, so you could argue that taking sex out is simply removing one more rather than something new.

To those who believe we should revert to an older style of insurance and simply average claims across the whole driving population, this doesn't really work. Firstly, the overall effect would be to lower high risk drivers premiums and increase low risk drivers premiums. Some will like this, other won't. Secondly, nobody will see any benefit from driving safely (from an insurance point of view) and therefore history shows people take less care. If they have an accident, it doesn't affect their premium, so from an insurance point of view, who cares. Lastly, the whole insurance market is hugely competitive at the moment (contrary to some peoples view), with companies competing for low risk customer, some specialising in high risk etc. An old style insurance system would radically decrease the competition and would probably increase the total insurance premiums as a result. The only way round this is to so regulate the market that you might as well make it state owned!!

Attorney General threatens Twitter injunction-busters

Mad Mike
Facepalm

Just imagine

I've grown quite fond of the DPP in recent times with some sensible decisions and reasonable actions, way beyond that normally found in public office. Then, the Attorney General opens his mouth and resets everything to normal. If all 75,000 people chose to have trial by jury, it would takes years, probably decades to try them all, so it's clearly stupid. The law is there to protect and serve the people and when people on this scale choose to ignore the law, it's basically not a good law. Simply stop these stupid injunctions and make people live with the consequences of their philandering actions. Might make society better if people didn't think they could get away with it.