* Posts by Mad Mike

1379 publicly visible posts • joined 30 May 2007

Kim Dotcom: You give me proof of govt corruption in my case, I give you millions

Mad Mike

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@Dr Stephen Jones.

It's a shame you can't reason beyond studios..........angels and Dotcom..........devil.

I can see there are all sorts of shades of grey and that both are neither fully angels nor devils, but somewhere inbetween. However, this level of reasoning seems beyond you. You see everything as perfect black and white with corporates seemingly white and anyone doing anything against them/opposing them as black. Basic binary thinking of the most limited nature.

I also explained to you why the difference you cite between evasion and avoidance is very blurred now in the UK at least. In the UK, if you setup something with the sole reason to avoid taxation (what would have been called tax avoidance), this is now considered evasion and illegal. A new law was passed by this government that brought this into effect and several people have fallen foul of it already.

For an example, see Jimmy Carr. He setup a mechanism that was prior to this law perfectly legal tax avoidance. It was a financial mechanism (involing the Channel Islands) with the sole purpose of avoiding income tax. I can tell you how it worked if you like, but I suspect it's beyond you. As it was determined by the HMRC that its sole purpose was to avoid income tax, this law made it tax evasion and therefore he got into a lot of trouble, has had to pay a lot of money to HMRC and took a lot of stick in the press. You could also look up Gary Barlow for another example of a famous name who has come a cropper on this one.

Indeed, the new law is slightly at odds with some other laws. There are special tax arrangements for people who invest in certain things, like films for instance. However, as these arrangements would be used solely to avoid tax, the new law could make them evasion!! Various tax laws are potentially at odds. Nobody has yet (to my knowledge) taken a case to the courts for a judgement and I suspect none will as the new law appears to be used only in selected cases.

So, if you're based in the UK and looking to try and avoid tax, I would suggest you contact an accountant first as your rather poor knowledge of the law around this would put you at serious risk.

If you read my post, I think you'll find that I acknowledged both evasion and avoidance and that they were different. I simply pointed out that the new law was making a lot of avoidance into evasion and therefore blurring the lines. Ask any accountant, this is the case. Of course, this doesn't match your binary nature where everything has to be either good or bad, so you made up what I said. Effectively, I was saying that avoidance is a grey area with the new law, but as grey areas don't exist to you..............

Mad Mike

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@Busby

"Haven't seen that on the stories I've read about dotcom's legal woes. Have you got a link regarding charges he's facing for tax evasion as I understood all the legal issues were copyright related I didn't realise that he also wasn't paying taxes?"

Don't mistake the postings from a couple of people as being based on reality. I'm not aware of any tax evasion charges either, but I'm sure the authorities will chuck a few at him for good measure as well. After all, they got Al Capone under tax evasion in the end!! If the authorities decide they want to get you, the exact charge doesn't really matter. If they don't want to get you (too much influence/political donations etc.etc.), then there won't be a charge regardless.

Mad Mike

Re: Both Sides Wrong

@AC

"Mad Mike gives us ... all the usual dingbat cliches.... but with added ellipses.... typed while Mike looks out of the window looking for MAFFIA agents.... and adjusts his....tinfoil hat.

Screwy punctuation is usually the giveaway of a nutter. Hey, Mike: did you know you can use full stops / periods *in the middle of a paragraph* and not just at the end?

The comparison with UKIP is very funny."

Apart from not having the guts to publish under a name..........

No argument, no reason, no logic, just abuse. Given the punctuation shown above, I assume you're not familiar with its use either!!

Mad Mike

Re: Both Sides Wrong

@Dr Stephen Jones.

"You so badly need that to be true, to find moral equivalence between the two, it hurts."

I don't NEED it to be true. I'm looking at it objectively and I can see that Dotcom has some liability and may well have broken some laws. However, I can also see that the studios (of various natures) have also broken laws (but somehow avoided prosecution) and also have some very dubious business practices. So, given the studios relative size to Dotcom, in money terms, they're probably the bigger crooks.

Don't forget prosecutions rarely have anything to do with breaking the law. This is especially so in the USA, but is getting that way in the UK too. Companies do things that individuals do as well, yet the individual gets prosecuted, but the company does not......go figure. A good example if the Sony rootkit. If an individual did that, they'd be in jail. But Sony, not a squeak.

So, Dotcom is not innocent and I've never said he is. I'm just questioning the moral 'high ground' the studios claim to occupy and judging whether this is true or not.

Mad Mike

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@Dr Stephen Jones.

Mmmm. Another rant and resorting to insults again. Just to fill in your obvious lack of knowledge of the tax system in the UK. ANY mechanism whose sole purpose is to reduce your tax liability is now illegal. Recent legislation made this change. So, the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is now more and more blurred. One could argue that many of the activities companies perform are solely to reduce tax and therefore, according to the law, are now evasion.

So, you're now claiming that film and music companies operate within the law. So, it was legal for Sony to dump a rootkit on my computer without any warning or anything? Just by inserting the CD? If any individual attempted that stunt, they would be prosecuted. It is illegal under the current law. So, how come Sony got away with it?

The music and film industry have beyond any reasonable doubt broken many laws, including computer misuse (see Sony above), cartel operations etc.etc. I'm not saying Dotcom is any better, but he certainly isn't any worse.

I think you also need to question why someone who was running a mechanism is being pursued in the manner, when others are getting away with it. Yes, he owned a file sharing site and may well have been aware of illicit goings on with the site, such as copyright violation. However, ISPs are providing the network and are perfectly aware that copyright violation is occurring over their connections and are doing little about it. So, how come one is OK and the other not? Either way, it's a facility being knowingly abused and the owner of the facility doing not a lot to stop it.

Difference is, ISPs are big business and bought themselves a law exempting themselves from liability, but companies/individuals running file sharing sites couldn't afford the bribe!!

Mad Mike

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@Dr Stephen Jones.

"If something is too expensive then don't buy it, you asshole. Borrow one off a mate. Nobody makes you buy stuff. All round your argument is completely morally bankrupt."

What was your doctorate in? Calling people names? As a person of learning, you will of course know that resorting to name calling and insulting is generally a sign of having no argument or, at least, being unable to articulate it.

Mad Mike

Re: UKIP ranter I expect

@Dr Stephen Jones.

"That's a tax dodge. Everyone involved in making those movies got paid. Now tell me how much of the $175m in revenue Mega returned to camera grips, writers, composers, sound men etc."

What a funny comment. So, your holding up companies that paid camera grips, writers etc. and yet are yourself admitting they are tax dodging, which is a crime under new legislation in the UK. Very funny, really very funny.

So, you don't think that effectively stealing from the taxpayer is worth some criticism?

You don't work for them by any chance do you?

Mad Mike

Both Sides Wrong

This is really a case where both sides are wrong and have behaved very poorly.

Did Dotcom know what was going on with his website.....yes. Did he try very hard to stop it.......probably not. So, Dotcom holds a certain responsibility.

Did the studios etc. take gross advantage, start running cartels (against the law) and generally rip everyone off......yes. Have they obviously broken the law and got away with it......yes, Sony for instance with their DRM installing software on your computer without permission.

So, both sides seem to have behaved badly and should be castigated for it.

The big difference is that Dotcom may have made some millions out of it over a relatively short period of time. However, the studios have been making tens of billions over several decades and taking the p**s out of the taxpayer at the same time by pretending their films (even big box office smashes) made losses!! Not that they're alone in the corporate world on that one.

So, who is the crook.....both. Who is the bigger crook....the studios. Who's likely to get prosecuted and sent to jail for it........Dotcom.

Doesn't quite seem fair somehow. Whenever some people or corporations can flout the law at will and not suffer the consequences, whilst others do, you know your justice system is broken and a broken justice system is respected by nobody.

MIT boffins moot tsunami-proof floating nuke power plants

Mad Mike

Re: @TRT

@AC

"True, but...

A: Not in the concentrations found in a Fission reactor.

B: Certainly not enriched."

True, but the sea has one great advantage. Over time (but pretty swiftly really), it churns around the globe and distributes any concentrations. This doesn't happen on land, so a much bigger problem. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's a good thing to dump loads of radioactivity into the sea, just that the sea is actually better at dealing with it.

Mad Mike

Re: I'm no MIT...

In reality, there's no shortage of nuclear power plants at the bottom of the sea (numerous have sunk in subs etc.) and there are even a few nuclear bombs (of various types) as well!! However, I do share your sentiments about 'unsinkable'. I guess it depends a lot on how deep the water would need to be to mitigate the Tsunami. As long as it isn't too deep, it could actually sit on the ocean floor.

Parent gabfest Mumsnet hit by SSL bug: My heart bleeds, grins hacker

Mad Mike

@obnoxiousGit

You're making the mistake of bringing reason and thought into the process. Mumsnet is a place to self-obsessed, hypocritical tyrants. That's why they think they have the right to dictate to everyone else and being listened to, even though they know little about the topics on which they speak. They're hypocritical because they think it's acceptable to call men c**ts, but say that to a woman and the world ends!!

It's really the online equivalent of a hen do or womens trip to see men strippers. They all egg each other on and it all gets rather extreme and they all think they're so hard done by. After all, the government simply must control the internet, after all, I'm a mother and have enough to do already!!

God alone knows why some men join. Maybe they're just trolling, I don't know, but the name says it all. Another example of why women can be as sexist as they like, but men would get attacked for doing the same in reverse. If I tried creating a fathersnet, there would be uproar about sexism etc.etc. Same as how you get women only gym sessions, but I've yet to come across any men only sessions.

Mad Mike

Oh, how terrible.

This is really terrible news.............my heart bleeds.

The only thing funnier would be if they found their way into the extremist list of websense and started getting blocked as such!! Given some of the clangers that have happened in the past in this area, it could just happen.

IBM was wrong to force UK workers off final salary pensions – judge

Mad Mike

Re: Read between the lines

As has been said, 'Shareholder Value' can be interpreted in many different ways. In fact, so many that the directors may actually do pretty much whatever they like. After all, you can always argue some sort of shareholder value. So, directors are in reality given almost total freedom to do whatever they like. In return, the shareholder can vote (at AGMs etc.) at regular intervals to change directors etc. if they wish to. One such reason might be that the shareholder does not believe the director is giving shareholder value. That's the risk the director takes in his/her decisions.

So, IBM directors could quite happily not have done this and accepted lower EPS for a quarter and simply said they thought it was right. It is then up to the shareholders to do something about it. They can vote at elections etc. or do things like sell the shares, where if enough do so, the shareprice will fall heavily. Of course, this affects the value of the directors shareholding, which is a primary reason why they don't tend to do anything that could negatively affect the shareprice. Given good shareholder returns will always tend to raise the shareprice as ROI is good/improves.

It has become increasingly common for the employee to be considered a resource and dealt with in a pretty poor way in many companies. However, if you look at history, you soon realise that treating employees badly often results in the company doing rather badly, as has been said in earlier replies. So, now, some more enlightened companies are beginning to realise that treating employees reasonably and doing things like honouring contracts is actually good for the business in the long run, even if the short term is affected. Additionally, more shareholders are realising this as well.

After all IBM and HP (both companies that have treated their employees pretty poorly in the past) are doing so well now? Both seem to be heading downwards rapidly. Even if they can keep shareholder returns good for a few more years, it will come to an end at some point.

Hyper-V telling fibs about Linux guest VMs

Mad Mike

Re: It is the Linux manufacturers that lag behind... (Bollocks)

@John Sanders.

"MS Treats any non MS product like second class citizens."

To be fair, I'm not sure they're singling out non-MS products. They seem little better at supporting some of their own!! Maybe it's just general incompetence?

Mad Mike

@AC

"No, the team writing the Hyper-V tools are up to date and are part of the Hyper-V team. It is the Linux manufacturers that lag behind in merging the updates to the Integration Tools into their releases. As it mentions in the Microsoft statement."

Unfortunately, you're making the mistakes of trusting what Microsoft says. Any virtualisation product that expects every client to always be at the highest level of integration tools is living on another planet. There are a huge number of reasons why this will never be the case. We have products that stipulate the exact version and patch levels that are supported as far as the O/S is concerned, so we can't necessarily just put higher versions of things like integration tools onto them. It breaks the application support model.

Also, why is this happening on Linux clients (or maybe non-MS) only? Surely, some people have run a Microsoft O/S without the highest/right level of integration tools? Wouldn't that get the same message? This all sounds very FUD like. Mind you, it's not really surprising. After all, if you buy a virtualisation product from a company that also sells O/Ss, what would you expect. A good reason to stay with anybody but MS if you ask me.

Say WHAT? ATVOD claims 44k Brit primary school kids look at smut online each month

Mad Mike

Re: @Mad Mike .... When I was at school

@AC

"Yes. And if that had been your daughter, so would you have done ... Especially if she didn't want to go to school for a while after .... Would that be so hard to understand ?

Sorry, but .... needed saying ...."

Sounds like you're the kind of parent we need to deal with. It's happened and I didn't do anything than sit down with my daughter and explain the situation. Yes, I asked the school to keep an eye on it, but certainly didn't go in shouting and screaming and making complaints etc.etc. And in return, the school did a good job and appreciated my calm manner and conversations with them. In fact, it was them who told me about the 'other parents'.

Mad Mike

Re: And yet....

Another thumbs down!!

Presumably, we have at least one or two parents on here who don't want to exercise proper control over their children and to be held accountable for exercising that control.

Anyone who thinks they should be able to sit their child down on a computer on the internet and not control what they do in some way appropriate to their age has obviously abdicated parental responsibility and therefore should not have children!! Probably the same parents who abdicate parental responsibility onto teachers (and society in general) as well.

Mad Mike

Re: Does not add up!

"Adults can (hopefully) be expected to differentiate between pornographic fantasy worlds and real life. Teenagers with little of the latter probably not so much!"

This rather suggests that people believe teenagers suddenly switch from pimply teenager who needs to be controlled and protected from such things, to full adult with all the knowledge etc. required to act responsibly overnight!! Where exactly is the cutoff point between adult and teenager? In reality, it is a gradual slope and teenagers need guiding down it. A job for parents and parenting, not something to be ignored or handed over to some sort content monitoring system.

Mad Mike

Re: someone was spying on these kids ?!?!?!

So, they put something like monitoring software on various PCs in the home and monitor usage. This presumes the person logged on (if there's even a concept of logging on) is really using their own account. As the people being studied are children, I assume it's fair to assume the parents (and possibly others) have their passwords?

So, two questions come to mind. Firstly, what is the reaction of the parents when they're told little Johnny and little Alice are watching porn? (Father/mother looks embarrassingly to the heavens?). Secondly, when they look at the second tranche of data, is little Johnny no longer looking at porn as the parents are now aware? Even if they make the information anonymous, it makes clear suggestions as to peoples childrens usage, or does each parent assume it is other peoples children?

Mad Mike

Re: When I was at school

Yes indeed. I really am at a loss to understand how these figures are obtained and the probable margin of error in them. We all know that teenage boys will tend to boast about their antics and teenage girls will often downplay them. I would have thought that most 6 years olds would wonder what you were on about and would probably wonder what porn was if they found it. Probably think it's two people fighting!!

This is really all about adults putting their sexual beliefs and attitudes on people who don't have those thoughts at the moment. I always remember when very young boys in the playground would go round lifting up girls skirts (I'm talking about 6-8 years old). All they knew was that the anatomy was different. There was nothing sexual about it, as they were nowhere near old enough to have that sort of thought. Yet, when the parents arrived, some would go ballistic, screaming about sexual assault etc.etc. No, it's just kids doing what they've done for years. Nothing sexual about it at all. And you thinking it is sexual just shows how poor a parent you are (unable to put yourself in your childs position) and more to the point, how your mind works around sex.

Mad Mike

Re: And yet....

@Vimes.

Not sure where the downvote comes from.

Surely, parents should monitor and control what their children do in a manner consistent with their age. Therefore, if they're very young, the control and monitoring is high and becomes less as they get older? Therefore, I would have thought a child of 6 would be heavily monitored and controlled, especially in areas such as the internet.

If you failed to control your child and they ran into the road and were injured, I imagine people would be appalled and maybe social services involved if it happened enough. So, what's the difference with them being injured (albeit in a different way) through looking at inappropriate website content?

Maybe if parents took more responsibility (in many areas, not just internet), a lot of problems in society at the moment would reduce. Some children get taken away for what some people consider relatively minor 'offences' and yet they can't get taken away because their parents are allowing them to watch hardcore porn at the age of 6? Something wrong there.......

ISPs CAN be ordered to police pirates by blocking sites, says ECJ

Mad Mike

Should apply to everything

By the logic of the court, an ISP (or other provider of services) should block access to/from anything that is illegal. Now, copyright is one such thing, but there are plenty of others as well. So, this judgement shouldn't really be about copyright at all, but the general concept of supplying services to known criminals. However, this case goes further in that it actually affects the supply of services to people who commit offences against CIVIL law (i.e. copyright), not just criminal law!! So, the ramifications are much, much wider.

MPs blast HMRC for using anti-terrorism laws against whistleblower

Mad Mike

We want action

They can say whatever they like, but until they actually do something, nothing will change. MPs are just full of hot air and say this sort of thing to get press headlines etc. and then do absolutely nothing. The various civil servants know this, so act a little contrite (sometimes) and then just continue on as before. Until significant numbers of them start loosing their jobs (without payoffs) over this sort of thing, nothing will ever change.

Margaret Hodge is one of the biggest windbags out there. Almost completely clueless about everything, she simply goes for headlines. She helped get the law into place and now complains about it. Talk about playing both sides.

Kim Dotcom extradition: Feds can keep evidence against Megaupload mastermind a surprise

Mad Mike

Re: No news

Bearing in mind he won't be charged until he's in the USA, how does that help?

It was always convention (until recently) that the country seeking extradition had to show enough evidence etc. to convince the host country there was a reasonable case to answer. Exact wording changed from agreement to agreement, but the same basic principle. Now, extradition agreements often ask for no evidence. Just extradite because another country is asking.

Of course, European Warrants are just as bad. Greece says they want you, off you go. No real process, no real evidence, just a one way ticket. Once you're there....................

All these extradition agreements are going the same way as it helps the executive (of whatever country) and makes life easier. Justice? What's that?

Mad Mike

Re: New Zealand is not a real country ..

They are states of a sort. Just states within a United States!!

That's what happens when you allow a country to get too big and powerful. No matter how good it starts out, greed and corruption soon turns them into the local bully boy.

Planes fail to find 'credible' candidate for flight MH370 wreckage

Mad Mike

Re: @p_0

@Wzrd1.

"Explosive decompression, loss of comms due to condensation, attempt to alter course for triangle distress course and loss of consciousness."

Explosive decompression enough to kill or severely disable the crew, but not bad enough to affect the airworthiness of the aircraft? Loss of comms due to condensation, but at least several electrical systems still working? Attempt to after course for triangle distress and loss of consciousness. So, rather than get the oxygen supply on (which would have given them some tens of minutes), they instead reprogram the flight computer and pass out? The above is a series of million to one possibilities. In total, vanishingly improbable.

"Autopilot resumes altitude, possibly due to incorrect action on the part of hypoxic flight crew and the rest is history."

The first thing they would do is get their oxygen masks on. This would remove the immediate hypoxia risk. So, again, what we know seems to rule this out.

"The pilot suicide theory is a really big stretch, it involves seven hours of flying, that's pretty damned determined when the act could have been performed at any point in the flight and would've been easiest during takeoff."

Not really at all. Firstly, there have been several proven cases of this in the past. So, it's a known thing. Also, don't forget that suicide might invalidate insurance policies. Also, you have cultural shame etc. The biggest thing against this is probably the fact that the pilot would have to kill or disable the other aircrew and passengers to ensure no message gets out. Moving from suicide to murder is a big step. Also, if the plane were destroyed, trying to prove suicide would be very difficult without radio trraffic, so why not crash as soon as possible?

As you say, we will have to wait for the investigation and if the wreck is found. The strangest thing for me though is the actions of the Malay authorities and other nations involved. It's all really odd. The Malays have also been proven to have lied and look as shifty as anyone I've ever seen. Why? It's really odd behaviour.

Mad Mike

Re: @p_0

@Wzrd1.

"Off course, wearing oxygen masks, but still went down due to air crew oxygen starvation."

Agreed. It can always happen, but is vanishingly rare. Also, note the complete difference to this case. Everyone died (or was incapacitated) of hypoxia very rapidly, but the flight control computer didn't get programed afterwards as happened for the recent case. So, it doesn't explain what we know of this case.

"Personally, I'll await finding the aircraft and the subsequent investigation results. Anything else is simply guessing and uneducated guessing at that."

Absolutely. But, I was simply replying to your own suggestion and showing why it didn't really fit the facts as known. We know that the event which caused them to turn around did not knock out the crew as the flight control computer was programed afterwards. So, we know this can't be the case. As to what it actually was......who knows. So, you were actually posting a suggestion (to which I replied) and not waiting for the investigation.

Mad Mike

Re: If it flew with the pilots disabled

@Wzrd1

"No need for a gas, only a lack of gas-air.

Gradual decompression would more than suffice. Though, there are alarms that should go off in the case of low cabin pressure."

Absolutely. However, there was clear manual intervention in the flight control computer after the incident which caused the turnaround. Plus, you have separate oxygen supplies for each pilot for at least a while. Yet, they didn't manage to get a message out? Clearly the electrical systems were still working to a point as the engines were still pinging a satellite. You'd need an insane chain of highly improbable acts to get anywhere close to something that could explain this.

Mad Mike

Re: Mobile phones don't have remotely enough range

@Adam1.

"There is a possibility that whatever incident also took out their radio or the pilots were overcome before they could take that sort of action."

I'm not sure if people are frequent fliers and trying to delude themselves or what. In an attempt to prove it wasn't deliberate action on someones part, people are chaining together events, which are improbable in their own rights, but together are fanciful.

The flash fire theory for instance. A sudden fire so intense it takes out both pilots almost instantly, yet leaves the plane in a condition to fly for 6-7 hours!! People are letting their desire for this to be an accident override basic logic and common sense. Especially as after the turnaround, there was clear manual input into the flight control computer at least. So, clearly a flash fire didn't kill the crew in one hit, otherwise there would be nobody to program the flight control.

Mad Mike

Re: @Mad Mike

@Stoneshop

"That depends, as I've said already, on the way MH370 ended its flight: in a reasonably controlled manner, aka "water bird landing", or dropping uncontrollably from a high-altitude stall. AF447 did something inbetween. Of course that's just one factor in determining how damaging the crash would be; another would be the state of the sea surface. A pic of PanAm flight 6 ditching shows a Pacific that's pretty smooth, so it can happen, even out on the ocean. It would also be informative to know how large the largest floating pieces from ET961 were (no flaps, high-speed ditching in relatively calm water)"

PanAm Flight 6 was in 1956 and a totally different class of aircraft in every way and couldn't be used as any sort of comparative. If you've seen the Hudson River ditching, one of the biggest differences is obvious. Props are far better to ditch with than large turbofans hanging down under the wing. These cause all sorts of problems and can easily cause a plane to cartwheel unless the landing is perfect and in perfect conditions. One reason why the Hudson River incident ended well. A pretty damned perfect ditching in pretty perfect conditions.

I think it's also pretty safe to assume the sea surface would be anything but smooth. We're talking about the very south of the Indian Ocean and closer to Antarctica than Australia. The sea state is almost permanently poor around there and certainly has been poor whilst they've been searching. Just about anywhere on the planet would be better than there.

Also, note from the Hudson River incident the correct procedure to even stand a chance of coming out alive. You need to get the tail in and only lower the front at the last possible moment. This is because the engine will catch the water badly and cause the rear to lurch up suddenly, potentially causing a flip. The chances of getting a perfect landing without someone alive at the controls are almost zero and even with someone at the controls, they need to be very experienced and very lucky. Even the captain of that flight said luck had a large part in it.

All in all, it's pretty much clutching at straws. Everything is against it. They're taking a correlation (something in the water somewhere near where they might be looking) and extrapolating that to it being the plane. And as everyone knows, correlation does not equal causation or any form of connection at all. With something like 10,000 containers lost overboard each year, which is the most likely?

Mad Mike

Re: @p_0

@Stoneshop

"AF447 hit the drink at about 280km/h, and still some parts remained kind of intact and floating"

Maybe. But, how big was the largest bit? Also, the photos show a lot of smaller flotsam around it. Single very large piece of wreckage and no flotsam visible? Not really credible.

Mad Mike

@Chris Miller.

"but is 'only' 60 feet in height"

No, the 77 tail is considerably shorter than this. The top is roughly 60ft off the ground when standing, but of course, the bottom part of this is air under the tail!! So, the actual tail itself is considerably smaller as an object. You can't count the air underneath!! So, if the debris is 24m in size, the tail is nowhere near big enough (even allowing for measuring error) to be it.

Mad Mike

"for example, the NTSB tracks are somewhat detailed considering the paucity of data that's been released..."

Indeed so. We seem to have to extract the information from the various bodies rather than it being given. I get the distinct impression they know a lot more than they're saying. As I said earlier, the Malaysian minister etc. all look as shifty as you can get. They always seem to be saying as little as possible.

Then, you have the whole Malaysian peninsula crossing episode. The Malaysians were denying it, whilst the Americans were saying it happened (and were search to the west) only for it finally to be released that the Malaysians own radar provided the evidence!! At point, they were clearly lying or at best, hiding the knowledge. Why?

It all smells really bad.

Mad Mike

Re: @p_0

Fire or other inflight accident is almost impossible here. From the flightpath, it is known that the autopilot was reprogrammed and it was following an autopilot course all the way over Malaysia and into the Indian Ocean. So, the autopilot course set was not to get them back to an airport, so it doesn't make sense.

Fumes disabling people is also not possible. The pilots are equipped with their own personal oxygen supplies, which may not have lasted 7 hours, but would have lasted long enough to get control and put out a mayday. We also know that the electrical systems of the aircraft were working at least to some extent (hence satellite 'pinging' etc.). Therefore, how did all the other electrical systems (such as transponder etc.) fail (and all backups) without being switched off?

For a considerable part of the early part of the flight post 'incident', mobile phones would have been in easy range of towers, yet no attempt was made to make any calls. Indeed, if I were flying in the plane, the severity of the initial turn back would have at least caused me concern and would have been obvious to those inside. So, again, why no mobile phone calls.

Also, bear in mind the debris spotted in the Indian Ocean is outside the 7hour flight time of the aircraft (it might have been carried by ocean currents) and is thought to be bobbing just under the surface. The largest part is also believed to be 24m long. If the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent (say due to fuel running out) and hit the ocean, there is almost no chance of a 24m piece of debris being left. It would hit at high speed (600mph?) and would be utterly destroyed. At that speed, it would be the same as flying into concrete. So, could they have tried to land on the Ocean? Maybe, but why fly there and then try to do that? All in all, this doesn't make any sense at all.

I'm sorry, but all in all, anything but deliberate act (by someone unknown) seems almost impossible. The known information (assuming what we're told is right) seems to rule it out. Whether it's the pilot(s) or someone else, who knows. The known movements of the aircraft seem to rule out accident, as does the inability to find the debris (so far) and the information that some of the known flightpath seems to include segments designed to avoid radar (flying low for instance, but whilst seemingly under control).

The other thing that is very odd, is the actions of the various authorities and entities involved in the investigation/search. The Malaysian officials look about as shifty as you can get. They constantly avoid questions, are now stopping relatives from talking to the press and just generally appear to be hiding things. They keep changing things and maintaining positions when everyone knows something else is true and then having to admit it later. For instance, they denied the flight turned back and went across Malaysia, but then had to admit their own radar had actually seen this!!

Some of the other countries involved also appear to be less than open or exhibiting strange behaviour. The Chinese are strangely silent in many ways considering the large number of nationals on the plane. Yes, there's the odd comment, but not as much as one would expect. Indeed, there is much less noise around it than one might expect. The known information is only gradually leaking out (such as the satellite contacts) and it's almost having to be pulled out of them.

All in all, a very strange situation.

MPs urge UK.gov to use 1950s obscenity law to stifle online stiffies

Mad Mike

Re: So...

@Qwelak.

Not sure you understand how the state pension works.

When it was setup, the government of the day took contributions and said they'd give the people something back. Interestingly, the contract keeps changing as the 'get something back' keeps changing.

Did they invest the money wisely to grow and become a pot to pay your pension later on? No, they did not. They spent the money immediately. They surmised that the contributions of workers when you're retired would be used to pay your pension. Similarly, when those workers retired, the workers at that time would pay their pensions. On and on to infinity.

So, the government got an effective income which gradually declined as people started claiming the pension. Then, it was self-sufficient. Current workers pay for retired workers pensions. Job done. Big pile of cash up front to fund things. Now, this was partly to pay for reconstruction work (and other things) after WWII.

However, as people live longer, the terms of the original pensions are looking rather generous. Workers can no longer fund the pensions of currently retired people due to the age they're living to etc.etc. Also, ratio of workers to pensioners etc. Hence, the pensions crisis we're (in a very poor way) trying to deal with at the moment. However, it did give them a big pool of money to start rebuilding after the war!!

So, no future workers, at least your state pension will be gone. Money purchase pots may be OK. Defined benefits schemes could also have problems if the number of workers declines a lot.

So, significant proportions of your pension are quite heavily (or totally) dependent on future workers and hence children being born and growing up. This will be true for many, many decades yet.

Mad Mike
Joke

Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

"Are you seriously suggesting that the smut industry may be less than reputable?"

I think it would be a close run thing between MPs and the smut industry on how reputable they are. I'd probably rather trust the smut industry with my finances than MPs. History shows the smut industry has been somewhat more successful in running their own businesses, than MPs are at running the economy.

In either event, both of them are engaged in f**king people, so not much difference really.

Mad Mike

Re: So...

@Richard Taylor 2.

"But at some stage you would like some one to pay your pension?"

Not sure why you got downvoted for this. Until very recently, the current generation paid the pensions of the generation before. This is not now true for money purchase schemes, but is true for the state pension etc. You need people paying tax today to fund the state pensions of today. The money paid in NI (or tax) yesterday was not invested to allow you to get a state pension today. So, no workers today, no state pensions today.

In order to get workers for when you retire, people need to have kids today to become said workers. Alternatively, I guess we could import all the workers and have no kids, but that isn't economically viable. So, the comment is absolutely valid.

Mad Mike

Re: So...

@AC

"I don't know, but would be be guilty of the same offence if he let his son into a news agent with porn on the lower shelves? (I suspect, the Newsagent would be guilty, not the farther.)"

I agree the newsagent would have liability. However, wouldn't the father also have liability if he didn't immediately seek to remove the child from such an environment? If the child started looking through the titles, would you not expect the father to stop him?

Mad Mike

Re: So...

@AC

"Married persons allowance, family credit, £2K child care.

Any more of my money you want to give away?"

I never said it should be subsidised, I merely said it could be. Depends on what they think the benefits or not of subsidising would be and the social worth of doing so. Also, married persons allowance???? How old are you? That hasn't been around for years unless you're seriously old (born before 1945 I believe).

Mad Mike

Re: So...

@AC.

Indeed. If the police obtain evidence that parents are doing nothing to control their offsprings internet habits and unsuitable material (for the age group) is being accessed, is that a case for the courts for neglect? Should social services be involved? Now, I'm maybe more tech savvy than the average user, but I simply implemented a hardware firewall with content filtering on it. Not perfect, but it certainly stops the majority and as it keeps a list (long) of every URL they access, I think it was a reasonable response to the issue.

Perhaps they would be better off creating and selling such a hardware firewall (perhaps even subsidising it), so parents can have a plug and play option?

Mad Mike

Another belch from the clueless

Whilst I totally agree that we need to ensure some level of protection for children, this is just another load of hot air from the clueless. Potentially anything on the internet could contain porn. Not just actual porn sites, but forums and all sorts, sometimes as a main theme and sometimes just single pieces. After all, people publish their own amateur home made porn now. So, just thinking about websites that do porn and nothing else is somewhat missing the point.

There may be some technical things that can be done both inside and outside the house to give some degree of protection, but ultimately, it is the responsibility of the parents. However, governments seem determined to take the role of parents and in some cases, parents simply don't care. You spend hundreds of pounds on technology, but won't spend tens of pounds on products to reduce this risk. Alternatively, you could always have the computer etc. in public places, rather than in their bedrooms etc. You know, actually take an interest in your kids.

But no, this committee seems to think they can legislate or technically get round the problem and seek to ignore the role of parents and good parenting in all this. They also don't seem to have realised that times have moved on since the 1950s, even though their own habits and that of others working in the Houses of Parliament suggest this (given the latest information on porn site access from said location). Of course, I'm sure this is all 'research' and has no gratification value at all!!

Not sure when they'll realise all these committees actually need members who actually have some clue of the subject matter they're trying to deal with.

French novel falls foul of Apple's breast inspectors

Mad Mike

Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?

Interesting that I get two downvotes for pointing out that the USA (and particularly CIA) were largely responsible for creating the Taliban through their actions during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It seems that some people have no idea of history or the actions of countries/organisations in the past. Also interesting that they haven't written a response to say why they downvoted.

The sooner the USA realises they caused a lot of the Islamic fundamentalism and are continuing to encourage it through their actions (killing lots of Muslims, invading countries etc.), the sooner they will become mature enough to understand that breasts are not obscene of themselves. As an additional byproduct, the world might become more peaceful as well. Win all round.

Mad Mike
Joke

Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?

"What is child un-safe about a mother's breasts?"

Indeed. I would have seen some without hours of being born!! Maybe there's a link between being bottle fed and a fear of breasts?

Mad Mike

Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?

"Rubbish. There's no moral judgement here. We are talking about one of companies at the forefront of the push to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships. Jobs was no Protestant and I can't see anything particularly Christian about Apple."

I never said the company made a moral judgement. The company is responding to the morals of one of its largest markets (or at least the section with the biggest voice!!). I was talking about the morals of the people in the USA (not necessarily employed by Apple) that make breasts a thing to be hidden and have this prudish approach, that requires major companies to pander to them.

"This is about keeping the image of the ibookstore (and thus iphone/tablet) a child-safe place. We don't put pictures of naked women in children's bookstores and if little Johnny asks mommy why the naked lady has no legs, little Johnny isn't going to see the ipad again. That isn't what Apple wants."

Nope. This is about pandering to bigots. Strangely enough, children below puberty don't see nakedness as anything other than normal. They don't see any sexual context to it at all. Even those in their teenage years don't spend hours ogling book covers, they can get much better content elsewhere. This all speaks volumes about the bigots who see sex everywhere because they do and can't see that it actually speaks more about them and their morals and beliefs than about other people. Nakedness does not equal sex, except to them. If mommy had intelligence, when a child asks about why the lady is naked, she answers his question rather than getting all embarrassed and assuming her little darling is automatically thinking about sex, because that's what she thinks about. Simple, factual answer is all that's required. No need for embarrassment.

"As for raging against those whose decisions don't conform to your own morality as "bigots", I'll leave the reading of the irony-scale as an exercise for the reader."

I did no such thing. I merely said that they were trying to force their morals on me, whereas I wasn't trying to force my morals on them. I said let people do what they want provided they don't hurt anyone and if you don't like it, look away. I don't particularly like horror films, but I wouldn't stop them being published (or books). I simply don't watch or look away when they're on. Bigots try to force their morals on others, which is what they're doing (not Apple as explained earlier). I'm doing the exact reverse, do no irony there.

"Live and let live indeed. Stop trying to make me run my business to suit your moral philosophy."

I haven't expressed any moral philosophy other than 'live and let live'. I have merely pointed out that Apple are being driven to this by the morally outraged of the USA, rather than by how they want to run their business. If it weren't for the puritanical people out there, I'm sure they would happily publish this, as it all helps turnover and profit.

Mad Mike

Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?

@SundogUK

"Yeah, right. In the US they refuse to sell your book. In Afghanistan they behead you."

Of course, the interesting thing about all this, is that the Taliban (and their predecessors) are largely a product of the USA (specifically the CIA) from the days of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The USA setup (or provided the funding) for many of the Madrasas in Pakistan that create the forebears of the Taliban and created a lot of the extremists Islamic views that now exist. At the time, they used it to radicalise people into fighting the Soviets etc. Somewhat backfired now.

There have always been a few extremists (of every faith) around. However, most of those around at the moment are the product of the USA in one way or another.

Mad Mike

Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?

Whilst I agree that the response is different (beheading/refuse to sell), the thought processes are the same and it's that we need to worry about. It's all about narrow minded bigotry and enforcing your views on others, rather than 'live and let live'. If someone wants to sell a book with t*ts on the cover, don't look and don't buy if that offends you. Have categories, so people can make an informed decision to look or not. As long as it's not hurting someone physically, leave well alone.

It always amazes me that the UK is seen is prudish (and it's true to a point), but compared to the USA....................

Given the recent protests in the UK about women breastfeeding in public, what the hell must happen in the USA?

Psssst. Don't tell the Bride, but BBC Three is about to be jilted

Mad Mike

Re: Backdoor fundraising?

You already do if it's in real time. iPlayer doesn't require it, but realtime streaming already does. How they monitor and control it is another matter however!!

UK spies on MILLIONS of Yahoo! webcams, ogles sex vids - report

Mad Mike
Joke

Re: Oh so it's ok for GCHQ to spy on peoples webcams...

Ah yes, but when they do it, it's entirely professional and they get no gratification out of it other than knowing it's a job well done. When you do it.............well, no need to elaborate!!

Be interesting to know if the number of replacement keyboards at GCHQ due to liquid spillage has gone up since this started.

Mad Mike

Re: Anonymous Cluetard Cue Matt Bryant's forceful explanation on how this is all necessary...

""....and how we would've been blown to shreds by them terrorists long ago...." In Iraq in 2010, when the CIA was hunting the local AQ leader al-Masri, rumours were that they had tried using hijacked email and chatroom accounts of other Egyptian militants to try and trick al-Masri out of hiding. They soon found out al-Masri did not trust 'blind' coms becuase he could not see the face of the people he was talking to. When he was traced to his hideout in Tikriit he was online using his webcam.... though I don't know if it was a YM session. Oh, sorry, did that info make your head hurt?"

So, in order to catch one or two people, spying on everyone is acceptable? It's the kind of logic that says it's OK to kill 1000 innocents, as long as you get the 1 you were looking for. It's completely out of proportion to the issue.

Also, there were far more effective ways of stopping what was going on in Iraq. Top of the list would have been to stop lying, stop killing thousands of innocents and get out of the country when your reason for invading was shown to be complete and utter made up rubbish!!

French youth faces court for illegal drone flight

Mad Mike

Re: Congratulations

@AC.

"You said it yourself, a cheap, easy laugh but at who's expense?"

Nobodies expense as it wasn't aimed at anybody!! You're looking to take offence and strangely enough finding things. If you spent less time looking for reasons to be offended and more time just getting on with things and being less sensitive on other people behalf, perhaps there would be less grief in the world.