Posts by LucreLout 3039 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Jun 2014
Of course the local government situation is made more complex because so much of the IT is outsourced. But I see no reason why they should be held to a lower standard.
The public sector MUST be held to a far higher standard than corporates. I can choose not to buy Coke, or Ford, or give my details to El Reg. I cannot choose not to give my data to the tax man, or the NHS, or the local council; I am compelled to do so by law.
The problem is establishing the level of the person who should be charged
I don't see that as a problem as much as I see it as an excuse to preserve the risible status quo we currently enjoy.
Just start with the person at the top of the organisation and with the person at the bottom if we're talking lost or stolen laptops or portable media. If the gaffer has documentary evidence of delegating responsibility, authority, and resources to someone below them, then you move down a level. If the 'grunt' has documentary evidence of concerns being raised and not addressed then you move up one tier. Eventually you have the right people.
So the punishment.... well, it will have to be jail time if the matter is to be taken seriously, for it has not been in the past 30 years. Lets start with one day in jail per persons record leaked and we can adjust up or down from there as we go.
all the atmospheric increase is us.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that was a proven fact. It isn't, but we'll just assume for now that it is.
Emitting zero carbon is beyond our ability as a species - things we eat rot and the air we expel during breathing contains elevated CO2. So what we're left with is trying to minimise our collective output.
Minimising our output can be achieved in just two ways - lower output per person,or fewer people.
Efficiency gains should reduce our output per person, but they haven't, because we've found other uses for that energy - flight, air con, a lot of computers etc. People who were poor and had limited access to heating/cooling, transport, or power are now more wealthy and have raised their output per person.
People simply won't go back to an agrarian lifestyle, they just won't, so we can only reduce emissions per person by changing how the power they consume is generated. As vehicle propulsion currently means hydrocarbons, we can only target coal/gas/oil fired power stations for replacement with nuclear.
The above, if it could be implemented globally without proliferation of nuclear weapons, would reset our emissions by a generation or two. The issue then becomes flight. People are flying more often and further than ever before. Families don't live in the same town anymore - they don't even live in the same country or even continent. Only one couple I know are from the same country: the rest must fly to visit family. Jet engines are being made more efficient, but the increase in number of flights will dwarf engineering gains. Automotive uses will be a sideshow to air travel. Trains are still powered by coal (its just burned in the power station rather than the steam engine), which is the worst fuel in terms of CO2:Energy output.
Absent a carbon neutral jet fuel and some realistic way to power electric cars from nuclear fuel, all we have done is extend the timeline until we inevitably come face to face with route #2 - fewer people.
You can't double the population and expect emissions to fall. It isn't realistic. So how do you get the population to shrink? Well, you need to reduce the number of children being born. The debate on how best to achieve that can be expected to be heated & emotive, but ultimately you'd have to look to complusory sterilisation after the second child. A capitalist alternative would be to auction permits to have children. That's not something you could force on people without being absolutely certain the science is right this time and that the conclusions drawn from that science are also correct. We're simply nowhere near that point. Things like the CRU hack and all the crying wolf just discredit the 'science' more each year.
Logically, to minimise economic damage - for society will still need an economy - the least harmful way to reduce the population is to reduce childbirth within the lower half of the economically active adults. The poor, in other words. We'd need to maximise economic activity per person with fewer people in order to minimise the reduction in econoic activity you see, meaning only the well off could breed.
So what are your answers? What is your road map? There'll be plenty of downvotes for this, but predictably no answers. Slapping a few pence per litre on petrol, a couple of quid on the air passenger levy, and a few hundred on domestic power bills just doesn't change anything. So be honest about how you'd solve the issues... are we rationing child birth or auctioning permits to do it, or are we banning transport entirely and letting grandma freeze to death this winter? Are we having a really big war to whittle down the numbers, or making Logans Run real?
Let's just say that you don't have any answers, because you don't. You'd never be able to convince the world to follow your plan. Even assuming all climate 'science' is accurate as presented, all we have left in the toy box then is learning to live with the effects of any climate change. To accept it will happen at an ever escalating rate, and to try to reduce its impact upon us. Anything else is just wasting time and resources, assuming you're right about AGW of course. I don't sweat it, because I know you're not, or people like the CRU wouldn't be spinning their research while hiding or destroying their data to prevent it being analysed by more rational minds.
(b) how much of any rise is properly attributable to anthropic activity (this latter is what the article is about).
Pretty much all of it is attributable to carbon dioxide emissions
While that point is debateable, what is not debateable is that "pretty much all" CO2 emissions are not attributable to humans. You've conflated two seperate issues as though one provides evidence of the other. If every human dies tomorrow, we're talking about maybe 6% reduction in emissions.
or at least figure out how to relocate several billion people within the next 30 years.
Only, we won't. And I rather suspect that deep down you already know that.
50 years ago the same "cult of less" people demanded we had only 50 years of oil and by now we'd be riding horses to work again. Only, that didn't actually happen.
30 years ago, the alarmists demanded that if people kept driving, the UK would by now have the climate of Portugal.... Only, it doesn't.
10 years ago we were "at tipping point" where if things didn't change immediately it would be too late. Only, emissions increased over the period and there was once again no warming.
So this year you say we'll have to relocate billions people within 30 years... well, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you.
At every turn your ilk have demanded that "science" backed their view, chiefly by dismissing all contradictory science as wrong, only for reality to prove time and again that it is you who is wrong. The fundamental problem is that you always start with the conclusion that people must make do with less, which is the failed political dogma of communism rather than an objective hypothesis. Watermelons then, given every single "solution" to AGW is the mantra of less; communism, rather than capitalism.
The world isn't going back to communist policies (even if Labour is), it isn't going to accept less, and it isn't going to heed your message. Collectively we've wasted a lifetime listening to you forever change your minds on why reality hasn't fit with your beliefs; for the sake of our children its time to accept that you're wrong.
AGW does not exist because there is no proof of it despite spent billions looking for it over the last 50 years. If you want to be a communist, then be a communist and stop being ashamed of it; but don't try to frighten the rest of the world into communism 2.0 via the back door by pretending the sky is falling. It just isn't.
If you want to challenge something, check their data
Yes, lovely, only the CRU hack showed widespread gaming of the system by climate 'scientists' who had destroyed the data upon which their central hyposthesis was based, precisely to prevent its being challenged.
Too many careers, too much money, and too many ideological beliefs are now on the line for there ever to be credible, impartial, and persuasive science done around the issue now. With all the crying wolf, until the sheep are eaten, nobody is going to believe the little boy doing the shouting.
@Boltar
I think you're missing the point of a large unstressed engine - V8 sound and longevity
It is the engine configuration of the gods, no doubt.
I know for a fact that EVO engines (don't know about Imprezas) need very frequent maintenance
About 6k for an oil change... which is one bolt and a filter, so hardly taxing.
plus they sound like all 4 pots - ie shit
Thankfully the boxer configuration gives a great warble.... Not nearly so sweet as the V8, but hardly shit.
the older ones had turbo lag in which you could make a cup of tea in while the engine got its act together
Agreed, but new design turbos are almost linear in terms of power delivery, with exceptionally little lag - not as good as a supercharger, but certainly not what they were in the 80s and early 90s.
Any engine can be boosted to stupid bhp, its not hard. The hard bit is making the engine reliable day to day and making it last.
Again, agreed. That's why I stopped at 400 bhp, because after that reliability or cost start to creep in. Obviously a V8 can be boosted north of 1000 bhp, but I assumed Mr Worstall was a little too, erm, middle aged for that.
I wonder how many of the current crop of small capacity high power 4 pots will still being going in 30 or 40 years time without having required a complete rebuild including new valves and pistons? Not many I suspect
None, I'd venture. But then I'm assuming a globe trotting capitalist pig like the good Mr Worstall is unlikely to be ducking the tax man in the same juridiction for long enough to require such longevity...
As to the merging, working from engineering and physics basics, you would have the faster traffic merging into the slower traffic, as otherwise you are stating that the slow traffic that is in the slow lane because it cannot go any faster is required to break the laws of physics
It shouldn't matter which lane merges across if people are merging correctly. The correct way to do it is to zip merge (merge in turn) at the point the lanes meet, having offset the vehicles on the run up to that point.
As you say, both lanes will be doing the same reduced speed immediately after the merge, so there should be no need for excessive braking.
2. You'd have to be stupid* to drive for 34 hours to dodge tax
On the face of it, Tim is going about this wrong. If he purely wants a large engined car for power output, then he'd be better off gaming the system by purchasing something tunable but small engined, such as an EVO or WRX/STi. They come with 2 or 2.5 litre engines, which can be modified to output about 400 BHP, which is enough to match a typical yank tank.
"Julian Assange is my hero" he declares.... Ok, lets think that through from his position.
He obviously believes in what wikileaks do, and he obviously believes that any sort of state secrecy is not a good thing. Ok, fine, so why does that make Julian his hero? Surely, believing as he does, Chelsea Manning should be his hero, for it is Manning that made the larger sacrifice for no personal gain.
@ChrisW
As far as I recall Sutcliffe didn't rape nor torture people he killed prostitutes
Oh, ok, that's all right then. ???!!!!
One is an offence of honesty involving trivial sums of money from wholly repellent and amoral people and their dark ages death cult. The other, by your own words, murdered mostly peaceful women who were just trying to make some money.
That this flies over your head can only prov.... oh... wait... The schools are out, right? Sorry everyone - I've done it again. Every sodding year.
Ok, look Chris, when you grow up, you'll realise that the world isn't perfect. You may have moral issues with women selling their bodies, but that doesn't make it ok to kill them. No, really, it doesn't. Grand Theft Auto is Play Station not play book.
@ChrisW
It's only a short step away from this to claiming Peter Sutcliffe was doing some good
That's actually a pretty bloody big step right there. Sutcliffe tortured, raped, and murdered people. These women just stole some money from people who torture, rape, and murder people.
Mr Woods
a "99.99% accurate" test would give you 3,000 leads in the UK alone - it would take something like 30,000 field operatives
To proactively monitor people in advance of an incident, I wholly agree with your statement.
Where the maths works in the other direction though, is what happens after an incident and a terrorist is conclusively identified. The spying, for that is what it is, allows you to retrospectively get into their communications and start back tracking their lives. Provided the terrorist wasn't a lone wolf, you will have a significantly easier time identifying their handler or other associates.
I'm not arguing in favour of the surveillance or against it: as far as I am concerned 'we' haven't had a reasoned and open debate about the issue sufficient for me to reach an objective conclusion. Perhaps I have not yet given it sufficient thought.
I argue only that being able to backtrack communications (and therefore movements) after the fact is undeniably useful in identifying other terrorists and so preventing further incidents.
This article reminds me of why I was once a Guardian reader. It used to be funny, witty, erudite and engaging.
You must be very old.
For the past 30 years I've been old enough to be familiar with its works, the Guardian has been hypocritical, illogical, emotive, and just plain wrong.
Why, take its work on tax avoidance by the use of SPEs, offshore trusts, and venture capitalists - that saved it over £350,000,000 in taxes, which would have paid for a lot of nurses. And yet it emotively campaigns against this behaviour for everyone else.
I could raise its "use me as a mouthpiece" fiasco from this very website as further example of an appauling lack of rigour, intellect, or rationale from its own science editor.
In short, the Guardian is not what it pretends to be and it is not what its most avid readers believe it to be. Its just a left wing Daily Mail, nothing more.
....is how America can claim to be a democracy when they once again rail road themselves into a choice between Bush and Clinton [1]. The only change being which Bush and which Clinton. Is there no sense that perhaps these families have had more than enough influence on American politics to date and that there needs to be some fresh thinking?
Political dynasties do nothing to further democracy. The country should not be the family business.
[1] - Ok, there's other candidates currently in the running, but this is almost certainly how things will end.
@Robert
Sorry, but he is probably right, just not for the reasons he thinks.
I agree that IQ is bell curved such that 100 is always in the middle of the curve. Half above, half below. The reason he's probably right, is that head injuries occur which damage the brain, reducing the IQ of the injured party. As these are as likely to happen to someone in the top half of the stack as the lower half, some people must be dropping through the 100 threshold.
I'm assuming the bell curve is not adjusted to reflect this, and I may be wrong, which is why I said "probably right".
@Nigel
Once surveillance is legalized, it will be used by those in power against the people who were supposed to be protected.
Once anything is legalized, it will be used by those in power against the people.
Looking through history, we had income taxes brought in to fund a war with France, and now target all workers. We brought in a top rate to target the rich, which has been dropped so far that it targets mostly non-rich people now. Then we brought in a super tax to go after the rich again, and it is only a matter of time before that ends up being paid mostly by non-rich people too.
We brought in speed limits to curb those with supercars from using them flat out on public roads. We set it at the top speed for a typical family car of the day. Then failed to move it upwards with technology and engineering advances, such that it now curbs every car on the road significantly. As the limit was routinely ignored, it became a target for taxes via cameras. Only, cameras don't mostly catch loadsamoney spanking his Fezza up and down the M1, they catch old Mrs Miggins pottering to the shops for some milk & cheese.
The existing snooping laws that were supposed to be used to catch terrorists ended up being used by local council jobsworths to terrorise dog walkers and parents trying to game the school admissions roulette. I'm not suggesting these people be given a free pass, only that we shouldn't be targetting them as though they were terrorists.
These things are always brought in to catch someone else, with reassurances that they won't target or affect the population at large, and yet..... and yet they always end up doing so. Sunset clauses renewable only by referrendum every 5 or 10 years can help here, as it allows people to reflect on how the law is being used and whether they wish it to continue.
How come there isn't yet European GCHQ-thingie?
Mostly because the Europe isn't a country, and countries have always and will always spy on each other.
That way they could only legally spy on communications with one receiver/sender outside of the EU.
Rather less effective than what we have now then. If we didn't spy on the French, we'd have to wait until they raised the white flag to determine they were fighting a battle.
As for corporations not having money, please excuse me but it is Microsoft sitting on a 50-billion dollar bank account, not some people on its board - they just manage the money, it is not theirs. Proof of that is that they cannot take the money and spend it on their houses or cars. So it does not belong to them, it belongs to Microsoft.
No, it belongs to Microsofts shareholders. It is their money, not the directors, not the states. It has already been taxed as corporation tax on profits.
Taxes are necessary for the State to function, and their amount should depend on what the People want to have available to everyone
Correct, but only up to the point that those you're taking the tax from deem it unreasonable or that you use the money incorrectly, after which time they will seek the means to reduce their exposure. Corporations can change domicile to almost any nation on earth in less time than it would take you to fly there if you head for the airport right now. For individual tax payers, relocation takes a little longer but the principle remains. That rather sets a limit on how much they will allow you to extract from them, no matter "what the people want".
Read some Dickens to see how a purely charity and private-sector driven society works in reality...
In terms of Dickens, "the rich" seem to have had poorer health care, fewer opportunities, and worse diet than even the poorest in Britain enjoy today.
Read some history to see how a purely state driven economy works in reality.... that is to say that it doesn't ever work in reality. Taxes and social provision then, have to be a balance, which is precisely the point I was making when I said there has to be some level of taxation.
You're saying a private citizen can outspend a STATE (who basically has carte blanche due to being sovereign)?
If a state spent 100% of its take on chasing more pie, how long do you think the revoloution would take?
Apple et al can pay billions for tax advice and not blink. The IRS can't. It has to function and collect what it gets now, as well as funding the fight for more pie. Those with the pie are, predictably, defensive about it, and what they spend on operating costs (lawyers) is not profit and so not taxable. In effect, the IRS fund both sets of lawyers, due to the way corporate taxation works.
Please don't shoot the messenger - I didn't make this sh*t up, I just understand how it works.
Nope. It doesn't, that's impossible. At best it postpones payment of US tax. They can't pay the money out as dividends (or whatever) without repatriating it and paying tax.
They can, however, secure virtually interest free loans on it and use those for dividends. Eventually, as has happened before, a "tax holiday" comes along with very favourable rates, at which point they repatriate the cash and pay very little tax on it (usually around 7% rather than 20%+).
@Pascal Monet
Everyone has it in against tax but without taxes there would be no hospitals, no roads, and no welfare.
Two things....
Firstly, you are aware that provision of those things in whichever domicile you reside, will consume only around half your taxes, and that of the money spent on their provision, much of it is wasted on valueless internal paperwork?
Secondly, hospital provision pre-dates income taxation, such as The Royal Free Hospital not being so named because they decline to treat William or Harry. Most roads pre-date the war with France which gave birth to income taxation. Charity existed long before welfare and was arguably more difficult to defraud for any length of time.
Having said all that, you might be suprised to discover that I agree with your general sentiment that some level of taxation and state service provision is neccessary to have a civilised society.... Its just that that level is far below the level we currently endure in Britain. Taking into account all allowances etc, my tax rate currently nets out about 32%, so if you're really only paying 25% you're either in America, or a contractor.
But then how do you nail the ultra-rich who can pull off Tax Planning 101
This will be as popular as a fart in an elevator, but the truest answer you will ever get is this: You can't.
The ultra rich have wealth in many locales, across all asset classes, and can afford better lawyers and accountants than any one government can afford. They are truly globally mobile, and can base themselves as readily out of America as they can Britain, or Bermuda, or Monaco.
Your definition of fairness, or mine, just don't come into it.
@AC
All that is needed is the following: All citizens and businesses shall pay taxes as a percentage of gross income. No less than 15% of gross income or receipts shall be paid. All state and local taxes (if applicable) shall be paid as no more 15% on Net Income (after Federal Taxes and ALL employee benefits are paid). The sole remaining deduction will be for Mortgage Interest.
Sorry AC, but I can already think of too many ways around what you have written that it could ever be effective. And I'm a code jockey as opposed to a lawyer or tax accountant.
As an aside, you'll also blow up a truly mahoosive housing bubble once you make interest deductible. Most people consider most of their taxes dead money, and so would happily take living in a bigger house and offsetting the interest against the taxes, allowing them to bank the larger gains on their home instead. As a nation, you'd be bust in five minutes I'm afraid.
@Tim
MS does have some of the US rights to its tech held offshore. Apple has the offshore rights to its tech held offshore and the US rights held in the US. Thus Apple pays full US whack on sales and profits in the US. MS not so much.
In the US and in Delaware is not the same thing as people think when you say "in the US".
@Doug
Sorry, but you're wrong. Both software and hardware have extensive IP and R&D associated with them, which can be licenced or costed from anywhere.
You can port the manufacturing cost about the globe too, along with gaming internal/external reselling at the whoelsale tier.
@Gordon10
In reality probably less, as they have had less time rolling in money to develop a byzantine structure like M$
It takes no time at all to achieve this.
I have previous professional experience (in IT) in this area, and am absolutely confident that Apple, Amazon, and Google will be watching this one with interest and will be fully backing MS. A win here for the IRS would be a game changer - potentially forcing corporate relocations outside of the USA.
@AC
Blackmail only really works if someone has done something seriously illegal.
No it doesn't. Blackmail works whenever the cost of compliance is less than the cost of non-compliance.... sort of like industry regulation really.
Lets pretend I'd signed up to the site as a member. Cheating on my mrs isn't clever but isn't illegal. Divorce, at least in Britain, would almost certainly result in my losing my home, most of my assets, and worst of all, my children.
A woman scorned is unlikely to want to facilitate cooperative arrangements with the father of her children once she has won custody. Access will surely be arranged, but access is all it will ever be. Right now I can go hug my little ones whenever I like, put them to bed, make them dinner, play in the garden with them, read to them... so it goes. Access, well, access isn't that.
In that hypothetical situation, blackmailing me to prevent data release would work all day long. I avoid that by not cheating... seems the easiest solution to me, but what do I know.
I have no idea how people keep an affair secret.
Remembering the golden rule might help them - If you're having an affair with someone from work, then everybody at work knows you're chewing the company candy. I know some people will disagree with me, and think they're smart or discreet enough to get away with it, but trust me on this, everybody knows.
I'm happily married, so get to enjoy a nice guilt free sleep next to my Mrs. Reason, opposable thumbs, and mastery of our base urges are what seperates us from the animals.
How would they cope with the Magic Roundabout?
The magic roundabout is just a series of interlinked roundabouts. My mrs face was funny the first time she saw the one at MK (she's not British and had little previous experience of roundabouts prior to import). Once I explained how it worked she was fine.
Road layouts are not going to be the problem for these cars. The problem is going to be stuff like sheep, cyclists, or other drivers that don't follow road rules. It'll struggle with fallen trees or single track roads where the housewife has overshot the passing space and refuses point blank to reverse 5 meters into it instead of forcing the JohnnyCab to reverse 50 meters around a bend, etc etc. How will it cope with situations where drivers don't follow the rules of the road? The challenges are not insurmountable, but will need a lot of real world experience in order to design effective tests.
The rule of thumb my father, and others, have always used is that take-home pay (so after taxes, expenses etc.) from contracting should be approximately double that from permanent work. This is to compensate for the uncertainty.
I work in a team dominated by contractors. When there are cut backs, the contractors take a small haircut on the day rate and one of the permies gets the boot, so 100% hair cut. Its the permies that have greater uncertainty than the contractors.
Don't get me wrong; I'm off contracting too next year, as its A) More lucrative, B) Skips over the permie BS like appraisals and comp reviews, and C) the tax system incentivises it so much, especially given my horrifically expensive and lengthy commute, the price of lunch, training, and computer equipment.
Contracting won't double my take home pay, but it will increase it substantially while removing some of the less enjoyable parts of working. It really is the way of the future.
don't be expecting any of the greater and greatest coders to be thinking about working for crumbling systems operations
Perhaps an example to illustrate what I meant as I am often not as clear as I'd like....
Take a trade capture system. Lets run that on an extremely locked down and secured set of servers on a well monitored and secured network. Now lets realise that the coder that built the system wasn't too clever and is accidentally, in ignorange, broadcasting those trades to anyone behind the firewall that cares to listen, and worse still the inbound sink isn't secured.
The data leaks. The data is corruptable. None of that is the sysadmins fault, and none of it is within their gift to fix. That is a real life situation I previously encountered and remedied. Developers; We're a risk.
Now lets suppose I was Russian and the bank was British and the nations were at war... Looking outside the firewall or relying on intrusion detection is really missing the bigger picture, which was my message to Sir Dave.
My reading of your message to the City is "Beware: The Russians are coming".
I feel it only prudent to inform you that you are about 15 years too late: The Russians are already here, along with the Chinese, the Indians, the Koreans, and the Argentinians, and that is just on my desk.
They're already behind the firewall, already have escalated privileges, and already understand our systems - they wrote several of them! In the event of outright war with their home nations, they could readily become what used to be termed "the enemy within", and there is no credible defence against them.
The reality is that the only way to protect systems in the UK from attack by foreign nations in times of war is to not employ their nationals in times of peace, and that, put simply, is just not realistic.
Systems security absolutely must be taken seriously, far more so than it is today. My systems guys don't stand a chance against the lack of secure computing knowledge in the development teams.
Perhaps we should regulate who is allowed to build systems for the City, and other important but apparantly not critical infrastructure? We could, you know, have an industry regulator to determine who can code/admin/other to sufficient standards that they are allowed to practice the profession?
To make sure nobody spots you, use a range-booster, fly higher, and just hope that nobody with binoculars gets the idea that a drone with a pringles tin hanging off it is maybe a bit dodgy
Fly one of those puppies around the towers at Canary Wharf and I reckon exceptionally few of my colleagues would even suspect something computer secruity related was going on - most people, even within IT, are very poorly educated about computer security. Attach a small advertising banner on it for something interesting and they'd be even less suspicious. Plenty of corporate WiFi here to try and exploit.
The real fun will come when/if someone is ever able to miniturise a mobile phone base station such that it can fit on a drone.
So the slimeballs at Ashley Madison make you pay $19 to remove your profile, then don't actually remove it and then allow hackers in.
It absolutely amazes me that a site which promotes casual sex hasn't learned anything about taking precautions:
Encryption anyone? Data Segregation? Intrusion detection?
This seems to have been the digital equivalent of barebacking anything that moves and assuming you'll be ok because you're on the pill.
It is interesting to speculate what will happen when a virus appears that is as lethal as Ebola and as infectious as influenza.
I was speculating on exactly this on my comute this morning, as the heavy set woman on the other side of the aisle hacked, coughed, sneezed and wheezed her way through the journey. Seriously people, if you're sick, just stay home.
....was the funniest man that ever lived. Quite how the author can, with a straight face, cite him as an influence on Russel Brand, the least funny man that ever lived, is beyond me.
If Bill Hicks had a shit, that shit would be funnier, smarter, and more personable than Brand. It would probably be more influential too.
@Matt Bryant
Try a little background reading then. She has admitted to assisting if not planning in the distribution of Snowden's pilfered documents, a fact that makes it frankly amazing that she is still allowed to enter the US without arrest.
Whether she has a legal case will possibly not stem from why she is on a list. It may be predicated on whether whomever put her on the list had legal authority to do so, and whether or not the border guards exceeded their authority in detaining and searching her. Was correct process followed on each occasion will be central to any case, as opposed to why was she originally placed on the list.
I've not seen any impartial or factual information with regard to the above and as such my mind remains open, which led me to write "I don't know if she actually has a legal case or not". You seem to have prejudged the issue due to the identity of those involved, which is not how I understand the law is supposed to work.
@IMG
Here's the sad fact that many who view Snowden, Manning and Ass-anage as heroes ...
My view is that Assange is a morally bankrupt, talentless, and possibly rapey publicity whore, and Manning is another of his victims. Equating Snowden with Assange is deeply unfair.
Snowden has not been charged with anything (I appreciate that may be difficult), and laws may be broken without conviction in certain circumstances. Does he have a case to answer? Yes, but that does not imply guilt. A trial would require an impartial jury, and at the current time, I'm not sure that could be assembled with confidence.
You'll probably take the above to mean I view Snowden as a hero and his actions as just. I don't view him as a hero. Publicity has not prevented any of the techniques employed or data being gathered from continuing, but it has exposed us to the risk that terrorists and foreign spies will now take greater precautions and be harder to protect society against. The level of risk is debateable, but that there is a risk is not. I'm unclear what has been achieved, either positive or not.
I do, however, firmly believe that Snowden took his actions with the best of intentions, acting in good faith, and inspite of the obvious personal consequences. In my view that makes him a good man, and the worst charge I could currently level at him would be that he MAY have been misguided: Your view on that will be determined by which side of the security/privacy debate you currently stand. Did he commit treason? Possibly, possbly not - only a fair trial could determine that.
I maintain then, that he is not a criminal, but a wanted man. Not a hero, but then heroes are the stuff of youth, and I'm well beyond that.
I bet she's funding the sueball with more money from her rich parents.
Assuming you're right, how does that invalidate her legal case or diminish what she's experiencing? Parental fiscal status should be irrelevant.
I might add that I don't know if she actually has a legal case or not, as it may be that the TSA/Border guards are acting within their authority and applicable laws. I would hope and expect that she has taken appropriate legal advice.
@Ian Michael Gumby
Could it be that she's a known associate of a wanted criminal...
Wanted man would be a better expression as Ed Snowden has not been convicted of anything as far as I am aware.
But yes, I would suspect that it is exactly because of the Snowden thing that she is being subjected to additional measures; And I suspect that deep down inside she knows this too. If we're going to be objective about this, you can't embarrass a national government and expect them to roll out the red carpet for you when you visit.
However far at odds this may be with the rest of the world, if the government view the Snowden leaks as "a bad thing", and it seems they do, then they are unlikely to want to accord unfettered passage for those involved, lest they be working on a follow up project.
It may not be right, but it was wholly predictable.
@IanTP
So Greece allegedly owe 300ish billion, Germany still owes Greece 297 Billion for the WW2 occupation, no one mentions that tho
I'm getting real sick of this.... I'm English. My grandfathers fought in the war. One was taken alive, and lived the rest of his life with his POW tatoo and forever refused to talk about what he had endured. I state this only to frame my rebuttal...
Firstly, Germany paid Greece 115 million marks as war reparations. You can't accept settlement then come back for a second bite of the cherry.
Secondly, with diminishing exceptions, the generations living today played no part in the war, active or otherwise. Why then should they be blamed relentlessly for its horrors and its costs? No German workers today were born before the war was over, so why should they pay? Why are we blaming todays Germans for the actions of their grandparents and great grandparents, and for how many generations are they to bear guilt?
The French socialists who just threw the same bile into the face of Germany are a disgrace. The war cannot be a stick with which to beat endless generations of Germans. It is outrageous.
Should the Italians compensate Europe for the Romans? The Danes for the Vikings? How much does Britain owe the Indians for America, or the Aboriginies for Oz? Who is left to receive reparations from Spain for the Conquistadors?
History is a lesson; It is not a weapon, and it is not a tax.
1) Recognise that it is far more left leaning than the population of the UK. Determine why that is, and correct it, particularly in the case of BBC news. I vaguely recall they have some internal report telling them this, which they refuse to publish.
2) Stop the light entertainment. If I'm to be forced to fund the BBC then I don't care what their ratings are versus a commercial outfit that I am not compelled to fund. They can begin by selling off Strictly come cooking on ice with the stars, and all the other guff. Oh, and EastEnders. The lower end of the IQ bell curve is well catered for elsewhere.
3) Talent development. Instead of paying vastly over the odds for household names, just bring through new unsigned talent on cheaper contracts. If someone wants to earn megabucks presenting some football show, let them go to sky and just give the role to someone else. Nobody at the BBC needs to earn 6 figure salaries. It's just telly (and some radio).
4) Disposals of channels. There's simply no reason to have so many channels on either radio or tv. There's too much duplication and repetition. Prune this back to about half the offering and use the funds released to improve programming.
5) Accept that the content produced by the BBC belongs to the tax payer not some shell corporation. Move the licence fee onto iPlayer and sell access to that around the world. If the quality of offering is as high as the luvvies at the Beeb keep telling us, then there should be plenty of non-UK citizens willing to subscribe.
6) Pay their damn taxes. Everyone on screen should be hired as a PAYEemployee and their salary published. Thisis public money and they shouldn't be paying out phenomenal sums using incorproation to reduce tax and conceal salaries.
7) Realise that it is not entitled to take a stance such as "climate change is real". For as long as the science is in debate (and it is more so now than ever) then the BBC should not be taking sides. That neither educates, nor amuses.
8) Understand that words like "terrorist" or "illegal immigrant" are not verbotten.
9) Costs. How many people do you actually need to send to the world cup / olympics etc and how long do they actually need to be there?
10) Stop being so inward looking and self congratulatory. You're just a media outlet; And one which has past its prime at that. You need to be far more accountable to those compelled to pay for you.
Possibly even a better indicator then asking for religious preference as only the true believers would order a specific meal type.
Right up until some true believer realises that if they're blowing up the plane they can skip lunch, and so orders the beer battered onion rings & pulled pork, to throw authorities off the trail.
Given the purpose of any proxy would likely be identifying muslims, and they practice fasting every year, I'm pretty sure they could manage a flight without eating, thus making food a very poor proxy for that religion. So while I don't have any good idea why they want to collect that info, other than "because we can", I don't buy the religious proxy argument.
Is anyone going to install this on a production machine before Christmas?
Mostly, no, but a little bit yes.
My home PCs are getting the upgrade on day 1. They're my production machines in the sense of being where I do my R&D projects, or remoting when working from home. An actual business based production machine? Nah. We're still on XP (I kid you not) with the Win7 roll out progressing very slowly.
As for Massive Debts, I'm sure we'll disagree on this, but personally I think the way to make a country's finances secure is not to keep building on the roof whilst undermining the foundations.
We can't build anything on the roof because the country didn't fix it while the sun was shining. Which led us to get soaked when the storms arrived. The foundations of the economy are not to be found in its public sector, that is merely the frosting on the cake.
You may be happy to dismiss this as "ideology" (whilst merrily continuing with your own ideology), but some of us are not so casual as to say "hey, we've got plenty of energy, why should we worry?"
And some of us are intelligent enough to see environmentalists for the watermelons that they are. Funny how none of their solutions are market based (and they could so easily be)... an objective person may wonder why that is.
Oh, and, by the way, I do think that nuclear is a viable option, but you don't just wave a magic wand and have a nuclear power station appear, neither is it good for a country's finances when you get a foreign organisation (EDF) to build it for you with a dodgy deal that involves paying £90 billion to France and guaranteeing to pay double the price for the electricity it generates for 35 years!
I quite agree. Which is why we should build lots of our own as soon as the economy can afford it.
PS WMDs? ROFL! You really are reaching now...
Deaths from AGW? Zero. None historically, none now, and none predicted later. Deaths from WMDs are rather higher than that this year alone. Reasoning is the word you seek, not reaching.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
