Slashdot Mirror

People use phones to report drug dealers to the police; do you want this done to you when it turns out that the policeman is working for the cartel?

This argument seems bogus. If you hide the number, the police can't see it directly on their display, but I'm sure they could get it if they wanted to, by talking to the carriers, etc. It's just a bad idea to rely on a hidden number for anonymity in any case.

BAN anonymous calls or otherwise hiding their numbers and identities. I can't think of a single legitimate reason why a call should be anonymous.

People use phones to report drug dealers to the police; do you want this done to you when it turns out that the policeman is working for the cartel?

REQUIRE carriers to supply valid CID information or otherwise allow calls to be identified.

Apart from the above; carriers currently do some very bad tricks to block incoming VOIP calls. These would become much worse if they could always identify which were VOIP and which were non-VOIP calls.

REQUIRE carriers to have valid information that matches a phone number with a company.

Apart from all the above; many people go ex-directory in order to avoid their former spouses. There have been a number of cases where the compromise of the phone company's directory has lead to these people being killed or worse.

There's no french money, there's only european money.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2145882/How-tell-euro-note-comes--German-doesnt-beat-Greek.html

If the number of the euro note has a "U" in front, it's French euro.

Example:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/17/article-0-13243611000005DC-4_468x286.jpg

Saddam stole the food money to build lavish palaces, and you blame the UN, West, and US. Please educate yourself, or is it oikophobia?

Saddam’s palaces triple in 10 years

Another related story about people being exposed appeared on Slashdot a few days ago. Fortunately that one had a happy ending (no pun intended): the names were published. The First Amendment survives another brush with the false dignity of the powerful.

"I very much doubt you are a UK citizen."

Doubt away all you like pal. Not everyone in the UK is a bed wetting lefty sobbing over a Guardian editorial about criminals human rights.

Yes, the well known left wing media like the Daily Mail were all for his extradition, and the BNP are known to be quite cuddly too.
</sarcasm>

They're trying to keep this under the radar and out of the press (public knowledge of this could threaten millions of dollars in research grants), but the fact is that there has not been any global warming the past 16 years. This is the fact they don't want you to know about. Link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

The timing is seems to be pretty good for the photoshop fail of the Russian orthodox Church http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126092/Watch-closely-Russian-church-apologises-Photoshop-fail-20-000-timepiece-disappears-wrist-Patriarch.html Although Nokias PureView was a pretty good one as well :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud0wbhUqX1Q

I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos.

I am. Islam is a blight on humanity and evil things like those emanating from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan flow directly from Islam.

Blaming the religion is the wrong approach. All you will accomplish by attacking a religion is to add to the resolve of those extremist followers who you seem to conflate with the vast majority of those followers who are not so fearful, ignorant, and hateful. Notice I said "a" religion. Not Islam. Christianity has it's share of nut-job followers too. They're not as well organized since The Enlightenment, but they are still there. We need to leave the religion out of it and deal with religious extremists for what they are, violent and anti-social criminals.

I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos.

I am. Islam is a blight on humanity and evil things like those emanating from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan flow directly from Islam.

> I verified that my mobile number is set to be visible to myself only. I then used
> a fake facebook account that I keep around, and searched for my phone number.

So you set up a Facebook account as Jane Doe with phone number 123-456-789-0000. However, several of your real-life friends have you under that number in their cellphone contacts as John Smith. Those friends have Facebook accounts, and their mobile phone contacts get scraped. Now Facebook knows you're lying, and they can connect that account with your real name.

I read about people who get freaked out, because minutes after joining Facebook, they get a long list of "people you may know" that they do actually know.

I don't do Fecesbook, but I probably have a profile anyways, according to a former Facebook employee... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2165543/Facebooks-Dark-Profiles-twisted-genius-Mark-Zuckerbergs-quest-total-domination.html

> She claims that in Autumn 2006 everyone at the company was so convinced that
> Facebook was something that everyone should have that when the product team
> created an experimental feature called dark profiles in 2006, nobody even flinched.

> People can be tagged in Facebook photos even if they do not have a profile, and the idea
> was to create a 'dark' version which could apparently be activated if they finally signed up.

China - The first economy based of stealing other people's ideas and manufacturing it for less.

Samuel Slater anyone? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-15002318

Of course the British couldn't help themselves either...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178330/Royal-Worcester-porcelain-Remarkable-diary-porcelain-maker-1791-details-stole-trade-secrets.html
http://www.amazon.com/For-All-Tea-China-Favorite/dp/B003D0ZUOK

In innocent ways as well..

"Yo yo, man, this President butter is the BOMB man, it's so beautiful, like yellow cake. Margarine is just toxic, it gives me food poisoning. Those trans-fats are a public health issue. I swear, it gives me the runs like salmonella, a real brown out in my pants. I'm in the facility, performing evacuation of my bowels until there's a spillover. Dropping a real dirty bomb, you know what I'm saying?"

(selected words from this list

No - the point is that the registered keeper is legally responsible for knowing who was driving.

Ok, ignoring the fact that you're citing the Daily Mail of all things as a accurate source of information, it also doesn't say that there is any such legal responsibility.

OK, here's another reference: Failing to Identify Driver (Failing to Supply Information)

Yes, the law had a loophole in it that could be exploited by lieing, so they closed it by just penalising everyone, whether they are innocent or guilty - great job!

No they set a legal obligation which you are guilty of if you do not fulfil. It is part of the Highway Code and will be taught to drivers after 1988, and it is an obligation of drivers who have already passed the test to keep up with changes to motoring law.

No - the point is that the registered keeper is legally responsible for knowing who was driving.

Ok, ignoring the fact that you're citing the Daily Mail of all things as a accurate source of information, it also doesn't say that there is any such legal responsibility. If you are an organisation operating a pool car system or hire car system then I can see this would be standard due dilligence, but for personal users where the car is shared by the family, you can't expect people to keep track of this. This is especially true on long journeys where families often swap driver regularly througout the journey - 14 days later when you get an NIP can you really be expected to know which member of the family was driving at that specific moment in time?

If you don't know who was driving you commit a different offence, but the original speeding offence cannot be charged. To avoid this being used frivolously the penalty is higher than is likely for a speeding offence. It is clear that if you don't know who's driving you should plead guilty to failing to identify the driver and take the fine and penalty points - not to commit purgery.

Yes, the law had a loophole in it that could be exploited by lieing, so they closed it by just penalising everyone, whether they are innocent or guilty - great job!

One of those FAQs is "what if I don't know who was driving", and the answer they give is something along the lines of "you are legally required to tell us who was driving". So there you go, they are stating that if you don't know who was driving you have a legal obligation to commit purgury.

No - the point is that the registered keeper is legally responsible for knowing who was driving. If you don't know who was driving you commit a different offence, but the original speeding offence cannot be charged. To avoid this being used frivolously the penalty is higher than is likely for a speeding offence. It is clear that if you don't know who's driving you should plead guilty to failing to identify the driver and take the fine and penalty points - not to commit purgery.

Apparently, this guy (psychologist Dr. Aric Sigman) apparently has lots of agendas...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1149207/How-using-Facebook-raise-risk-cancer.html

Not saying that TV is good for you, but sometimes you have to look at the source of this stuff and wonder how seriously to take it...

PETA 'killed more than 95 per cent of adoptable dogs and cats in its care last year' shocking new report says

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals killed more than 95 per cent of animals in its care last year at a Virginia shelter, a shocking new report states. ...

Records from 2011 alone state that of the 1,992 cats and dogs received, 34 were transferred, and 24 were adopted. The remaining 1,911 were put down, the report states.

Read the rest at the link. If you want to know more get Penn and Teller's Bullshit! on DVD and watch the PETA episode.

Daily Mail, therefore inadmissible as evidence in reasonable debate.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals killed more than 95 per cent of animals in its care last year at a Virginia shelter, a shocking new report states. ...
Records from 2011 alone state that of the 1,992 cats and dogs received, 34 were transferred, and 24 were adopted. The remaining 1,911 were put down, the report states.

Read the rest at the link. If you want to know more get Penn and Teller's Bullshit! on DVD and watch the PETA episode.

That, my friend, is an over-simplified concept of business. No-one "withholds", "refuses", or "adds" any functionality to another company's product without some form of licensing agreement being reached. Apple did not want to give Google what Google wanted for the features. This is not in any way the same as saying Google "refused" to give them turn by turn navigation.
Here's a link to an article talking about some of the insights from sources. Sadly with things like this, there's no such thing as source data, so we'll just have to go with the sources and articles. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2209539/Apple-replaced-Google-Maps-iPhone-5-controversial-app-wasnt-pleased-Android-turn-turn-voice-navigation.html

> It's nearly impossible to find much of any negative science on drinking coffee.

"Drinking three cups of coffee a day linked with vision loss and blindness"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2213308/Coffee-cups-day-increase-risk-vision-loss-blindness.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

> How many people die each year from ingesting Claviceps? And how many suffer significant morbidity from OP or other pesticide poisoning? Risk = frequency * severity. Focusing on severity alone is idiotic.

The disease was considered eradicated at the end of the 90's. Since then we're talking again a few deaths per state per year. The risk is not high, it's just moronically stupid to risk it at all. Walking across a highway blindfolded in a flyover state is very unlikely to kill you, but you don't see people do it. For good reason. Why run idiotic risks just because of some trend or short-term fashion ?

And of course, when people do get convinced of something in large numbers, "science" has to back em up. Empirical data, of course, is found lacking when this happens. From the "health risks" of nuclear power plants or cell phones to the latest fad in vitamin supplements. Science doesn't support public opinion on these matters, but the average person on the street you can talk to will say it does. Why ? Generally because some pseudoscientific magazine or non-scientific publication (like the nytimes) published some vague, anecdotal evidence. And somehow, despite massive fuckups (we're heading for a new ice age in 50 years was in the new york times just 20 years ago).

> You don't need to use any animals at all to grow organic food. And most people who eat organic food eat *less* meat than most people who eat conventional food, so that part of your argument is no more rooted in facts than the rest.

The animals are not for eating, they're for manure.

I just don't like how organic food is treated by people here : it's considered cool, anti-establishment even, and therefore it "must" be healthy. Therefore it "must" be better for the environment. Yet, there is no proof that it improves health (just that generally young people eat it, and they are healthier), it is obviously bad for the environment because it's more energy-intensive, and there is proof that it is in fact more dangerous to eat (believe it or not, people didn't start using pesticides because they liked them, there's an actual reason). Also organic food is often lacking in key components. Now this does not often cause an illness in modern times, except if "just the right things happen", so every now and then some guy gets a disease nobody has gotten in 100 years. Why ? Because the ground his/her food grew in lacked a few components for some random reason, and the guy never moved in his life. Doesn't happen with standard agricultural foods, for obvious reasons.

I just notice how people seem to consider the spelling remarks of a journalist as more serious than a year-long study by Stanford doctors. And when reading the actual study, you immediately grow to respect the work that went into that study. By contrast, the nytimes blog post it is perfectly obvious by the end of the first sentence, that there is extreme bias here. In one sentence the journalist "realizes" how work by actually qualified professionals is worthless "and will obviously be misunderstood" and has to be prevented from being taken serious - why ? Well because it conflicts with obviously true data. He then proceeds to apologize for being so stupid for thinking people might believe doctors ...

There are other types of issues like this. Vegetarianism is also considered good, when any doctor should tell you that a human cannot survive without eating meat. We can last a hell of a long time between meats, for adults we're talking a year or so, but we cannot do without meat entirely. And then this keeps happening. Keeps happening.

Another one ? People think thinner = healthier, when that is definitely not true (the older you get, the fatter you should be for maximum chance of survival. Having a BMI under 23 should be considered irresponsible. Everytime you have an operation, like after an accident, you w

Secondary reason was European airports banning them, but that has since been reversed. UK doesn't let you opt for pat-downs, not sure about the rest of Europe.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm about to cite the Daily Mail), but it looks like they're no longer in use in the EU -- the Manchester use was a temporary extension, an exception to the general ban last year.

According to this the Manchester machines will be replaced by the end of October.

Ah, but thats the US. You people can't seem to get government even halfway right, for some weird reason. I'm not even going to mention gun control.

May not want to get too smug there, sport...
http://www.datalite.org/european-union-eu-bureaucracy-kills-uk-business.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2135851/91-days--petty-bureaucrats-control-freak-sponsors-squeezing-fun-Olympics.html
http://www.votersrevolt.org.uk/?tab=V7
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4284070/British-bureaucracy-is-growing-out-of-control.html

You are more likely to win a suit against the government than against a corporation. Even in the US.

...meanwhile you stay hamstrung by whatever binding and/or regulation they say you've broken. After all, no corporation can freeze your bank accounts, remove your right to drive a car, take your children, shut off your home's power/water supply, force you to remain in certain areas (and be barred from others) or lock you in jail while you pursue said lawsuits.

Government can do all of that and then some, depending on the nature and severity of the incompetent/deranged action. Hell, the government can even assault your property with armed squads and shoot at your family. Sure, Randy Weaver won the eventual lawsuit, but his wife and daughter are still rather dead...

Where I'm from (Pittsburgh, PA), many bicyclists don't use hand signals or stop at red lights - They buzz right through.

While I can't comment on the stupidity of failing to stop at red lights, I have to offer a possible explanation for the lack of hand signals. Two words:

• Fear
• Ignorance

I'm afraid to even attempt to use hand signals because of the possibility of being confused with using gang signs and I say this as someone whose hard of hearing and uses (pidgin) ASL to communicate with Deaf friends. Even with ASL I'm nervous about using them in public, there have been too many stories of people being attacked or confused for being a gang banger over use of hand signs.

Ignorance also plays a factor. How many motorists would recognize bike hand signals if they saw them? How many would only see a hand movement and decide they were being flipped off by rude bikers?

What good does it do to use signals that are unknown and likely to get you killed if misinterpreted?

Do you think America will be ready to accept radical new modes and concepts of transportation, such as the Segway, after self-driving cars become common place?

My legs, which this Segway aims to replace, do not arbitrarily run off of cliffs.

I think you have your answer.

They are not tracking you, yet. Nielsen is opt in.
http://www.nielsen.com/content/corporate/global/en.html

But then there's "Smart TV"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2117493/Samsungs-latest-TV-sets-built-cameras-spark-concerns.html

How long until it becomes monetized?

Frankly, elementary school lessons don't change that much from one year to the next. The current textbooks my child uses are incredibly simple, and they contain pretty timeless lessons. If someone was to take a textbook from 50 or 70 years ago that was out of copyright, they could easily make it available to all schools to use

Somehow I think that a textbook from 50-70 years ago would be way too advanced for today's kids.

Here are some test questions that 11-12 year old British kids would need to pass in the fifties to go to grammar school.
Hands up, anyone who thinks that kids born in 2001 would pass this test. Ever.

However, because our rulers have long ago given up any pretense of actually giving a damn about what their subjects want, they've passed ObamaCare in the middle of the night, using unprecedented trickery and loopholes, despite 70% of the country being against it.

Oh, and meanwhile the UK government is quietly changing their healthcare system back into PRIVATE ownership, little by little, to avoid an uproar. I guess they got tired of hearing stories like these: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253438/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-routinely-neglected-patients.html?ITO=1490

But, even when the Socialist model, the inspiration for ObamaCare, is admitted to be a failure and steps are taken to return the healthcare system into private hands, nobody on this side of the pond gives a damn.

"In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. " - Paul Krugman, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=0

Yeah, the blood-soaked sheets, the discarded needles, and the 3-day-old corpses in hallways are just... figments of someone's imagination, right, Dr. Krugman?

Well-meaning idiots, or cryptomarxists willing to ignore any human suffering for the advancement of an agenda? You decide.

New research shows that humans developed the ability to eat vegetables only 100,000 years after we became fully "human"...

[citation needed] ... no, really, I need this citation. I could use this all day.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2206544/Humans-began-eating-plants-180-000-years-ago-aid-brain-development---affecting-diet-today.html and have a nice day.

Nowadays it's not a 'mask' but a fashion statement. It's a facekini.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/fashion/article-2193902/Ready-facekini-Hideous-face-lycra-masks-cramp-style-fair-complexions-China.html

There has been plenty of talk about jailing (or worse executing/starving) AGM deniers, so why is this a surprise?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133771/Columnist-says-global-warming-skeptics-houses-burnt-down.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1174/Update-Romm-defends-remarks-as-not-a-threat-but-a-prediction--Strangle-Skeptics-in-Bed-An-entire-generation-will-soon-be-ready-to-strangle-you-and-your-kind-while-you-sleep-in-your-beds

Sir Richard Branson has a son, Sam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158511/Richard-Bransons-boy-marry-girl-Bella-just-months-family-wedding.html

If Richard Branson is so gung-ho in establishing a human colony in Mars - will he send his own son, on a one-way-trip to that red planet?

It is easy to want to do something - it is not-that-easy when that something requires some personal sacrifices.
 

Hey, when?
Oh please, cut the shit out.

Last time we said it is peanuts and please stop giving us aid:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096628/British-foreign-aid-India-tells-Britain-dont-need-peanuts-offer-us.html

The Brutish Parliamentarians came to us on bended knees asking us to please accept it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097264/Britain-WILL-giving-millions-aid-India-don-t-want-it.html

Hey, when?
Oh please, cut the shit out.

Last time we said it is peanuts and please stop giving us aid:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096628/British-foreign-aid-India-tells-Britain-dont-need-peanuts-offer-us.html

The Brutish Parliamentarians came to us on bended knees asking us to please accept it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097264/Britain-WILL-giving-millions-aid-India-don-t-want-it.html

The anti-terror guys have warned us for years that a microwave cannon could be built with parts ordered from the web, capable of frying a plane's electronics when it tries to land.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-196971883.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1166499/Terrorists-bring-jumbo-jet-using-microwave-cannon-built-internet.html

So I guess Mythbusters didn't get an authorization to test that either.

Personally, I would allow all videos (except, say child porn + DMCA violations). The rest would be dealt with by a voluntary rating system, like Google SafeSearch.

But Google already has a censorship system called the Community Guidelines. Among other things, it bans "hate speech":

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

Regardless what you think about that concept, it's already in the guidelines. So, if you want to apply it consistently, unemotionally, geekily, you'd ban this video, which was thought by the director himself to be so possibly offensive that he didn't even tell the cast, opting to dub in the offensive lines during editing.

Keep in mind also the fact that AFAIK, Youtube deleted a lot of videos a while back that purported to explain the point of view of people fighting the US military in various countries at the behest of Senator Lieberman.

Again, hate speech is a really nebulous concept, but it'd really be hard to argue that this Youtube wasn't hate speech as defined above.

Yet another way to use up a nonrenewable resource.

Cant it detect a Russian submarine at US shores?

AC Parent is a liar

No, he's not.

Take a good look at the area under the bottle in this image. Some of the water remains brown, yet parts of the two men's arms are the exact same color as the water.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/07/article-2199800-14E2A79F000005DC-361_964x567.jpg
Clearly photoshopped image. the water is brown not orange...

When it is, can we toss the idiot who photoshopped these in it?

Nevermind. You weren't talking about the current gradients, I guess? Perhaps this?

If you are going to say shit like that, do you mind actually pointing out what you are saying it about?

Here's another one for Photoshop Disasters. Look at that psychedelic halo around that tree in the lower left!

Also, is it me, or is there something wrong with the general color balance of the picture?

Use this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199800/The-river-DID-run-red-Residents-Chinese-city-left-baffled-Yangtze-turns-scarlet.html#ixzz25u00nD4M

No idea why the story insisted on linking to a secondary source.

Here are the red pictures

I was looking at some of the photos linked in that article, and I noticed that some of them are pretty obviously photoshopped. I'm sure the river was red, but I'm not so sure it was such a dramatic shade of red. You can see where the editing was sloppy and bled over into the arm and thumb of the person holding the bottle, and the arm of the guy behind, as well as some sections that are probably the actual shade of red that the river turned.

Just as a point of argument, there ARE other ways to do this sort of thing. The Russians like to put things together on the ground and then lift the entire mess up. I'm sure there were spirited discussions on the pros and cons of doing this in the 60's but this way certainly has been quite flexible.

The Russians like to move their rockets by rail.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/02/article-1372645-0B724A6200000578-45_634x286.jpg
It's a much simpler and faster process than the mega crawler NASA went went.

The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.

I suppose they all plant car bombs in London before-hand, fill their cars with petrol and propane tanks, and that if they survive are Jailed for life for planned mass murder?

Almost every criminal act can also be legal, involuntary, informed consent of the "victim".

Should that be "voluntary"?

Actually, "given voluntary"; omit one little space, and the autocorrect turns your whole meaning inside-out...

But rape is pretty unique jn the prevalence of consensual sex. If a person has a black eye, and their attacker admits to doing it, but says they asked or consented to be hit, they don't have much credibility, because we know that rarely happens (outside sport fighting rings).

For what it's worth, based on visits to hospital emergency rooms, this is rather common: unsanctioned fights, impromptu brawls, and bets (generally involving intoxication). (Unless you specifically meant cases in which the attacker says it was consensual and the victim says it wasn't.) Worst case: someone makes a bet, either "I can take a punch" or "I'll pay you to let me punch you", things happen, punchee dies (possibly hours or days later), puncher is tried for murder. Those aren't common, but they happen (Example 1 Example 2).

Seems to me this should be a tragic accident or involuntary manslaughter at worst, but I am not a prosecutor. I think they get extra points for more-serious charges, so verbum sapiens.

Well, that's fucked up all round.

Even so, I'm sure consensual punching is orders of magnitude less common than consensual sex.