The UK does not have a ground based deterrent. Our nuclear deterrent consists entirely of submarine launched ICBMs with one submarine in an unknown aquatic location at all times (which could be just about anywhere where the water is deep enough to hide a submarine). In terms of what it "covers" - the range is irrelevant in the sense that we're not going to nuke ourselves or our allies - it only matters in that the missiles can reach Moscow. In terms of whether we'd use them in the rest of Europe's defence (either through NATO, altruistically or through fear for ourselves) is the question of political guesswork, bluffing, double bluffing, prisoners dilemmas and so forth that is the basis of mutually assured destruction. The short answer is: who knows, the only way to find out is by "experiment"...
"'snydeq' isn't a member of the community, he's a paid writer. Go look at his submissions v. comments." - Go and check what site he links to in every single one of his submissions... he fails at subtlety, that's for sure.
That's a different blocklist. The IWF's blocklist (as used by BT's cleanfeed) blocks child porn and, perhaps, other "illegal" content (although there's no way of finding out what it actually blocks in practice unless you hit a blocked page while using an ISP honest enough to not serve a fake 404) and is used by all large ISPs with no way to turn it off.
The blocklists in question here are mandatory default-on in the "we'll regulate if you don't do it voluntarily" fashion and block a whole variety of legal content from the genuinely objectionable through it's a question of taste to the innocuous. They're not set directly by the government, rather they're purchased by the ISPs from third parties and you can opt to have them turned off (if you don't mind the embarrassment of asking...).
That's not to say the government interference here is a good thing for a whole range of reasons though.
I'm a research student in London and I did my undergrad here too, what's amazed me is the number of people I know/knew who did their undergrad elsewhere that are now popping up all over the city. Turns out a graduate level job market attracts graduates who in turn attract graduate level jobs...
What the summary fails to point out, of course, is that the growth of all the extra facilities - bars, restaurants, dry cleaners etc. - also ensure the job market grows in non-graduate jobs too, so it's win-win for everyone that lives in the lucky city. That city then grows at the expense of its neighbours that lose jobs in all sectors of the market (again, as we see in the UK where London and the south east is a giant black whole sucking up money and talent from the rest of the country). Whether or not you think this is a bad thing varies, of course...
Not true. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 guy wasn't convicted until he decided to reveal it as part of separate proceedings proving he hadn't forgotten it; I'm surprised they didn't have him for perjury or something too.) Think about it - if that was the law every time you visit an SSL secured website you'd be breaking the law since your computer doesn't record the session keys. And perfect forward secrecy would be illegal too. Not that I'd put any of that past the government here, mind you, but it hasn't happened yet.
Perhaps they were pushing the button AND thinking... shocking, I know. Typically the deeper in thought I am the more likely I am to absently mindedly do things like repeatedly prod a button that produces some kind of effect. I guess it ties up the bits of my brain that control my body so they don't distract the thinking bits?
Well the court judgement was not a good judgement; it set a precedent without any guidance about how to apply it to other cases. It also wasn't a good judgement because it creates a right to alter history, but that's another thing...
Also Google have received tens of thousands of requests, can they really be expected to give each one a thorough legal analysis? Of course not, they'll just play it safe.
So it may be an error of judgement by Google, but that's only because the court made an error of judgement.
What's wrong with that comment? Scarecrows should love this - a huge straw man deliberately elevated to the level of (attempted) serious discussion. Everything is better with logical fallacies. Next step should be ad hominem and argument from emotion to eliminate true discussion.
So far as I can tell he claims that it would be impossible to re-license it under an OSS license and allow Matthew Green to use the trademark. This may be "impossible" because he doesn't control the IP or he may just be using it as a figure of speech to say that he won't comply with the request. The article title somewhat misleadingly takes the quote out of context.
Of course it's just an anonymously posted email on Pastbin, I wouldn't put too much stock by it unless there's some independent confirmation of its validity.
Surely the underlying technology required is essentially what's already been developed for hovercraft, which already come in car sized variants. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it would be easy to stick a car body on them, develop intuitive controls and stick them on public roads; I'm just not sure the technology is as novel and underdeveloped as the summary makes out.
That's GPS based location tracking carried out by your phone. TFA is referring to nasties like this - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec... - where wifi enabled devices are tracked by wifi hotspots using their mac address.
This isn't about defamatory material. This is about matters of historical/public record. This case was brought by someone who wanted records of bankruptcy proceedings against him removed. That's not libel nor slander. It's a public record. Similarly a German court blocked a guy who was trying to get records of a previous court judgement or prosecution (I don't recall which) against him removed from a newspaper website.
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.
but even if I didn't know, there's a legal concept where ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if there were a law that could get me arrested for mental assault (for lack of a better term)...
You're confusing ignorance of the law (not applicable in your case, you know the hypothetical law) with mens rea (applicable in your case, you did not intend to engage in mental assault).
Slashdot Mirror
$6,000 to join $3,000 pa and they only have a .info domain? Nothing says "exclusive" and "accomplished" like a .info domain...
The UK does not have a ground based deterrent. Our nuclear deterrent consists entirely of submarine launched ICBMs with one submarine in an unknown aquatic location at all times (which could be just about anywhere where the water is deep enough to hide a submarine). In terms of what it "covers" - the range is irrelevant in the sense that we're not going to nuke ourselves or our allies - it only matters in that the missiles can reach Moscow. In terms of whether we'd use them in the rest of Europe's defence (either through NATO, altruistically or through fear for ourselves) is the question of political guesswork, bluffing, double bluffing, prisoners dilemmas and so forth that is the basis of mutually assured destruction. The short answer is: who knows, the only way to find out is by "experiment"...
"'snydeq' isn't a member of the community, he's a paid writer. Go look at his submissions v. comments." - Go and check what site he links to in every single one of his submissions... he fails at subtlety, that's for sure.
That's a different blocklist. The IWF's blocklist (as used by BT's cleanfeed) blocks child porn and, perhaps, other "illegal" content (although there's no way of finding out what it actually blocks in practice unless you hit a blocked page while using an ISP honest enough to not serve a fake 404) and is used by all large ISPs with no way to turn it off. The blocklists in question here are mandatory default-on in the "we'll regulate if you don't do it voluntarily" fashion and block a whole variety of legal content from the genuinely objectionable through it's a question of taste to the innocuous. They're not set directly by the government, rather they're purchased by the ISPs from third parties and you can opt to have them turned off (if you don't mind the embarrassment of asking...). That's not to say the government interference here is a good thing for a whole range of reasons though.
I'm a research student in London and I did my undergrad here too, what's amazed me is the number of people I know/knew who did their undergrad elsewhere that are now popping up all over the city. Turns out a graduate level job market attracts graduates who in turn attract graduate level jobs... What the summary fails to point out, of course, is that the growth of all the extra facilities - bars, restaurants, dry cleaners etc. - also ensure the job market grows in non-graduate jobs too, so it's win-win for everyone that lives in the lucky city. That city then grows at the expense of its neighbours that lose jobs in all sectors of the market (again, as we see in the UK where London and the south east is a giant black whole sucking up money and talent from the rest of the country). Whether or not you think this is a bad thing varies, of course...
Not true. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 guy wasn't convicted until he decided to reveal it as part of separate proceedings proving he hadn't forgotten it; I'm surprised they didn't have him for perjury or something too.) Think about it - if that was the law every time you visit an SSL secured website you'd be breaking the law since your computer doesn't record the session keys. And perfect forward secrecy would be illegal too. Not that I'd put any of that past the government here, mind you, but it hasn't happened yet.
Perhaps they were pushing the button AND thinking... shocking, I know. Typically the deeper in thought I am the more likely I am to absently mindedly do things like repeatedly prod a button that produces some kind of effect. I guess it ties up the bits of my brain that control my body so they don't distract the thinking bits?
Scientists: http://xkcd.com/242/
Because, in London at least, that's exactly what Uber will give you. See news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A721144
Well the court judgement was not a good judgement; it set a precedent without any guidance about how to apply it to other cases. It also wasn't a good judgement because it creates a right to alter history, but that's another thing... Also Google have received tens of thousands of requests, can they really be expected to give each one a thorough legal analysis? Of course not, they'll just play it safe. So it may be an error of judgement by Google, but that's only because the court made an error of judgement.
What's wrong with that comment? Scarecrows should love this - a huge straw man deliberately elevated to the level of (attempted) serious discussion. Everything is better with logical fallacies. Next step should be ad hominem and argument from emotion to eliminate true discussion.
aha, so the pastbin upload does seem to be from the real Matthew Green. That's a start. https://twitter.com/matthew_d_...
So far as I can tell he claims that it would be impossible to re-license it under an OSS license and allow Matthew Green to use the trademark. This may be "impossible" because he doesn't control the IP or he may just be using it as a figure of speech to say that he won't comply with the request. The article title somewhat misleadingly takes the quote out of context. Of course it's just an anonymously posted email on Pastbin, I wouldn't put too much stock by it unless there's some independent confirmation of its validity.
this is probably no simple process
Surely the underlying technology required is essentially what's already been developed for hovercraft, which already come in car sized variants. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it would be easy to stick a car body on them, develop intuitive controls and stick them on public roads; I'm just not sure the technology is as novel and underdeveloped as the summary makes out.
That's GPS based location tracking carried out by your phone. TFA is referring to nasties like this - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec... - where wifi enabled devices are tracked by wifi hotspots using their mac address.
http://i.imgur.com/b4DHe4z.png The timing couldn't have been better. (In fact, perhaps the hack was someone taking this too literally?)
This isn't about defamatory material. This is about matters of historical/public record. This case was brought by someone who wanted records of bankruptcy proceedings against him removed. That's not libel nor slander. It's a public record. Similarly a German court blocked a guy who was trying to get records of a previous court judgement or prosecution (I don't recall which) against him removed from a newspaper website. http://www.theguardian.com/com...
Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.
but even if I didn't know, there's a legal concept where ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if there were a law that could get me arrested for mental assault (for lack of a better term)...
You're confusing ignorance of the law (not applicable in your case, you know the hypothetical law) with mens rea (applicable in your case, you did not intend to engage in mental assault).