1) The guy running the corner shop who re-uses his tape every few weeks is doing a fairly good job of preventing data proliferation, so he doesn't have to give anything to anyone;
2) "Working for the government" just means I have a degree of oversight vs working for private enterprise - if someone's going to watch my behaviour, I'd rather it was someone I can deal with. There are two ways to achieve this: effective democracy, or equality of power. When the local police watch me, I enjoy the former when the corner shop owner watches me, I enjoy the latter;
3) The camera also lies. CCTV is rarely conclusive evidence.
But you're right - we don't want the government using this data to snoop. We also don't want the government following people based on their political affiliation, in person or online. There are three methods of implementing any policy: a) technical: make it impossible; b) regulatory: tell people not to do it; c) values-based: make people not want to do it. I think a) is the least useful of these, but geeks tend to advocate for it a lot. b) is the current approach in public service, although it's been c) until recently. I feel this is the problem.
Yeah, most of which are privately owned, and the rest of which only reveal what any person walking along the public right of way would see with their own eyes. What is your complaint, please?
Quite. At the moment, the settling professional classes are too young to really have either first or second hand education of British history of the late '70s and early '80s, and reduce their comprehension to soundbites from the Left ("bloody Thatcher!") and the Right ("bloody unions!"). There is little understanding on Britain's changing relationship with Ireland, mainland Europe and the US, from Bloody Sunday to EU entry (with referendum!) to nascent neoconservatism warmongering itself into inflationary Oil Crisis.
It was partly a response to that. Brighton didn't get all camera-happy after the government of the time were bombed while staying at a local hotel. But I guess that wasn't really terrorism, rather a good old-fashioned mass assassination attempt.
It certainly isn't "brave". You are accusing someone of being a coward.
False dichotomy. I certainly didn't regard it as brave that I gave up a good business opportunity because I was repulsed by America's behaviour at the beginning of the previous decade - I regarded it as the right thing to do. I picked myself up and went on to something else.
I'm not really familiar with that phrase, but Google says it means to talk.
...and it should evoke Churchill's famous remark.
I thought the UK was wall-to-wall closed circuit cameras?
No, but if you include private CCTV then there's quite a lot - especially in the centre of London, because, you know, cameras to record your visible behaviour on public streets are less intrusive than having a hand fondling your child and your grandmother or giving you a background check.
I'm also not sure that Ireland would agree that it was dealt with through discussion.
Well, one side represented some of the most extreme of Ireland's views, and Ireland herself has since welcomed a visit by the Queen. So, on the whole, I'd say that Ireland is more pleased about the Good Friday Agreement than some of the southern US states will ever be about the outcome of the Civil War.
The terror threat isn't a country-by-country contest
Agreed, but if the US wants to know how to deal with an imaginary terror threat, it could at least start by looking at a similar country which experienced a real terror threat.
We had the pIRA. Bomb in London nearly caught my dad in the early '90s. This weekend I walked past the Brighton Grand Hotel, which was blown up in 1984 in a failed attempt to assassinate Thatcher and her puppets (they couldn't even get that right!). etc.
This only turned around when the government did the only progressive thing I've seen in British politics in the last 34 years: kick the bastards on all sides into a room and talk with them.
Stopping visits is not the same as running away, matey.
I continue to campaign against similar regressions in my home country, England, which has had a far more significant terror problem, and dealt with it by jaw-jaw.
"I practically died with joy when I learnt that they'd stop beating me if I'd just get on my knees."
Coward.
I stopped visiting the US (and I used to go semi-regularly on business) once all this TSA shit started. Such a shame other people put their bank account before their sense of decency.
If this was yet another short-sighted commercialisation of space for the new generation of Reaganite aristocrats, it might bother me. But 30 km is barely space. Anyway, it's just another one of those companies where for nothing but ideological reasons public talent is spun off into a private corporation so a bunch of leeches can skim money off mostly government contracts.
I don't know much about USB 3, but USB 2 is technically horrible. And I would say that it only beat Firewire because it was the el cheapo standard that every Far Eastern PCB glue factory could afford to implement.
You don't make hardware USB-compliant simply by having a PID&VID. And the process - as with most processes where numbers are assigned (consider, for example, the IANA) - doesn't admit subversion by buying up a block of numbers then re-selling.
"If [proof of innocence], I'll happily stand corrected..."
I'm sure you realise you were hasty with your accusations, but it's better to withdraw rather than to dig a further hole.
Anyway, you're referencing the upgrade from electromechanical to electronic exchanges which happened through the early '90s. You weren't paying for the DTMF ability, but a contribution toward the whole exchange system being rebuilt. And much of the work happened after privatisation, when they were entitled to make some profit (but only to the extent the regulator permitted it, and with competition allowed precisely to the extent which suited Thatcher's friends, which is what made the whole thing so fucked up). Would it have been cheaper if kept as a subsidiary of the GPO? Probably. But then we'd have all had fibre in the late '80s!
And would you base that statement on pulling things out of your ass, or what?
I find and report vulnerabilities from time to time. I've never had a hostile response. Mind you, I've never threatened to disclose to a wider audience, nor implied that i've used my knowledge in a particular damaging way, nor even attached my name to my Awesome Discovery after it's been fixed in a vain attempt to get recognition.
Welcome to capitalism - if you don't like it, spend three decades making your own platform and marketing it hard enough to convince the vast majority who don't make decisions on technical merit.
Because, dear boy, money was already invested when the exhange equipment was upgraded - obviously you can't do these things subscriber by subscriber - and you're paying your contribution of £125 when you decide to make the switchover.
You might as well ask, "Why do LLU ISPs charge me £60 to move a cable between two sockets?" Or why does any service charge a setup fee when clearly the shit is already in place? Honestly this isn't rocket science.
1) Wait, you're whining that companies charge you to upgrade stuff? You do realise that parts and labour cost money, yeah? And that what might seem trivial technology today wasn't trivial 30 years ago, yes?
2) BT only existed for 4 years as a distinct state monopoly (1981-4), and that was in preparation for privatisation. During this time, Thatcher deliberately retarded development - hence abortion of groundbreaking fibre rollout. If you heard horror stories about having to deal with BT in the '80s, the problem was precisely because it was a the first of a string of absurd combinations of privatisation and regulation;
3) Re trains, you're simply dreaming about "awful punctuality" and "constant strikes". I could speak from anecdote - my father was a City commuter for 25 years up to the early '90s, and I for several years in the '90s, enduring the horrible ride through privatisation. But again, as is well-documented, Thatcher underinvested in the railways by policy, which is why you had outdated rolling stock (which were still a hell of a lot more comfortable than the modern carriages, but I digress). The final railway privatisation simply did not consider a comprehensive plan for on-going track maintenance, which is why two avoidable fatal accidents later the whole sorry joke that was Railtrack went bust and had to be rescued by the government. Capitalise profits; socialise losses - too big to fail - however you want to describe it.
Since railway privatisation was the Tory's most obvious failure, it shows some pretty big ideological balls to raise it. (I would say that the public housing sell-off was the worst of all, since it contributed toward the housing bubble and market-linked social security bill surge of the 2000s. But the effect here was more subtle and delayed.
Slashdot Mirror
Just re-read the article but with "cracker" substituted for "hacker" and you'll understand how it seems to a layperson.
Imagine describing yourself as a "thief" - it suggests an intent to steal.
The only issue here is a misinterpretation of jargon.
1) The guy running the corner shop who re-uses his tape every few weeks is doing a fairly good job of preventing data proliferation, so he doesn't have to give anything to anyone;
2) "Working for the government" just means I have a degree of oversight vs working for private enterprise - if someone's going to watch my behaviour, I'd rather it was someone I can deal with. There are two ways to achieve this: effective democracy, or equality of power. When the local police watch me, I enjoy the former when the corner shop owner watches me, I enjoy the latter;
3) The camera also lies. CCTV is rarely conclusive evidence.
But you're right - we don't want the government using this data to snoop. We also don't want the government following people based on their political affiliation, in person or online. There are three methods of implementing any policy:
a) technical: make it impossible;
b) regulatory: tell people not to do it;
c) values-based: make people not want to do it.
I think a) is the least useful of these, but geeks tend to advocate for it a lot. b) is the current approach in public service, although it's been c) until recently. I feel this is the problem.
Thanks for your anecdote. I'm sure everyone's just making a fuss about nothing.
Yeah, most of which are privately owned, and the rest of which only reveal what any person walking along the public right of way would see with their own eyes. What is your complaint, please?
Dude, I know you're taught to be it from a young age, but no need to interpret everything competitively.
And yeah, Britain's been ruled by cunts for centuries, I agree.
Quite. At the moment, the settling professional classes are too young to really have either first or second hand education of British history of the late '70s and early '80s, and reduce their comprehension to soundbites from the Left ("bloody Thatcher!") and the Right ("bloody unions!"). There is little understanding on Britain's changing relationship with Ireland, mainland Europe and the US, from Bloody Sunday to EU entry (with referendum!) to nascent neoconservatism warmongering itself into inflationary Oil Crisis.
It was partly a response to that. Brighton didn't get all camera-happy after the government of the time were bombed while staying at a local hotel. But I guess that wasn't really terrorism, rather a good old-fashioned mass assassination attempt.
It certainly isn't "brave". You are accusing someone of being a coward.
False dichotomy. I certainly didn't regard it as brave that I gave up a good business opportunity because I was repulsed by America's behaviour at the beginning of the previous decade - I regarded it as the right thing to do. I picked myself up and went on to something else.
I'm not really familiar with that phrase, but Google says it means to talk.
...and it should evoke Churchill's famous remark.
I thought the UK was wall-to-wall closed circuit cameras?
No, but if you include private CCTV then there's quite a lot - especially in the centre of London, because, you know, cameras to record your visible behaviour on public streets are less intrusive than having a hand fondling your child and your grandmother or giving you a background check.
I'm also not sure that Ireland would agree that it was dealt with through discussion.
Well, one side represented some of the most extreme of Ireland's views, and Ireland herself has since welcomed a visit by the Queen. So, on the whole, I'd say that Ireland is more pleased about the Good Friday Agreement than some of the southern US states will ever be about the outcome of the Civil War.
The terror threat isn't a country-by-country contest
Agreed, but if the US wants to know how to deal with an imaginary terror threat, it could at least start by looking at a similar country which experienced a real terror threat.
We had the pIRA. Bomb in London nearly caught my dad in the early '90s. This weekend I walked past the Brighton Grand Hotel, which was blown up in 1984 in a failed attempt to assassinate Thatcher and her puppets (they couldn't even get that right!). etc.
This only turned around when the government did the only progressive thing I've seen in British politics in the last 34 years: kick the bastards on all sides into a room and talk with them.
Yeah, the world's full of short-sighted lackadaisy and pusillanimity - thanks for reminding me.
Still going to strive to set a good example, though. Good things take time.
Stopping visits is not the same as running away, matey.
I continue to campaign against similar regressions in my home country, England, which has had a far more significant terror problem, and dealt with it by jaw-jaw.
"I practically died with joy when I learnt that they'd stop beating me if I'd just get on my knees."
Coward.
I stopped visiting the US (and I used to go semi-regularly on business) once all this TSA shit started. Such a shame other people put their bank account before their sense of decency.
If this was yet another short-sighted commercialisation of space for the new generation of Reaganite aristocrats, it might bother me. But 30 km is barely space. Anyway, it's just another one of those companies where for nothing but ideological reasons public talent is spun off into a private corporation so a bunch of leeches can skim money off mostly government contracts.
No.
I don't know much about USB 3, but USB 2 is technically horrible. And I would say that it only beat Firewire because it was the el cheapo standard that every Far Eastern PCB glue factory could afford to implement.
You don't make hardware USB-compliant simply by having a PID&VID. And the process - as with most processes where numbers are assigned (consider, for example, the IANA) - doesn't admit subversion by buying up a block of numbers then re-selling.
"...it seems [guilt]..."
"If [proof of innocence], I'll happily stand corrected..."
I'm sure you realise you were hasty with your accusations, but it's better to withdraw rather than to dig a further hole.
Anyway, you're referencing the upgrade from electromechanical to electronic exchanges which happened through the early '90s. You weren't paying for the DTMF ability, but a contribution toward the whole exchange system being rebuilt. And much of the work happened after privatisation, when they were entitled to make some profit (but only to the extent the regulator permitted it, and with competition allowed precisely to the extent which suited Thatcher's friends, which is what made the whole thing so fucked up). Would it have been cheaper if kept as a subsidiary of the GPO? Probably. But then we'd have all had fibre in the late '80s!
The statement made by the OP was "most of the time".
I can pull up hundreds of articles on murders, but "most people" aren't murdered.
This is like critical analysis 101.
Newsflash: big corps, health care providers, governments... have 1 competent and responsible employee for 100 hacks in their employ.
And you know what the worst thing is? Everybody thinks they're the 1 competent employee.
And would you base that statement on pulling things out of your ass, or what?
I find and report vulnerabilities from time to time. I've never had a hostile response. Mind you, I've never threatened to disclose to a wider audience, nor implied that i've used my knowledge in a particular damaging way, nor even attached my name to my Awesome Discovery after it's been fixed in a vain attempt to get recognition.
The great thing about the C++ Hello World example is that it simultaneously shows everything that's nice and everything that's horrible about C++.
Oh yes, capitalism is all about freedom of choice.
Welcome to capitalism - if you don't like it, spend three decades making your own platform and marketing it hard enough to convince the vast majority who don't make decisions on technical merit.
Because, dear boy, money was already invested when the exhange equipment was upgraded - obviously you can't do these things subscriber by subscriber - and you're paying your contribution of £125 when you decide to make the switchover.
You might as well ask, "Why do LLU ISPs charge me £60 to move a cable between two sockets?" Or why does any service charge a setup fee when clearly the shit is already in place? Honestly this isn't rocket science.
1) Wait, you're whining that companies charge you to upgrade stuff? You do realise that parts and labour cost money, yeah? And that what might seem trivial technology today wasn't trivial 30 years ago, yes?
2) BT only existed for 4 years as a distinct state monopoly (1981-4), and that was in preparation for privatisation. During this time, Thatcher deliberately retarded development - hence abortion of groundbreaking fibre rollout. If you heard horror stories about having to deal with BT in the '80s, the problem was precisely because it was a the first of a string of absurd combinations of privatisation and regulation;
3) Re trains, you're simply dreaming about "awful punctuality" and "constant strikes". I could speak from anecdote - my father was a City commuter for 25 years up to the early '90s, and I for several years in the '90s, enduring the horrible ride through privatisation. But again, as is well-documented, Thatcher underinvested in the railways by policy, which is why you had outdated rolling stock (which were still a hell of a lot more comfortable than the modern carriages, but I digress). The final railway privatisation simply did not consider a comprehensive plan for on-going track maintenance, which is why two avoidable fatal accidents later the whole sorry joke that was Railtrack went bust and had to be rescued by the government. Capitalise profits; socialise losses - too big to fail - however you want to describe it.
Since railway privatisation was the Tory's most obvious failure, it shows some pretty big ideological balls to raise it. (I would say that the public housing sell-off was the worst of all, since it contributed toward the housing bubble and market-linked social security bill surge of the 2000s. But the effect here was more subtle and delayed.