I think he was more pointing out that that huge crowd of people that can't evacuate the area easily or quickly is actually a pretty prime target for terrorist mayhem.
Absolutely. If I was a suicide bomber, this is exactly where I'd explode my bomb. I reckon I could get a devastating quantity of explosive in a carry-on bag and detonate it in the snake-line. Also get an accomplice to do the same in a check-in line with a full-size suitcase packed with HE.
While it might not have the glamour of bringing down an aircraft, no matter where the TSA or local equivalent move the security line to (pre-security security, pre-security security security...), passengers are still vulnerable to this attack. I can't see a practical defence against it.
It's truly chilling that they could do this trivially, tomorrow.
By the time the plane is out of the airport zone, it is too high for the phone to have any contact with cell towers - whose antenna don't point up in the sky.
How do you explain the many calls made from United Airlines Flight 93?
In the UK, there are legally sanctioned surveillance cameras (with a great deal of public support) in public places and on public transport -- where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In the US, the government illegally bug everyone as though the constitution doesn't apply to them.
And illegally holding David Miranda for nine hours and demanding that the Guardian smash a few laptops is hardly on the same level as what the US government is up to.
2 (1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).
40(1)(b) says:
40 Terrorist: interpretation.
(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who— (a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or (b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
So the officer is allowed to ask any questions in order to determine if the detainee is a terrorist, and the detainee is compelled to answer those questions.
But the officer isn't given the power to ask any questions on any matter he likes, and the detainee is therefore not required to answer them.
Obviously, the schedule 7 powers are ripe for abuse, and have been abused in abused in this case. MIranda claims he wasn't asked any questions about terrorism at all.
Miranda says he's going to sue, and he has a good case.
RENTON: I hate being Scottish. We're the lowest of the fucking low, the scum of the earth, the most wretched, servile, miserable, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some people hate the English, but I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. We can't even pick a decent culture to be colonized by. We are ruled by effete arseholes. It's a shite state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world will not make any fucking difference.
Except amongst your quotes from TFA you omitted one:
The NHS body didn’t sign a contract with the provider and failed to determine whether the hard drives have been wiped, the ICO said.
Thanks, I must have glossed over the fact that they can't prove that they instructed the contractor to destroy the data.
But still the issue remains that verifying that the data has been destroyed is more work than destroying the data, so is the ICO really saying that responsibility for data security cannot be subcontracted?
Personally, I hope so. But like I say, it flies in the face of privatisation dogma.
I don't really get this. The NHS contracts out the disposal of the machines to a private contractor, who then royally screws up, and it's the fault of the NHS?
Surely the responsibility lies with the contractor?
FTA:
“Should they [the contractor] be accountable? Definitely not, because NHS Surrey have been entrusted with the welfare of their patients. Should the contractor be responsible? Absolutely, yes,” Jones added.
This seems to me an argument that the NHS cannot outsource or subcontract anything.
What is NHS Surrey supposed to do in this scenario? Use in-house people to analyse the machines to make sure there is no data remaining before disposing of them?
Or just keep data-disposal services in-house? Personally, I think this would be a great idea, but it goes against the dogmatic 'privatise absolutely everything possible' trend in the UK.
“We should not have to tell organisations to think twice, before outsourcing vital services to companies who offer to work for free.”
Except they didn't work for free: they worked for the salvage value. I can't really see how the low value of the contract proves fault.
when "civil unions rights" were offered in some places to homosexuals, that wasnt "good enough" for them, even though it gave them the exact same rights just under a different word. So its not just the religious who have an issue here.
The issue is that 'homosexuals' and their supporters want equality, the 'religious' want inequality and discrimination.
It's disingenuous to suggest that civil unions are the same as marriages. They are clearly a second-class union, otherwise the compromise of calling them 'civil unions' would never have been made to placate the 'religious'. It's "separate but equal" all over again.
According to this paper, 3.5% of French people are currently taking antidepressants, and 42% have taken them at some point. And this article claims that 24% of Spanish women use antidepressants. I also know many friends and family members who take or have taken antidepressants in the UK.
I mean, why would a doctor tell you to drug yourself, even if you feel depressed.
This isn't about some vague feelings of 'feeling bad' or 'feeling depressed', this is for diagnosed clinical depression.
You're very lucky that you've evidently never suffered from depression, or you wouldn't say this.
You can look on it as government interference if you want, but in the UK people like the OFT: we look on their work as consumer protection.
The key word is 'Fair'. If a trade practice is 'unfair', the OFT are pretty effective at stopping it. If it really is just a case of your kid spending your money, then no, it's not the government's problem. But how will the OFT know if it's fair if they don't investigate?
I don't have any children, so I've no axe to grind, but I still think it's a good idea that they at least investigate the fairness of in-app purchases.
The OFT is one of the reasons that in the UK they have a variety of mobile phone providers with coverage everywhere, that they can move between with no penalty, and who will unlock our phones on demand. I don't think this is true of the US.
But really, there just shouldn't be a default username: you should have to enter your own. This has been standard practice for decades.
Though I have to concede it works pretty well, WP is truly awful: a tiny bit object-oriented here, a bit finite state machine there; no coherent design at all.
It's kind-of the PHP of PHP software: Crufty, inelegant, painful to develop with, yet also ubiquitous and loved by clients, who ask for it by name.
WordPress needs a 100% rewrite by someone who has read a book or two on programming.
The customer they have lined up to buy the NAND flash is Samsung itself, as they're now making a shit-load of smartphones, tablets, TVs and whatnot. There just may not be enough flash memory to go around.
The article is also littered with phrases like "what effect, if any..", "one can imagine that...", "there is the possibility that..."
Since he saw the huge amount of cash in the one he repaired, and discussed what the size of a "kilo" would be, etc, he opened the door to getting in trouble.
Then he invited trouble right in the door by talking to the DEA without a lawyer.
Sure, he thought he wasn't breaking the law, but was hardly an expert. Huuuge gamble to make.
Also, getting tried in Kansas with the name Anaya might have been something a decent lawyer could have avoided.
I had no sympathy at all until I saw the sentence. 24 years without parole is madness.
I love visiting the US, but almost every time I've been put off by the unpleasant and agressive attitude of the people on the immigration desk. In my view they're much worse than the TSA on departure.
I'll put up with being photographed and fingerprinted (though I think it's downright daft), but my experience at immigration last time just took the piss.
I had made some trivial omission on my visa waiver form — I probably forgot to tick the box to say that I wasn't a spy, saboteur or Nazi war criminal (yes, this tick box really exists) — and I amended the form right there in two seconds, but the officious drone showed great pleasure in sending me to the back of the long queue like a naughty schoolboy.
Then when I got to the front of the queue again — this time to a different drone — I was accused of "abusing the visa waiver" because I had the temerity to visit the US twice in one year (once to San Francisco, that time to NYC, both fairly long visits). It was insinuated that I wasn't welcome back for some — unspecified — period of time. The visa waiver FAQ specifically states that there are no limits to the number of visits in any given period of time.
I guess the government is only interested in promoting tourism when it means handing out billions of dollars to the airlines.
I decided at the time that I would never go back to the US, but time heals all wounds and I'm starting to think I can put up with the necessary humiliation again.
As absolutely everybody else I've met in person in the US has been smart, funny and friendly I can only assume that all your assholes work in airports.
When I moved to France, I went to a language school and many of the other students were Chinese.
We had to do oral presentations on a subject of our own choosing, and one of the Chinese students explained the system of democracy in China. The local people elect a representative, the representatives elect people further up the chain, congress, deputies, etc, etc, right up to the president.
The Chinese students thought this was perfect democracy in action, and were baffled that the Europeans, Africans and New Worlders couldn't understand how wonderful and flawless the system was. When we pointed out that there was only one party, they indignantly said there were several parties to choose from: more than in France.
On the subject of censorship, they thought it was necessary to protect the country, and made hand-waving explanations that things were different in China.
These kids were the offspring of the kind of Chinese families who could afford to send their children to study in France, so no doubt are not representative of the population as a whole, but it was still a real eye-opener for me, who had kind of assuming that the Chinese would want the same kind of (imperfect) democracy we have in the West.
Personally, I still think it's basically down to indoctrination, but if so, it's evidently pretty effective indoctrination.
- Poor Multi-Monitor Support: Since the menu for each application is in a detached panel that is only displayed on one monitor, this means you will be racking up a lot of mileage on your pointing device to hop between apps on the secondary monitor and their menu on the primary monitor.
Yes, it's stupid that there's no option to display the menubar on both monitors.
Yeah, like the recent laws forbidding women wearing the niqab (those islamic headscarves which cover the face) in Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Holland...
They're really pandering to Sharia there.
As the weak Europeans edge toward Eurabia expect more and more liberties to be challenged, successfully at first, and then eventually legislated away.
"Weak"... "Eurabia"... Your prejudices are showing. Belief in all religions is in freefall in Europe.
... those who seek to take liberties away (not just the Islamists, but the political Left as well).
Good theory. Spoilt only a little by the fact that the right-wing holds the balance of power in the European Parliament, and all those headscarf bans were introduced by right-wing parties.
I know it's considered common knowledge in the US that Europe is run by socialists, but consider that France — for example — currently has only the second Socialist president since WWII (and he's as popular as a turd in a swimming pool).
The fact is that this is just what the European Parliament do: this isn't binding (it's 'advice'), it's a waste of time, and yogurt will continue to be advertised by topless women on TV in France and Italy.
Slashdot Mirror
British citizens are citizens, not subjects. It says so right on the passport.
In other British news, it's not foggy in London all the time, and no-one wears a bowler hat.
I think he was more pointing out that that huge crowd of people that can't evacuate the area easily or quickly is actually a pretty prime target for terrorist mayhem.
Absolutely. If I was a suicide bomber, this is exactly where I'd explode my bomb. I reckon I could get a devastating quantity of explosive in a carry-on bag and detonate it in the snake-line. Also get an accomplice to do the same in a check-in line with a full-size suitcase packed with HE.
While it might not have the glamour of bringing down an aircraft, no matter where the TSA or local equivalent move the security line to (pre-security security, pre-security security security...), passengers are still vulnerable to this attack. I can't see a practical defence against it.
It's truly chilling that they could do this trivially, tomorrow.
The Guardian is a hard-left medium that has proven itself to be anti-American over the decades.
The Guardian supported the Iraq war, which doesn't seem very hard-left or anti-American.
Perhaps the world is not black and white.
The new Paperwhite starts shipping on September 30th.
Says it right there on Amazon.com.
How do you explain the many calls made from United Airlines Flight 93?
In the UK, there are legally sanctioned surveillance cameras (with a great deal of public support) in public places and on public transport -- where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In the US, the government illegally bug everyone as though the constitution doesn't apply to them.
And illegally holding David Miranda for nine hours and demanding that the Guardian smash a few laptops is hardly on the same level as what the US government is up to.
While this has been widely reported to be the case, it's not technically true.
From the statute:
40(1)(b) says:
So the officer is allowed to ask any questions in order to determine if the detainee is a terrorist, and the detainee is compelled to answer those questions.
But the officer isn't given the power to ask any questions on any matter he likes, and the detainee is therefore not required to answer them.
Obviously, the schedule 7 powers are ripe for abuse, and have been abused in abused in this case. MIranda claims he wasn't asked any questions about terrorism at all.
Miranda says he's going to sue, and he has a good case.
Oh yeah! I've seen that one:
Except amongst your quotes from TFA you omitted one:
The NHS body didn’t sign a contract with the provider and failed to determine whether the hard drives have been wiped, the ICO said.
Thanks, I must have glossed over the fact that they can't prove that they instructed the contractor to destroy the data.
But still the issue remains that verifying that the data has been destroyed is more work than destroying the data, so is the ICO really saying that responsibility for data security cannot be subcontracted?
Personally, I hope so. But like I say, it flies in the face of privatisation dogma.
I don't really get this. The NHS contracts out the disposal of the machines to a private contractor, who then royally screws up, and it's the fault of the NHS?
Surely the responsibility lies with the contractor?
FTA:
This seems to me an argument that the NHS cannot outsource or subcontract anything.
What is NHS Surrey supposed to do in this scenario? Use in-house people to analyse the machines to make sure there is no data remaining before disposing of them?
Or just keep data-disposal services in-house? Personally, I think this would be a great idea, but it goes against the dogmatic 'privatise absolutely everything possible' trend in the UK.
Except they didn't work for free: they worked for the salvage value. I can't really see how the low value of the contract proves fault.
The issue is that 'homosexuals' and their supporters want equality, the 'religious' want inequality and discrimination.
It's disingenuous to suggest that civil unions are the same as marriages. They are clearly a second-class union, otherwise the compromise of calling them 'civil unions' would never have been made to placate the 'religious'. It's "separate but equal" all over again.
You can't compromise on equality.
According to this paper, 3.5% of French people are currently taking antidepressants, and 42% have taken them at some point. And this article claims that 24% of Spanish women use antidepressants. I also know many friends and family members who take or have taken antidepressants in the UK.
This isn't about some vague feelings of 'feeling bad' or 'feeling depressed', this is for diagnosed clinical depression.
You're very lucky that you've evidently never suffered from depression, or you wouldn't say this.
Oops.
My national identity confusion (they/our) is because I'm British, but haven't lived in Britain since 2007.
Great OFT, but dreadful weather.
/shrug
You can look on it as government interference if you want, but in the UK people like the OFT: we look on their work as consumer protection.
The key word is 'Fair'. If a trade practice is 'unfair', the OFT are pretty effective at stopping it. If it really is just a case of your kid spending your money, then no, it's not the government's problem. But how will the OFT know if it's fair if they don't investigate?
I don't have any children, so I've no axe to grind, but I still think it's a good idea that they at least investigate the fairness of in-app purchases.
The OFT is one of the reasons that in the UK they have a variety of mobile phone providers with coverage everywhere, that they can move between with no penalty, and who will unlock our phones on demand. I don't think this is true of the US.
Good advice.
But really, there just shouldn't be a default username: you should have to enter your own. This has been standard practice for decades.
Though I have to concede it works pretty well, WP is truly awful: a tiny bit object-oriented here, a bit finite state machine there; no coherent design at all.
It's kind-of the PHP of PHP software: Crufty, inelegant, painful to develop with, yet also ubiquitous and loved by clients, who ask for it by name.
WordPress needs a 100% rewrite by someone who has read a book or two on programming.
Does seem a bit unlikely, even taking into account higher than average rates of diabetes in the US.
The summary is way over-dramatic.
The customer they have lined up to buy the NAND flash is Samsung itself, as they're now making a shit-load of smartphones, tablets, TVs and whatnot. There just may not be enough flash memory to go around.
The article is also littered with phrases like "what effect, if any..", "one can imagine that...", "there is the possibility that..."
Then he invited trouble right in the door by talking to the DEA without a lawyer.
Sure, he thought he wasn't breaking the law, but was hardly an expert. Huuuge gamble to make.
Also, getting tried in Kansas with the name Anaya might have been something a decent lawyer could have avoided.
I had no sympathy at all until I saw the sentence. 24 years without parole is madness.
I love visiting the US, but almost every time I've been put off by the unpleasant and agressive attitude of the people on the immigration desk. In my view they're much worse than the TSA on departure.
I'll put up with being photographed and fingerprinted (though I think it's downright daft), but my experience at immigration last time just took the piss.
I had made some trivial omission on my visa waiver form — I probably forgot to tick the box to say that I wasn't a spy, saboteur or Nazi war criminal (yes, this tick box really exists) — and I amended the form right there in two seconds, but the officious drone showed great pleasure in sending me to the back of the long queue like a naughty schoolboy.
Then when I got to the front of the queue again — this time to a different drone — I was accused of "abusing the visa waiver" because I had the temerity to visit the US twice in one year (once to San Francisco, that time to NYC, both fairly long visits). It was insinuated that I wasn't welcome back for some — unspecified — period of time. The visa waiver FAQ specifically states that there are no limits to the number of visits in any given period of time.
I guess the government is only interested in promoting tourism when it means handing out billions of dollars to the airlines.
I decided at the time that I would never go back to the US, but time heals all wounds and I'm starting to think I can put up with the necessary humiliation again.
As absolutely everybody else I've met in person in the US has been smart, funny and friendly I can only assume that all your assholes work in airports.
+ and - keys work for me.
Actually, 178 packages.
How do you get that, from 11 missing out of 178? Even if had been 11 out of 89, it wouldn't be 'the majority'.
10 out of 89 'Atheist' branded packages were 'lost'. 1 out of 89 non-branded packages were lost.
Heh.
Their evidence suggesting the USPS discriminates against atheism is a hell of a lot stronger than any religion has for the existence of their Gods.
That is what the article says.
Maybe because your experience doesn't include shipping packages with prominent 'Atheist' branding?
Yeesssss... And less than 1% of non-Atheist branded packages were lost.
Yes, you certainly seem to be hard of understanding.
When I moved to France, I went to a language school and many of the other students were Chinese.
We had to do oral presentations on a subject of our own choosing, and one of the Chinese students explained the system of democracy in China. The local people elect a representative, the representatives elect people further up the chain, congress, deputies, etc, etc, right up to the president.
The Chinese students thought this was perfect democracy in action, and were baffled that the Europeans, Africans and New Worlders couldn't understand how wonderful and flawless the system was. When we pointed out that there was only one party, they indignantly said there were several parties to choose from: more than in France.
On the subject of censorship, they thought it was necessary to protect the country, and made hand-waving explanations that things were different in China.
These kids were the offspring of the kind of Chinese families who could afford to send their children to study in France, so no doubt are not representative of the population as a whole, but it was still a real eye-opener for me, who had kind of assuming that the Chinese would want the same kind of (imperfect) democracy we have in the West.
Personally, I still think it's basically down to indoctrination, but if so, it's evidently pretty effective indoctrination.
Yes, it's stupid that there's no option to display the menubar on both monitors.
SecondBar might be useful.
Another WTF since Lion: make an application fullscreen, and your other monitor is useless: it just displays a brushed metal background.
Yeah, like the recent laws forbidding women wearing the niqab (those islamic headscarves which cover the face) in Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Holland...
They're really pandering to Sharia there.
"Weak"... "Eurabia"... Your prejudices are showing. Belief in all religions is in freefall in Europe.
Good theory. Spoilt only a little by the fact that the right-wing holds the balance of power in the European Parliament, and all those headscarf bans were introduced by right-wing parties.
I know it's considered common knowledge in the US that Europe is run by socialists, but consider that France — for example — currently has only the second Socialist president since WWII (and he's as popular as a turd in a swimming pool).
The fact is that this is just what the European Parliament do: this isn't binding (it's 'advice'), it's a waste of time, and yogurt will continue to be advertised by topless women on TV in France and Italy.