Or will we one day hear, that, unfortunately, the cameras worn by the officers involved had "malfunctioned" at the most inopportune moment?
(Pay no attention to the remains of chewing gum around the lenses.)
Indeed, but then it will immediately put suspicion on the police officer, whereas at the moment there is nothing other than their sayso about what happened. Since police testimony is often implicitly trusted by magistrates and juries, I would much rather there be a 'but what happened to your camera?' defence than not at all.
To be fair, CVs are beasts that end up being read by people who are just keyword searching so you have to put every word you've ever vaguely come up against just to get past HR. There's a bunch of stuff I wouldn't want to be pushed too far on my CV... I figure I can work it out on the fly if necessary.
You have to trust the interviewer has a good idea what is actually necessary for the job and isn't just on a catch-them-out power trip. Hopefully the original poster does actually need C knowledge.
Ah, I didn't know they'd actually changed. Still, if there's no point (and your link says so) then I'm not sure why you would change the voltage just to be nominally at the correct level, in preference to being technically within the allowed limits.
Uh no, since the year 2000 all of the EU, that includes the UK, runs on 230V.
Uh no, the standard voltage for mains power across the EU is 230V +/- 10%. The UK runs 240V, and still does. The continent runs 220V, and still does. The standard was picked because of EUs love of standards, but everybody knows that practically 220V=240V so they picked half way inbetween, with a tolerance, and called it a day.
So it is good to have them - I agree, I also have this warm fuzzy feeling when I think about all these nukes stationed nearby.
However it seems to me that you did not understand the question - which was : what to do with deterrent if there is nobody to deter?
Given that you don't know that there's not going to be anyone to deter - you can't be sure now and definitely not about 20 years in the future - you keep it. Russia is hardly a benign friend now.
There's a big jump from "thankfully we don't seem to have a need for this anymore" to "we can get rid of them permanently because they will never be useful again"
The UK's deterrent isn't like France's really. The US supplies most of the Trident missile system with the UK putting its own warheads on (I think we still do that, at least we used to make them at Aldermaston). The thing is it's not really an independent deterrent. The UK doesn't need US permission before using it but it's almost totally dependent on US technology to launch and maintain it. Regardless the deterrent was really only design to guarantee that the UK could completely flatten Moscow in the event of Russian aggression against the UK. I'm not too sure such a capability is all that relevant any more.
Thing is, *is* that the only requirement, and is it going to be the requirement in 20 years, 40 years? I can't say, of course nobody can, so I'd rather keep it.
The whole currency exchange actually increased the share of the "Yes" vote. The whole patronising attitude of the Westminster parties had the opposite to intended effect.
Course it's quite hard not to be patronising to an opponent who seems to think currency union will happen because he wishes it, even though the other party in the union has said that it won't.
It could do that fine from North England. The problem is there just isn't a good place for a sub pen in England. Scotland meanwhile has loads of deep tidal water safely tucked miles from coast.
Don't start using actual practical reality now when we can hand wave apparent Westminster anti-Scottishness!
Thing is, the UK parties hate, hate, hate the thought of secession. So if they think being uncooperative on the pound will help scare Scots to stay in the union, they'll do that.
But once secession is a fact, that posturing will likely be dropped. UK is probably better served with Scotland staying with the pound than switching to the Euro.
Why? We've *just*... *just* seen how badly a currency union without political union can go in the (ongoing) Euro crisis. Why do you think that's a good idea suddenly now, especially when the direction of integration is going in the wrong direction, towards more divergence. You can't have successful monetary union without shared fiscal policy, and why would Scotland want that after all the effort of independence?
The americans have enough already.. there's no USSR.. I wonder why they'd want to maintain an "arsenal".. wouldnt a few thermo tipped pencils be enough deterrent ?
Ultimately, yes, because you can't expect another country, even a close ally, to risk nuclear war for you. The UK can't guarantee that the States would retaliate if necessary, especially since they would be bringing likely retaliation, and millions of American citizens deaths, on themselves. Nuclear warheads suck, but once you have them you damn well keep them, otherwise the deterrent doesn't work.
All Google has to do is dump that stupid steaming pile called ChromeOS, and admit that Android wins.
I'd agree but one thing needs to happen first... a desktop-class webbrowser that includes Flash. Before that... it just can't compete. I had various Android laptops and tablets, and they're great, but if I want to browse the internet like a normal person, I still really need to use the Chromebook or a PC. Not having Flash (/having to work around the fact) and a limited webbrowser (slower javascript, not a full set of keyboard control) gets tiring very quickly.
You talk as if you know me. You're sorely, sorely mistaken. I've fucked herms and trans people before, so that doesn't make me bisexual, by any means. In fact, that pretty much puts me into pansexual territory. I CHOOSE TO LIVE MY LIFE WITH A MAN. Key word - *CHOOSE*
Fair enough, pansexual. However few people *choose* who they're attracted to, and you shouldn't assume that other people can simply because you seem to be able to.
I don't get why people want to lock themselve in an echo chamber. That seems silly to me.
I'm fairly sure you have never been at the mercy of the trolls of the internet. Much of what is posted under the anonymous cover is extremely upsetting, abusive and threatening, and it's about time we stopped giving it a pass under 'free speech' cover.
Sure, they didn't choose it, but why can't I dislike it? I should have the freedom to like or hate a person for anyreason, including stupid ones like race. Now to say gays don't deserve basic rights, that's a different story. But I shouldn't be forced to hire them or make them my friends. If I don't hire someone because he is gay and he turned out to be a better worker, my business' loss.
Ideally though, keep your sexual orientation to yourself. This also goes for the guys at work bragging about picking up chicks at a bar like a frat boy. Keep that stuff out of the office please.
And I don't hate gays, but I would defend a business' choice not to hire because the job seeker is gay. As I said before, their loss. And if the job seeker is dumb enough to advertise that in the interview, he is a moron. Of course America is now so PC that doing so is illegal, which is a serious problem, but don't get me too off topic about that.
This is all great and fine, right up until you are in a category of people that are systematically discriminated against. Sometimes (and I know this is controversial) the market cannot fix everything. People should not have to hide who they are to get a job. There is a difference between inappropriate frattishness and pretending you are asexual or straight to try not upset someone who is sensitive, and has power over you.
It did potentially have one very important effect... to persuade Intel that they power consumption of their chips are pants and needs to be improved. Intel needs competition to keep them honest, and Windows-on-ARM is probably why we have such frugal x86 now.
There's one big wildcard in there though, if you buy an Android phone then the firmware can be replaced (ease depends on the model...) with open source variant that has more protections. Depending on your view of these firmwares, that might catapult it from the bottom of the pile to the top.
> Unfortunately, that won't help. Your phone number(s) and your home address are already on many of your friend's devices under your real name. Apple, Google & Co already have your details [...]
While it's important to keep that in mind, the "this won't help" mindset is a classical fallacy: someone gotta start, and if (and when) it's widespread enough, it'l help all of us. Like higiene.
You don't spit on the roads, do you? Or do you shit out your window?
So if you implement that -- have a talk with your friends about it too.
Well not really, because *everybody* has to do it or it's useless, and since your phone number could easily be in 100 phonebooks that's alot of poisoning to do. And As soon as people start doing it in numbers you can imagine a malicious Google (or whatever) would implement anti-poisoning analysis.
I believe the only real solution, which is unpopular on this largely libertarian site, is to have stronger protections in law, making data about you your property and controlled as such, and penalties for misuse the same seriousness as theft. That's a long way from where we are now though.
Microsoft says it supports DVB-T, DVB-T2 and DVB-C television channels, which I hope means something to my European readers; Wikipedia tells me these are European over-the-air cable standards.
Is your argument that encryption is hard so people should just keep sending sensitive information over email and expecting privacy?
I think we basically have to, since encryption actually *is* that hard. You *and* the other person need to both use encryption and there are no turnkey solutions, just really inconvenient and complicated ones.
When we start treating data as personal property, that would be a start.
Don't forget that you mustn't communicate with anyone with a GMail address either, then you would still be exposed. Great that you understand encryption, but lots of people do other things with their life and don't have time (or sometimes in the case of the young or old, capability) to learn the technical details of every system that they interact with. Not to mention that you don't know what your email provider does with your data, because they won't tell you, so how the hell you are supposed to make an informed better choice I can't imagine. Or do you expect every grannie to run her own email server?
If you don't have the technical knowledge to make curtains or the money to buy curtains, is it not naive to expect privacy in your house?
I know this might be hard to imagine - but bear with it because I know empathy is not a typical trait of the techie (and perhaps understanding that will help understand that not everyone is technical, nor wishes to be) - but the blocking of visible light is somewhat easier to understand than the intricacies of encrypted communications.
Given that there is no straightforward way to purchase said security, and there are lots of curtain shops, I don't really know what your point is.
Slashdot Mirror
Or will we one day hear, that, unfortunately, the cameras worn by the officers involved had "malfunctioned" at the most inopportune moment?
(Pay no attention to the remains of chewing gum around the lenses.)
Indeed, but then it will immediately put suspicion on the police officer, whereas at the moment there is nothing other than their sayso about what happened. Since police testimony is often implicitly trusted by magistrates and juries, I would much rather there be a 'but what happened to your camera?' defence than not at all.
To be fair, CVs are beasts that end up being read by people who are just keyword searching so you have to put every word you've ever vaguely come up against just to get past HR. There's a bunch of stuff I wouldn't want to be pushed too far on my CV... I figure I can work it out on the fly if necessary.
You have to trust the interviewer has a good idea what is actually necessary for the job and isn't just on a catch-them-out power trip. Hopefully the original poster does actually need C knowledge.
Ah, I didn't know they'd actually changed. Still, if there's no point (and your link says so) then I'm not sure why you would change the voltage just to be nominally at the correct level, in preference to being technically within the allowed limits.
Uh no, since the year 2000 all of the EU, that includes the UK, runs on 230V.
Uh no, the standard voltage for mains power across the EU is 230V +/- 10%. The UK runs 240V, and still does. The continent runs 220V, and still does. The standard was picked because of EUs love of standards, but everybody knows that practically 220V=240V so they picked half way inbetween, with a tolerance, and called it a day.
So it is good to have them - I agree, I also have this warm fuzzy feeling when I think about all these nukes stationed nearby.
However it seems to me that you did not understand the question - which was : what to do with deterrent if there is nobody to deter?
Given that you don't know that there's not going to be anyone to deter - you can't be sure now and definitely not about 20 years in the future - you keep it. Russia is hardly a benign friend now.
There's a big jump from "thankfully we don't seem to have a need for this anymore" to "we can get rid of them permanently because they will never be useful again"
The UK's deterrent isn't like France's really. The US supplies most of the Trident missile system with the UK putting its own warheads on (I think we still do that, at least we used to make them at Aldermaston). The thing is it's not really an independent deterrent. The UK doesn't need US permission before using it but it's almost totally dependent on US technology to launch and maintain it. Regardless the deterrent was really only design to guarantee that the UK could completely flatten Moscow in the event of Russian aggression against the UK. I'm not too sure such a capability is all that relevant any more.
Thing is, *is* that the only requirement, and is it going to be the requirement in 20 years, 40 years? I can't say, of course nobody can, so I'd rather keep it.
The whole currency exchange actually increased the share of the "Yes" vote. The whole patronising attitude of the Westminster parties had the opposite to intended effect.
Course it's quite hard not to be patronising to an opponent who seems to think currency union will happen because he wishes it, even though the other party in the union has said that it won't.
It could do that fine from North England. The problem is there just isn't a good place for a sub pen in England. Scotland meanwhile has loads of deep tidal water safely tucked miles from coast.
Don't start using actual practical reality now when we can hand wave apparent Westminster anti-Scottishness!
Thing is, the UK parties hate, hate, hate the thought of secession. So if they think being uncooperative on the pound will help scare Scots to stay in the union, they'll do that.
But once secession is a fact, that posturing will likely be dropped. UK is probably better served with Scotland staying with the pound than switching to the Euro.
Why? We've *just*... *just* seen how badly a currency union without political union can go in the (ongoing) Euro crisis. Why do you think that's a good idea suddenly now, especially when the direction of integration is going in the wrong direction, towards more divergence. You can't have successful monetary union without shared fiscal policy, and why would Scotland want that after all the effort of independence?
The americans have enough already .. there's no USSR .. I wonder why they'd want to maintain an "arsenal" .. wouldnt a few thermo tipped pencils be enough deterrent ?
Ultimately, yes, because you can't expect another country, even a close ally, to risk nuclear war for you. The UK can't guarantee that the States would retaliate if necessary, especially since they would be bringing likely retaliation, and millions of American citizens deaths, on themselves. Nuclear warheads suck, but once you have them you damn well keep them, otherwise the deterrent doesn't work.
All Google has to do is dump that stupid steaming pile called ChromeOS, and admit that Android wins.
I'd agree but one thing needs to happen first... a desktop-class webbrowser that includes Flash. Before that... it just can't compete. I had various Android laptops and tablets, and they're great, but if I want to browse the internet like a normal person, I still really need to use the Chromebook or a PC. Not having Flash (/having to work around the fact) and a limited webbrowser (slower javascript, not a full set of keyboard control) gets tiring very quickly.
"Then that would make you bisexual."
You talk as if you know me. You're sorely, sorely mistaken. I've fucked herms and trans people before, so that doesn't make me bisexual, by any means. In fact, that pretty much puts me into pansexual territory. I CHOOSE TO LIVE MY LIFE WITH A MAN. Key word - *CHOOSE*
Fair enough, pansexual. However few people *choose* who they're attracted to, and you shouldn't assume that other people can simply because you seem to be able to.
I don't get why people want to lock themselve in an echo chamber. That seems silly to me.
I'm fairly sure you have never been at the mercy of the trolls of the internet. Much of what is posted under the anonymous cover is extremely upsetting, abusive and threatening, and it's about time we stopped giving it a pass under 'free speech' cover.
Sure, they didn't choose it, but why can't I dislike it? I should have the freedom to like or hate a person for anyreason, including stupid ones like race. Now to say gays don't deserve basic rights, that's a different story. But I shouldn't be forced to hire them or make them my friends. If I don't hire someone because he is gay and he turned out to be a better worker, my business' loss.
Ideally though, keep your sexual orientation to yourself. This also goes for the guys at work bragging about picking up chicks at a bar like a frat boy. Keep that stuff out of the office please.
And I don't hate gays, but I would defend a business' choice not to hire because the job seeker is gay. As I said before, their loss. And if the job seeker is dumb enough to advertise that in the interview, he is a moron. Of course America is now so PC that doing so is illegal, which is a serious problem, but don't get me too off topic about that.
This is all great and fine, right up until you are in a category of people that are systematically discriminated against. Sometimes (and I know this is controversial) the market cannot fix everything. People should not have to hide who they are to get a job. There is a difference between inappropriate frattishness and pretending you are asexual or straight to try not upset someone who is sensitive, and has power over you.
"Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change."
I sure as fuck chose my lifestyle, thanks. Three bad engagements to women, and I made up my mind to date men after that.
What nonsense are you on about?
Then that would make you bisexual. Not everyone is. Are you unable to conceive of someone who has different sexual preferences to you?
May I ask what you are laughing about?
Since the USA have installed listening breaks in international undersea cables, I'd guess he laughing at the naivety of the original statement.
[...] but given China's track record with censorship and privacy, the explanation rings hollow for some skeptics.[...]
Given the United State's track record, I think the skeptics should worry about data collection at home too.
Why always focus on China when it comes to human rights and privacy issues? Just look at your own navel for a change...
Does every slashdot article have to come back to trashing the USA these days?
Don't ou think it's kindof relevent? Given they're talking about privacy of data, and the other option for storing would be in the States? Mm?
It did potentially have one very important effect... to persuade Intel that they power consumption of their chips are pants and needs to be improved. Intel needs competition to keep them honest, and Windows-on-ARM is probably why we have such frugal x86 now.
There's one big wildcard in there though, if you buy an Android phone then the firmware can be replaced (ease depends on the model...) with open source variant that has more protections. Depending on your view of these firmwares, that might catapult it from the bottom of the pile to the top.
> Unfortunately, that won't help. Your phone number(s) and your home address are already on many of your friend's devices under your real name. Apple, Google & Co already have your details [...]
While it's important to keep that in mind, the "this won't help" mindset is a classical fallacy: someone gotta start, and if (and when) it's widespread enough, it'l help all of us. Like higiene.
You don't spit on the roads, do you? Or do you shit out your window?
So if you implement that -- have a talk with your friends about it too.
Well not really, because *everybody* has to do it or it's useless, and since your phone number could easily be in 100 phonebooks that's alot of poisoning to do. And As soon as people start doing it in numbers you can imagine a malicious Google (or whatever) would implement anti-poisoning analysis.
I believe the only real solution, which is unpopular on this largely libertarian site, is to have stronger protections in law, making data about you your property and controlled as such, and penalties for misuse the same seriousness as theft. That's a long way from where we are now though.
Hehe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Microsoft says it supports DVB-T, DVB-T2 and DVB-C television channels, which I hope means something to my European readers; Wikipedia tells me these are European over-the-air cable standards.
...Christ...
Is your argument that encryption is hard so people should just keep sending sensitive information over email and expecting privacy?
I think we basically have to, since encryption actually *is* that hard. You *and* the other person need to both use encryption and there are no turnkey solutions, just really inconvenient and complicated ones.
When we start treating data as personal property, that would be a start.
Don't forget that you mustn't communicate with anyone with a GMail address either, then you would still be exposed. Great that you understand encryption, but lots of people do other things with their life and don't have time (or sometimes in the case of the young or old, capability) to learn the technical details of every system that they interact with. Not to mention that you don't know what your email provider does with your data, because they won't tell you, so how the hell you are supposed to make an informed better choice I can't imagine. Or do you expect every grannie to run her own email server?
"Entitled wanker" vs "elitist tosspot"
If you don't have the technical knowledge to make curtains or the money to buy curtains, is it not naive to expect privacy in your house?
I know this might be hard to imagine - but bear with it because I know empathy is not a typical trait of the techie (and perhaps understanding that will help understand that not everyone is technical, nor wishes to be) - but the blocking of visible light is somewhat easier to understand than the intricacies of encrypted communications.
Given that there is no straightforward way to purchase said security, and there are lots of curtain shops, I don't really know what your point is.