This is the last time, That I am going on an 18 month contract, Form now on it’s monthly rolling contract and I will pay for the phone out of pocket, It might cost me more in the long run,
I suspect actually it will be the opposite. I started doing this about the time that 18-month contracts became the norm and I've been able to reduce the amount I pay monthly massively (those monthly rolling rates are cheaper than the handset-subsidised rates; plus you have a better window to threaten them with moving to the competition and grab the best bargains as and when the appear). Plus I get a handset that is (a) already unlocked (which I would otherwise have been charged £20 for if I wanted to ebay it) and (b) not infected with the usual operator-specific cruft.
How do you know what a dollar was worth 1000 years ago? Until the 20th century, there were many periods when deflation was the norm rather than the exception, so £1 in 1820 adjusted for inflation would only be worth £73 today. Now compare that to the value of an 1820 gold sovereign - originally worth £1, one might go for £1000 today in very fine condition.
Has there yet been a bank or currency which has lasted that long?
Gold. Plus, if you get gold coins rather than bullion there's a chance that that they will acquire rarity value over 1000 years (due to the milling, engraving etc) over and above the value of the base metal itself and so enhance your rate of return. Ancient coins still have a high value attached to them despite the empires to which they belonged being long-dead.
I'd be extremely surprised if software piracy is a crime in this setting. It's merely civil liability for the company, so these types of laws don't apply. Perhaps the company could try to sue you for damages if they themselves get sued by the copyright owners but it's pretty simple to CYA in that case. Tell TPTB in the company (internally) that they are probably liable and make sure that you doing so is documented.
Hmm. There are a standard set of laws which are thrown at people where there's no evidence of a real crime. Immigration charges seem to top the list - merely being arrested effectively invalidates certain types of UK residence visa from what I can gather. "Banned books" laws are another in terrorism-type cases. For political protesters, when they aren't arrested using the terrorism laws, the laws against intimidation and harassment get well-used ("the fact that they disagree with me intimidates me!"). New Labour seems to have had a real fetish for these catch-all laws. The worst in the class is the ASBO - a device that they even admitted was designed to side-step those pesky "innocent until proven guilty" and "right to a fair trial" things and make convictions on the basis of the police's say-so.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this law joins those ranks.
When the first case comes up (as it eventually surely will) where these powers are used to attempt to force a journalist to reveal his sources (I can think of a scenario very similar to the Damian Green affair), we'll know for sure how much of a chilling effect it's really had. I suspect that, overall, the law is still a Very Bad Thing.
It's not just the Brits, it's the whole EU. It's an EU regulation that pretty much all countries accepted.
No. Sweden, for example, tried to avoid implementing it completely. The Irish and the Slovaks also didn't like it. It was a British idea - they just realised it would have had a rough ride through the UK parliament so went to the EU to policy launder it (which in less polite circles is called "corruption").
Interestingly though, contrary to GP's belief, it turns out that a large proportion of people served with such a notice refused to comply anyway. This might not have been a bad gamble, given the number of those subsequently prosecuted and convicted for doing so seems to be low. See here and here, for example.
You can have as many shotguns and rifles as you want, just no hand guns. And if you go up against the cops with just a hand gun, you're not making a stand but an easy target.
Shotguns (at least of the type not requiring a firearms certificate), basically yes. Rifles... while there is technically no limit on the number you can apply for on a firearms certificate, you need to effectively justify each one on the basis that you will actually use it regularly, so it's unlikely you'd be allowed to build up a significant arsenal. You'll also find it basically impossible to purchase the types of rifles which are most common in the US, as all full-bore semi-automatic rifles (e.g. the AR-15) are, along with all handguns, all fully automatic weapons and (bizarrely) self-contained gas cartridge air rifles, classed as Section 5 firearms. This makes them all but impossible for private citizens and pretty difficult even for specialist collectors/dealers.
I'd also add that if you go up against the police with ANY kind of weapon (including non-firearms), you are making yourself an easy target. People have been shot dead by the police for brandishing table legs, samurai swords, air rifles, and even a couple of cases where the victims were totally unarmed).
Firstly, if you get a shock from the mains, it really doesn't matter much what country you're in, there will be more than enough current to kill. Do not rely on the lower voltage in the US/Japan to save you!
Otherwise, I agree with you and I'd also add that apart from the general lack of ring mains and their attendant problems (not least the fact that they used to be used in the UK to reduce the rating of wire needed), the US electricity supply is better engineered than the UK's in one other important way - most homes are wired with two phases. That means you have 110V potential between phase and neutral and 220V potential between phase and phase for hungrier devices like washing machines etc where you can take more precaution. Overall this should reduce shock risk since the maximum potential difference a human and a wire should only ever be 110V, without compromising on the ability to use more power-hungry appliances.
Unfortunately though, in a cruel twist of fate, there is some evidence that 110V is actually close to the most dangerous voltage to be hit by if you do get shocked (worse than 220V, for example)...
A 13A fuse (the max) can fit in a 3A cord. In order for the fuse to cut the power, it has to melt but in this case, the cord will melt and catch on fire before the fuse does. FAIL
Moreover, even if you had fitted the correct fuse, there's a good chance the thing will STILL melt and catch fire before the fuse goes. Most fuses can survive for over 5 minutes when drawing double or more their rated current (e.g. a 13A fuse vs. appliance drawing 26A), and even a dead short won't blow a fuse very quickly. This is all an argument for using RCDs and MCBs as well as fuses.
However, having fuses on the plugs is a much better idea than having them at the distribution board - primarily for convenience's sake as it means if something breaks then the part you need to fix is near the thing that broke, not buried in a garage or cellar or whatever.
I believe the vuln being talked about here is actually CVE 2009-3547 (though full details aren't yet available on the MITRE site). If you google that number, you'll find the Red Hat patches.
For those who just want to know how to fix it, you need to apply this git commit to your kernel tree and then either recompile and reboot or apply the patch using ksplice.
Anything worth writing is worth writing once. If someone already wrote it in the text book. Then that is good enough for me.
I have to disagree with you there. Personally when I was at university (I read mathematics) I found there was a huge amount of value to be had in the physical act of copying out the equations and text from the blackboard (either by hand or by computer but generally by hand). It forces your brain to slow down, concentrate properly and take in what's being said for one (which is no mean feat); for another, a lot of people (me included) find that the very act of copying out word-for-word helps them commit the concepts to memory.
They don't have formal legal immunity, but if anything like this would happen, the police chiefs and the attorney general would likely determine that it is not 'in the public interest' to prosecute or punish politicians or other powerful people. (Just like it happens when an MP or minister falsifies expenses or commits other kinds of fraud.)
There are numerous examples of this. My favourites are Harriet Harman, the solicitor-general, who was caught speeding. The police officer in question claimed she was doing 99mph. Coincidentally, 1mph faster would have earned her an automatic 1-year driving ban and a much more serious criminal record likely resulting in her sacking from government.
Another good one is the recent case of Baroness Scotland, who was caught breaking a law which she herself was partly responsible for the creation of (she employed an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper then later claimed she'd seen documents giving the housekeeper the right to work in the UK but failed to keep copies so there was no evidence as to whether this was actually true or not).
There's nothing special about the so-called military-industrial complex in this respect, and you don't have to assume that politicians or businesses are either inherently evil or particularly incompetent. It's more like a defect of the system and is explained by the Public choice theory of government. Lobbying happens in all sorts of policy areas and unfortunately it tends to be a case of those who shout loudest, get what they want. I think this also explains a lot about why three-strikes is apparently happening in the UK against almost every expert opinion and the wishes of the majority.
I'd hazard a guess that the real issue these agencies have is about increased use of anonymous communication networks such as Tor rather than just "encryption" of the content. It's almost a given that widespread adoption of Tor will have two important effects: (1) there will be larger numbers of relay or exit nodes in the network - at present it is suspected that intelligence agencies control a large number of the exit nodes (and possibly relay nodes too) in the network; and (2) greater traffic through the network will make it significantly harder to perform timing attacks on entry and exit from the mix network to correlate traffic and thus break its anonymity.
Yes. It was Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president and the rumour was that the Germans were talking about having him impeached for refusing to sign. Some background in the Economist and The Times. Of course, there's history between the Czechs and the Germans as we know...
About 3 or 4 years ago, here in the UK, the way that tertiary education is funded changed in quite a significant way. Under the old system, from the perspective of most undergraduates, education was "free" since it was paid for by a combination of their parents paying relatively small upfront fees and the general taxpayer paying the balance. Under the new system, it is now effectively "expensive" from those students' perspective since the fees are both larger and crucially are collected after university (and hence parents don't pay for it).
The interesting thing is that this has changed attitudes to study quite significantly. Undergraduates are now much more determined to make sure they get full value out of the *education* they are paying for, not just the environment. They attend more lectures, take more courses and generally put more effort into study.
In my opinion, the goal should be to make education "expensive but affordable" to undergraduates. The benefits will be *huge*. For one, it will mean the drain to taxpayers of sending nigh on 50% of the population to university is mitigated. But more importantly it will result in a better motivated, better educated and smarter workforce, both inside and outside of academia. Making tertiary education "free" would be a huge mistake.
Personally, I think the present situation is eminently fair. You are free to choose to go to Vegas and play blackjack or not, and the casino is free to provide service to you. You are free to count cards, and the casino is free to kick you out.
Hmmm... I disagree there. If I went in to a Vegas casino with a computer which counted cards I'd probably end up in jail, not just barred. But somehow it's "fair" for them to use one? I don't think so.
Hmmm... I don't think it can be that clear-cut though. While I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, clearly it is possible for an MP to use parliamentary absolute privilege to make an end-run around injunctions forbidding reporting - since the newspapers are then free to repeat what an MP says in parliament under the doctrine of qualified privilege. This is, for example, what David Davis did, quite openly, earlier this year when he spoke about the case of Rangzieb Ahmed.
So I can see why it might make sense to restrict the reporting of that proceeding in parliament - and as far as my understanding goes, English libel law also accepts this as those reporting on proceedings of parliament are only given the protection of "qualified privilege", not "absolute privilege" - effectively my understanding is that they must report these more sensitive parliamentary proceedings in a manner which does not add their own "spin" to the story but simply reports the facts of what was said.
The fundamental issue is that the concept of injunctions prohibiting publication are at great odds with freedom of speech in the first place, regardless of the involvement of Parliament in this case. I think there's a strong case to be made that the use of injunctions (rather than simply allowing the victim to sue for damages after publication) should be restricted only to cases where there would otherwise be the most severe and irreparable harm. In my mind, this should mean serious (false) allegations against individuals such as falsely claiming that they are a convicted child abuser. Allegations of corporate wrongdoing should almost never qualify.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the last time, That I am going on an 18 month contract, Form now on it’s monthly rolling contract and I will pay for the phone out of pocket, It might cost me more in the long run,
I suspect actually it will be the opposite. I started doing this about the time that 18-month contracts became the norm and I've been able to reduce the amount I pay monthly massively (those monthly rolling rates are cheaper than the handset-subsidised rates; plus you have a better window to threaten them with moving to the competition and grab the best bargains as and when the appear). Plus I get a handset that is (a) already unlocked (which I would otherwise have been charged £20 for if I wanted to ebay it) and (b) not infected with the usual operator-specific cruft.
How do you know what a dollar was worth 1000 years ago? Until the 20th century, there were many periods when deflation was the norm rather than the exception, so £1 in 1820 adjusted for inflation would only be worth £73 today. Now compare that to the value of an 1820 gold sovereign - originally worth £1, one might go for £1000 today in very fine condition.
Has there yet been a bank or currency which has lasted that long?
Gold. Plus, if you get gold coins rather than bullion there's a chance that that they will acquire rarity value over 1000 years (due to the milling, engraving etc) over and above the value of the base metal itself and so enhance your rate of return. Ancient coins still have a high value attached to them despite the empires to which they belonged being long-dead.
I'd be extremely surprised if software piracy is a crime in this setting. It's merely civil liability for the company, so these types of laws don't apply. Perhaps the company could try to sue you for damages if they themselves get sued by the copyright owners but it's pretty simple to CYA in that case. Tell TPTB in the company (internally) that they are probably liable and make sure that you doing so is documented.
Hmm. There are a standard set of laws which are thrown at people where there's no evidence of a real crime. Immigration charges seem to top the list - merely being arrested effectively invalidates certain types of UK residence visa from what I can gather. "Banned books" laws are another in terrorism-type cases. For political protesters, when they aren't arrested using the terrorism laws, the laws against intimidation and harassment get well-used ("the fact that they disagree with me intimidates me!"). New Labour seems to have had a real fetish for these catch-all laws. The worst in the class is the ASBO - a device that they even admitted was designed to side-step those pesky "innocent until proven guilty" and "right to a fair trial" things and make convictions on the basis of the police's say-so.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this law joins those ranks.
When the first case comes up (as it eventually surely will) where these powers are used to attempt to force a journalist to reveal his sources (I can think of a scenario very similar to the Damian Green affair), we'll know for sure how much of a chilling effect it's really had. I suspect that, overall, the law is still a Very Bad Thing.
It's not just the Brits, it's the whole EU. It's an EU regulation that pretty much all countries accepted.
No. Sweden, for example, tried to avoid implementing it completely. The Irish and the Slovaks also didn't like it. It was a British idea - they just realised it would have had a rough ride through the UK parliament so went to the EU to policy launder it (which in less polite circles is called "corruption").
Interestingly though, contrary to GP's belief, it turns out that a large proportion of people served with such a notice refused to comply anyway. This might not have been a bad gamble, given the number of those subsequently prosecuted and convicted for doing so seems to be low. See here and here, for example.
You can have as many shotguns and rifles as you want, just no hand guns. And if you go up against the cops with just a hand gun, you're not making a stand but an easy target.
Shotguns (at least of the type not requiring a firearms certificate), basically yes. Rifles... while there is technically no limit on the number you can apply for on a firearms certificate, you need to effectively justify each one on the basis that you will actually use it regularly, so it's unlikely you'd be allowed to build up a significant arsenal. You'll also find it basically impossible to purchase the types of rifles which are most common in the US, as all full-bore semi-automatic rifles (e.g. the AR-15) are, along with all handguns, all fully automatic weapons and (bizarrely) self-contained gas cartridge air rifles, classed as Section 5 firearms. This makes them all but impossible for private citizens and pretty difficult even for specialist collectors/dealers.
I'd also add that if you go up against the police with ANY kind of weapon (including non-firearms), you are making yourself an easy target. People have been shot dead by the police for brandishing table legs, samurai swords, air rifles, and even a couple of cases where the victims were totally unarmed).
Firstly, if you get a shock from the mains, it really doesn't matter much what country you're in, there will be more than enough current to kill. Do not rely on the lower voltage in the US/Japan to save you!
Otherwise, I agree with you and I'd also add that apart from the general lack of ring mains and their attendant problems (not least the fact that they used to be used in the UK to reduce the rating of wire needed), the US electricity supply is better engineered than the UK's in one other important way - most homes are wired with two phases. That means you have 110V potential between phase and neutral and 220V potential between phase and phase for hungrier devices like washing machines etc where you can take more precaution. Overall this should reduce shock risk since the maximum potential difference a human and a wire should only ever be 110V, without compromising on the ability to use more power-hungry appliances.
Unfortunately though, in a cruel twist of fate, there is some evidence that 110V is actually close to the most dangerous voltage to be hit by if you do get shocked (worse than 220V, for example)...
A 13A fuse (the max) can fit in a 3A cord. In order for the fuse to cut the power, it has to melt but in this case, the cord will melt and catch on fire before the fuse does. FAIL
Moreover, even if you had fitted the correct fuse, there's a good chance the thing will STILL melt and catch fire before the fuse goes. Most fuses can survive for over 5 minutes when drawing double or more their rated current (e.g. a 13A fuse vs. appliance drawing 26A), and even a dead short won't blow a fuse very quickly. This is all an argument for using RCDs and MCBs as well as fuses.
However, having fuses on the plugs is a much better idea than having them at the distribution board - primarily for convenience's sake as it means if something breaks then the part you need to fix is near the thing that broke, not buried in a garage or cellar or whatever.
I believe the vuln being talked about here is actually CVE 2009-3547 (though full details aren't yet available on the MITRE site). If you google that number, you'll find the Red Hat patches.
For those who just want to know how to fix it, you need to apply this git commit to your kernel tree and then either recompile and reboot or apply the patch using ksplice.
Anything worth writing is worth writing once. If someone already wrote it in the text book. Then that is good enough for me.
I have to disagree with you there. Personally when I was at university (I read mathematics) I found there was a huge amount of value to be had in the physical act of copying out the equations and text from the blackboard (either by hand or by computer but generally by hand). It forces your brain to slow down, concentrate properly and take in what's being said for one (which is no mean feat); for another, a lot of people (me included) find that the very act of copying out word-for-word helps them commit the concepts to memory.
They don't have formal legal immunity, but if anything like this would happen, the police chiefs and the attorney general would likely determine that it is not 'in the public interest' to prosecute or punish politicians or other powerful people. (Just like it happens when an MP or minister falsifies expenses or commits other kinds of fraud.)
There are numerous examples of this. My favourites are Harriet Harman, the solicitor-general, who was caught speeding. The police officer in question claimed she was doing 99mph. Coincidentally, 1mph faster would have earned her an automatic 1-year driving ban and a much more serious criminal record likely resulting in her sacking from government.
Another good one is the recent case of Baroness Scotland, who was caught breaking a law which she herself was partly responsible for the creation of (she employed an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper then later claimed she'd seen documents giving the housekeeper the right to work in the UK but failed to keep copies so there was no evidence as to whether this was actually true or not).
Not a good idea, it'd take 5 days to make a decision and probably end in a draw.
Not if they use the Duckworth-Lewis scoring method.
There's nothing special about the so-called military-industrial complex in this respect, and you don't have to assume that politicians or businesses are either inherently evil or particularly incompetent. It's more like a defect of the system and is explained by the Public choice theory of government. Lobbying happens in all sorts of policy areas and unfortunately it tends to be a case of those who shout loudest, get what they want. I think this also explains a lot about why three-strikes is apparently happening in the UK against almost every expert opinion and the wishes of the majority.
I'd hazard a guess that the real issue these agencies have is about increased use of anonymous communication networks such as Tor rather than just "encryption" of the content. It's almost a given that widespread adoption of Tor will have two important effects: (1) there will be larger numbers of relay or exit nodes in the network - at present it is suspected that intelligence agencies control a large number of the exit nodes (and possibly relay nodes too) in the network; and (2) greater traffic through the network will make it significantly harder to perform timing attacks on entry and exit from the mix network to correlate traffic and thus break its anonymity.
Yes. It was Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president and the rumour was that the Germans were talking about having him impeached for refusing to sign. Some background in the Economist and The Times. Of course, there's history between the Czechs and the Germans as we know...
Seems to me like a pretty classic case of France engaging in policy laundering after this law was overturned by its own constitutional court.
About 3 or 4 years ago, here in the UK, the way that tertiary education is funded changed in quite a significant way. Under the old system, from the perspective of most undergraduates, education was "free" since it was paid for by a combination of their parents paying relatively small upfront fees and the general taxpayer paying the balance. Under the new system, it is now effectively "expensive" from those students' perspective since the fees are both larger and crucially are collected after university (and hence parents don't pay for it).
The interesting thing is that this has changed attitudes to study quite significantly. Undergraduates are now much more determined to make sure they get full value out of the *education* they are paying for, not just the environment. They attend more lectures, take more courses and generally put more effort into study.
In my opinion, the goal should be to make education "expensive but affordable" to undergraduates. The benefits will be *huge*. For one, it will mean the drain to taxpayers of sending nigh on 50% of the population to university is mitigated. But more importantly it will result in a better motivated, better educated and smarter workforce, both inside and outside of academia. Making tertiary education "free" would be a huge mistake.
No. "Cheating" is a felony in Nevada, and the definition encompasses using electronic devices/computers to count cards.
The dealer can just stop dealing to you though, no?
Personally, I think the present situation is eminently fair. You are free to choose to go to Vegas and play blackjack or not, and the casino is free to provide service to you. You are free to count cards, and the casino is free to kick you out.
Hmmm... I disagree there. If I went in to a Vegas casino with a computer which counted cards I'd probably end up in jail, not just barred. But somehow it's "fair" for them to use one? I don't think so.
Hmmm... I don't think it can be that clear-cut though. While I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, clearly it is possible for an MP to use parliamentary absolute privilege to make an end-run around injunctions forbidding reporting - since the newspapers are then free to repeat what an MP says in parliament under the doctrine of qualified privilege. This is, for example, what David Davis did, quite openly, earlier this year when he spoke about the case of Rangzieb Ahmed.
So I can see why it might make sense to restrict the reporting of that proceeding in parliament - and as far as my understanding goes, English libel law also accepts this as those reporting on proceedings of parliament are only given the protection of "qualified privilege", not "absolute privilege" - effectively my understanding is that they must report these more sensitive parliamentary proceedings in a manner which does not add their own "spin" to the story but simply reports the facts of what was said.
The fundamental issue is that the concept of injunctions prohibiting publication are at great odds with freedom of speech in the first place, regardless of the involvement of Parliament in this case. I think there's a strong case to be made that the use of injunctions (rather than simply allowing the victim to sue for damages after publication) should be restricted only to cases where there would otherwise be the most severe and irreparable harm. In my mind, this should mean serious (false) allegations against individuals such as falsely claiming that they are a convicted child abuser. Allegations of corporate wrongdoing should almost never qualify.
But isn't Iran already operating under pretty severe sanctions?
I can't imagine this new threat of sanctions will particularly make a difference to their behaviour.