then you missed the bit about the us getting involved and requesting his arrest shortly before he was granted asylum.
and if that is all they needed to do. then the 10s of millions of dollars they have spent on policig waiting for him to come out is definately criminal.
What part of the police force surrounding him for the last couple of years and the UK justice system attempting to violate international law by invading another country to get him out makes you think when they actually get hold of him they'll be sending him to Sweden?
so the only crime he is accused of is not going home to Sweden?
so they can send him to the us.
to be executed.
for publishing the collateral murder video.
sounds like he's a political refugee to me.
but none of that explains what crime he is supposed to have committed in the UK to be on bail there in the first place. in order to be a fugative from UK justice like you said.
you seem convinced he is a fugative from UK justice. what part of UK justice are you referring to specifically?
android OS has a certain set of things it "never" allows. Like MiMing mobile network traffic.
So if you want to install something on a phone that intercepts mobile traffic you have to strip out that layer by rooting. (for example Adblock or Tor)
no need to change his mind, they just forward both at the same time. On the one hand they want a strong digital economy. On the other, they want to the fundamental requirements of a digital economy banned and the use of basic tools for a digital economy made illegal.
In short, it's a very bad idea to invest any time or effort into the UK digital economy, cos chances are it's not going to be allowed for very long.
I had the same comment a while ago when I was having a discussion about how much some companies are willing to pay for the porn urlS..dev is definately one that would be valuable.
the only thing that worries me about climate change is the deniers might be wrong and we slump straight into an ice age when we run out of oil in 50 years or so.
->Do you know what DRM is? It inherently restricts you. Unlike many I believe the principle to explicitly assign rights to content is vital and important to everyone.
I should be able to say "Only bob can read this" as much as Ubisoft should be able to say "we didn't get the money for you to play our game so you can't play our game"
That doesn't mean I don't wholly back people willing to say "you can do whatever the f' you want with this" - Its a complete fallacy that DRM negatively affects people that want to say this - quite the opposite imho. The web is a much nicer place because such things have become explicit.
legally speaking, you have no rights to _Other_ peoples things other than those they grant you. Just because there is nothing really stopping you, doesn't mean putting things in place to enforce what the creators want is evil or restricts me.
Do you think a technical solution that forces people to release their sourcecode with the binary for GPL software would be a bad thing?
So taking security seriously is not something we should do?
->If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so you can avoid the bogeymen known as cheaters, you lack principles.
Don't understand this at all. What rights am I sacrificing?
->DRM-infested consoles and obscurity. This would never happen with free software. Good security doesn't rely on obscurity like this. That sounds like you haven't actually given it much thought. Obscurity is as worthwhile tool as any other. It's not a great tool that will give you strong security. But it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative of telling everyone everything about your security system.
E.g. automated lights turning on and off are an excellent example of good "security by obscurity"...Just because you shouldn't rely on something, doesn't mean it's an evil idea or not worthwhile.
There's a place for both, can't say I'm a fan of sony or think they have a great future ahead of them - too many bad business decisions. But I really don't see the rationale in avoiding any good product because you don't like the brand that makes it. All you do by doing that is encourage all of them to make worse products, by not giving the market the signals they need to know what you are looking for.
->t's pretty simple. I don't want to support Sony's behavior;
I'm pretty sure the same thing applies to large numbers of people who work in every other company.
Why does people talking about the people in Sony make you think they are any different?
->Because there are other companies that don't do such evil things. Not really imho. There are other companies who you haven't been told did such evil things, but I very much doubt you will find any hardware/software company on the planet with a clean and friendly past of all it's past and present staff and products.
It seems to me you buy into the idea that a "brand" means something. It doesn't, it's purely fiction surely? For the good and the bad.
And anyway, things aren't all that clear cut. Take DRM for example. Evil DRM.... So does that mean we should avoid using it ourselves to protect ourselves from government surveillance?
Same applies to the PS3 The fact they did DRM properly, means no hacked games and no cheaters. I like that. Does that mean I like the Cinavia thing? No, but that just means I don't use the ps3 to stream movies.
Slashdot Mirror
then you missed the bit about the us getting involved and requesting his arrest shortly before he was granted asylum.
and if that is all they needed to do. then the 10s of millions of dollars they have spent on policig waiting for him to come out is definately criminal.
What part of the police force surrounding him for the last couple of years and the UK justice system attempting to violate international law by invading another country to get him out makes you think when they actually get hold of him they'll be sending him to Sweden?
so the only crime he is accused of is not going home to Sweden?
so they can send him to the us.
to be executed.
for publishing the collateral murder video.
sounds like he's a political refugee to me.
but none of that explains what crime he is supposed to have committed in the UK to be on bail there in the first place. in order to be a fugative from UK justice like you said.
you seem convinced he is a fugative from UK justice.
what part of UK justice are you referring to specifically?
interesting point.
why was he on bail?
he's not a fugitive from justice.
he's a political refugee.
the judges can't listen to him because it is their politics he is running from.
we should get a list of the judges that withdrew from the conference so we know who's decisions deserve challenging for being morally corrupt.
conference attendees were obviously better off without their presence anyway.
I've been counting the days till hilly declares wwiii.
that bastard Obama got in the way last time round and made people care about things like healthcare and poor people.
when we all know what the world needs is a good war to kill all the stupid people and make room for us all to live in peace.
violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
and just as funny.
personally only ever seen him loose. so no ac fear here.
Yeah, because no one was ever shot in an real bank.
The chocolate powerup in candy crush looks like a black boob covered in colourful nipples.
ban this game now and save me and hundreds of thousands from the addiction.
Other than that I'm not sure what they mean? does facebook have other content other than candy crush?
android OS has a certain set of things it "never" allows.
Like MiMing mobile network traffic.
So if you want to install something on a phone that intercepts mobile traffic you have to strip out that layer by rooting. (for example Adblock or Tor)
Yeah, because France is leading the digital economy....
UK is already well on the way to 3rd world.
no need to change his mind, they just forward both at the same time.
On the one hand they want a strong digital economy.
On the other, they want to the fundamental requirements of a digital economy banned and the use of basic tools for a digital economy made illegal.
In short, it's a very bad idea to invest any time or effort into the UK digital economy, cos chances are it's not going to be allowed for very long.
I had the same comment a while ago when I was having a discussion about how much some companies are willing to pay for the porn urlS. .dev is definately one that would be valuable.
quite.
Fun stat.
over the last 100 years prevalence of smoking in women has halved.
over the last 20 years prevalence of lung cancer in women has doubled.
WIP
http://www.binrev.com/forums/i...
ahhh
but will the sea levels rise?
to what they were a thousand years ago or so......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
the only thing that worries me about climate change is the deniers might be wrong and we slump straight into an ice age when we run out of oil in 50 years or so.
ahhh
but will the sea levels rise?
to what they were a thousand years ago or so......
Ive got a chromecast
Horrible. Horrible waste of an HDMI port.
Kinda ok to plug into an old TV and stream downloaded low quality vids from your phone and not much else.
bleh, now. by a smidgen :p
Or its a bluff. And the CIA/NSA was successful getting it's legislation on the chineese books.
having to pay for online play and regular crashes for a start.
->Do you know what DRM is? It inherently restricts you.
Unlike many
I believe the principle to explicitly assign rights to content is vital and important to everyone.
I should be able to say "Only bob can read this"
as much as Ubisoft should be able to say "we didn't get the money for you to play our game so you can't play our game"
That doesn't mean I don't wholly back people willing to say "you can do whatever the f' you want with this" - Its a complete fallacy that DRM negatively affects people that want to say this - quite the opposite imho. The web is a much nicer place because such things have become explicit.
legally speaking, you have no rights to _Other_ peoples things other than those they grant you.
Just because there is nothing really stopping you, doesn't mean putting things in place to enforce what the creators want is evil or restricts me.
Do you think a technical solution that forces people to release their sourcecode with the binary for GPL software would be a bad thing?
->The ends don't justify the means.
So taking security seriously is not something we should do?
->If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so you can avoid the bogeymen known as cheaters, you lack principles.
Don't understand this at all. What rights am I sacrificing?
->DRM-infested consoles and obscurity. This would never happen with free software. Good security doesn't rely on obscurity like this.
That sounds like you haven't actually given it much thought.
Obscurity is as worthwhile tool as any other.
It's not a great tool that will give you strong security.
But it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative of telling everyone everything about your security system.
E.g. automated lights turning on and off are an excellent example of good "security by obscurity" ...Just because you shouldn't rely on something, doesn't mean it's an evil idea or not worthwhile.
There's a place for both, can't say I'm a fan of sony or think they have a great future ahead of them - too many bad business decisions.
But I really don't see the rationale in avoiding any good product because you don't like the brand that makes it.
All you do by doing that is encourage all of them to make worse products, by not giving the market the signals they need to know what you are looking for.
->t's pretty simple. I don't want to support Sony's behavior;
I'm pretty sure the same thing applies to large numbers of people who work in every other company.
Why does people talking about the people in Sony make you think they are any different?
->Because there are other companies that don't do such evil things.
Not really imho.
There are other companies who you haven't been told did such evil things, but I very much doubt you will find any hardware/software company on the planet with a clean and friendly past of all it's past and present staff and products.
It seems to me you buy into the idea that a "brand" means something.
It doesn't, it's purely fiction surely?
For the good and the bad.
And anyway, things aren't all that clear cut.
Take DRM for example.
Evil DRM....
So does that mean we should avoid using it ourselves to protect ourselves from government surveillance?
Same applies to the PS3
The fact they did DRM properly, means no hacked games and no cheaters. I like that.
Does that mean I like the Cinavia thing?
No, but that just means I don't use the ps3 to stream movies.