Your an AC posting about something not remotely controversial so you're either lazy or lying and I'll take your claim with a pinch of salt on those grounds. I don't think anyone is claiming that keeping the data available is either simple or cheap; but those points don't make it any less important. If the data a paper is based on isn't available then the paper itself loses value because anyone can write a paper showing anything and if they don't need to provide the data then it's much harder to investigate. You are absolutely right that simply having the data available isn't always enough to be able to use it, however we've also seen examples of where dubious or wrong mathematical methods being applied to data in academic research so it's important that information on this is available with the results of the research.
Even more reason for us to want it putting there. Publishing research based on falsified information should be a pretty major crime and shouldn't be tolerated. It misleads the public, wastes scientists time trying to build on it etc.
It's a perfectly effective store thanks. The money I didn't spend years ago went into savings and investments and is certainly worth more now than it was then in real terms. The fact BTC are seen as being more like gold, something to be hoarded, than a currency is a pretty clear indication that it isn't working very well as a replacement currency.
The fact a compelling sounding but superficial argument can be made that libertarians are basement dwelling rejects it's painfully easy to do the same for other inclinations.
For example: Socialists are people who were so coddled as children by their parents that they are afraid, and don't have the understanding, to run their own lives so need a powerful parent figure to do the thinking and tell them what to do.
Now that's a load of bollocks with no evidence to back it up, exactly like the Libertarian example.
except it's a whole lot easier to carry and the government can't create more of it out of thin air (which is a good thing, if you want your money to have the same or better purchasing power tomorrow as it did today).
A pretty poor argument for bitcoin given the price volatility. The reason most of my investments aren't in gold is that I'm not interested in storing most of my wealth in an asset that will rise and fall based based on market conditions. I'm perfectly happy keeping my savings in a currency that deflates gradually, I can get 4-6% interest on money I don't need for a few years which I'm confident will match or exceed the loss of value due to inflation.
So you decide if deflation would be good for a while. (my opinion - we need a bit of both fluctuating around a nice balance to keep things stable)
I have. It would suck. The rich can avoid debt and sit on their wealth while it accumulates. The poor however can watch as their mortgage increases with value alongside their wages rather than gradually getting smaller. Deflation encourages hoarding wealth and inflation encourages investment and wealth creation. Ideally you don't want a huge amount of either, but a small amount of deflation is certainly better for the economy than deflation.
The idea that someone who owns a £10 million property would hate deflation is nonsense. If he thought that cash would get a better return than property he could sell the asset and hold cash instead. Look at the median networth of an American. It's pretty much sweet FA so who cares if their savings are going to go uup by a couple of % a year when their debts will as well and they often have debts that outweigh savings. Deflation is no use to anyone who isn't able to accumulate, or hasn't already accumulated, money.
The point of Godwinning references is that constantly comparing relatively minor infringements to mind-shatteringly large acts of inhumanity not only doesn't add to debates it quickly destroys them.
When I say something like "I don't think it is wrong for a country to have a leader with considerable powers" if the next response is "That's the sort of thing the NAZIS said, who are you hitler?" any reasonable discussion has ended.
Some events are significant enough that they rightly can be compared reasonably and maybe Godwin shouldn't be claimed in those cases, but until we get some relatively in internet discussions (lololololol) most comparisons to Nazism will be completely inappropriate and unhelpful.
Many people, especially younger people, have their desks in the same room where they sleep, and incidentally change their clothes or partake in other activities.
This. You're a student or a late teen kid at home. Chances are you have a laptop and use it in your 'room' the single room in the house or student accomodation that is yours. Unless you always shutdown your laptop before getting changed, coming back from a shower etc then invariably you're going to wind up undressed in the same room as a device with a camera. Sure you could always turn your laptop to face away but wouldn't it be nice if we could do something to stop the risk entirely rather than force everyone to be mega-paranoid about everything.
Encryption keys aren't protected by the 5th amendment right to silence. If you are asked to provide it by a court and don't then you'll likely in as bad or worse situation than if you did.
His mistake was doing it in the first place. If he hadn't admitted it then they'd likely have been able to get a warrant. They'd take his computer and all other electronics and then he'd better be damn confident there was nothing on it that could in any way implicate him. Even if there wasn't then he's not safe because any investigation worth a damn is going to probe into what he claims he was doing on Tor and do you really think the network activity for browsing porn, surfing silroad or whatever looks like that of sending an email. If he says he sent an email to anyone identifiable then they'll get that person up, in court under oath, to swear they receive it (having already collected and analysed their electronics as well).
I'm a more than slightly cynical person and think I'd probably make a pretty poor jurist because to me 'reasonable doubt' is a hugely wide definition that almost anyone fits. However if I'm presented with evidence of network traffic that would be expected when sending an email via the claimed anonymous email and nothing at all like it would if the defendant was doing whatever else he claimed then I'm confident that he's lying and if he's lying then I'm deciding whether there is a plausible reason for that other than he committed the crime; and even if there was then he still lied under oath which is a crime in itself.
We over-react when sentencing for any number of crimes and to be fair we probably are in this case as well but that doesn't mean that the incident wasn't handled correctly, nor does it mean that it wasn't a serious crime and deserving of a strong punishment. What % chance of a bomb threat being a hoax should there be before we decide not to evacuate? Who measures it, is there a convenient bomb-threat-seriousness-omiter that they can use? Ultimately, unless we are overwhelmingly confident (pretty much the person who called it in has admitted it and we have evidence it was them) then we're going to have to respond.
The threat will have had a considerable impact from police and university resources investigating it, to wasted university resources for the cancelled exam, distress for some students, and potential affect on results across multiple exams for students. A punishment in line with that for a severe assault wouldn't be remotely unreasonable, in my opinion, though I'd probably think the typical punishment for that is also too severe.
Germany is part of the EU so it's no harder to delivery to a German 5 mins from the Dutch border from the Netherlands than it is to supply it from a hub in Germany but equally far away. That said, Germany is a pretty big country and servicing the majority of it from distribution centres in other countries would add costs. The Czechs might welcome the work that gets moved there but the Dutch, Danes, French and Austrians probably aren't that interested in getting hand me down jobs that the Germans rejected.
that is the whole idea of no double taxation. We fought a war of independence to rid ourselves of such nonsense.
No. You fought a war of independence because you didn't like taxes and you really didn't like taxes from a government you had no representation in. When you won independence the government couldn't bring in taxes, because it would be too like the British, so to pay its army etc it sold the land instead; much of it Indian land which it forcefully evicted them from leading to thousands of deaths.
But that's all good right because taxes are just plain wrong by comparison;)
It always irked me when you install an Android app it often produces a big long list of the things the app can access, some of which you don't want it to, but you can't pick'n'choose the access permissions, it''s all or nothing.
You can choose not to install it. If you don't trust the app dev to correctly disclose what permissions they need then walk away. People will turn permissions off, break the app and then slate the app for not working. Better to build the app to test for permissions on launch, explain to users that haven't given all permissions that it can't run till they re-enable and close.
Wouldn't the logical thing here be for the Google to make the install menu advanced enough to allow devs to give users install options and permissions as required rather than letting users switch stuff off and see what breaks? If I was a dev I'd produce apps that check for all required permissions and explain and shutdown if some are restricted. Why? Because I don't want negative reviews because someone decided to turn off a permission and the app didn't work right.
We are in control, we're just negligent. In the UK we still have full access to everything our MPs have voted for, their statements and to elections where we choose them. We have everything we need to change the face of our democracy except sufficient desire to actually put the work in and do it.
The rules, in theory and when applied as originally intended, are to stop people from hiding large sums of money to avoid it being seized when convicted, lost in divorce or taken in inheritance tax. If I wanted to avoid IHT and withdrew £10,000,000 and bought bitcoin tokens to hide the money then the government wants records to be kept so it can in theory track my attempt at avoidance (actually in the UK they can simply point out the missing £10,000,000 which can't be explained and tax it without ever seeing it, so it's not as relevant here).
In theory it makes sense: I don't want middle class people stuck paying IHT while the super wealthy can just ship the money off to a no records foriegn bank account where it can't be found.
In the UK we have energy tariffs called econ 7 for homes as an option. Basically instead of having 1 rate you get charged less for using power for a window overnight and more the rest of the day. It's hard to move power use from daytime to early morning but I've always wondered whether, given the 50% odd discount, whether it could be cost effective to fit a battery that charged overnight and then discharged during the day...
I'm not sure I've ever seen a more blatant example of it taking one to see one. Young and carrying something more advanced than a pen and paper you say, fuck me why didn't they shoot that hipster on the spot!!!
Well done rebel. You sure showed them by giving them what they wanted and then using an opportunity to inconvenience them for taking your stuff and refusing to return it. That's about as 'rebel' and sucking a bikers cock and calling yourself a 'bad ass'.
Seriously? Start a list of ones where you won't be and stop pretending like one or two places are somehow massively worse. Why is Snowden still in Russia? Because he couldn't get to South America without some country he would need to pass via screwing him over. Do you think Chinese rules give you more protection then US/UK/NZ rules?
We're fucked and it's basically our own fault. People will give up almost anything and put up with almost anything, that doesn't cause too much visible inconvenience to their daily life, if they think it'll make them safer or help catch 'bad guys'. You can argue that governments encourage that view or take advantage of it but ultimately it's the fact that the western peoples are such a bunch of ignorant cowards that is sleep walking us to tyranny,
I might be overly optimistic but outside of the UK, where when detained at an airport it can be a crime not to answer a question (what the fuck?), I don't think you'd be breaking the law for refusing to give the IP and password to a server located in another country?
Also, bet there would a law about how long they can hold the stuff for. A week or two I'm sure.
5 seconds research and you'd know enough about it to not posting misleading nonsense. Unless NZ has unusually tight controls on seized electronics then they can pretty much keep them as long as they want, which if they did want to inconvenience the guy would certainly be after he has left NZ and headed back to Europe.
I used to wonder why anyone would carry files etc to other countries when they could be stored on so many different services online. I have, in fact, as a matter of habit always reset my android phone before travel on the basis that I can re-install apps, accounts etc after leaving the airport. It now makes more sense. They are already capturing so much about information shared online that sneaker nets are probably one of the bigger threats to them. Who cares if I don't keep files on my laptop but instead on Dropbox if the government can just look in my dropbox at will.
The Shires (not shire;) ). I certainly can't comment for every company in the UK and clearly there are some severe examples of abuse going on. I've worked for 3 medium to large businesses in the manufacturing sector and when it comes to safe working it is virtually always the business trying to force people to follow policies they don't want to (and not because of performance measures that aren't related to it). I've been involved in two business units trying to get dust masks used and I kid you not that in the first the push-back was because the operatives liked having a chat while they worked.
Every country will have people breaking the law. The measure is how often that happens, how actively the country is checking for it and how severe the punishment is when caught; the UK today seems to have a pretty pro-worker balance in this regard. Just compare the work conditions between Amazon US and UK.
Well we do have laws that require the item is returned in the UK and guess what? I don't go home every day to find dozens of unrequested parcels and demands to pay for them. As much as it might stretch the imaginations of some people on here it is not, in fact, impossible to define items sent in error rather than intentionally as having different legal status.
Sometimes a small obligation can come with buying something. If I buy milk from a local supermarket and there is a recall then I will need to visit a store, get a refund and buy some more. I don't get to demand that they come to my door at an exact time of my choosing to collect the faulty product and delivery a replacement. If a company is shoddy and keeps making errors that inconvenience customers they'll lose customers. If a company is intentionally doing it then they will be breaking the law, won't be able to recover the goods and will go out of business.
What should also be noted is that the US has basically the same legal framework. For all the parroting of the USPS advice on unsolicited gifts it's very noticeable that no one has mentioned the FTC's advice (write and offer to return it): http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise nor come up with an example of someone who got sued for refusing to return something that was clearly a shipping error.
Slashdot Mirror
Your an AC posting about something not remotely controversial so you're either lazy or lying and I'll take your claim with a pinch of salt on those grounds. I don't think anyone is claiming that keeping the data available is either simple or cheap; but those points don't make it any less important. If the data a paper is based on isn't available then the paper itself loses value because anyone can write a paper showing anything and if they don't need to provide the data then it's much harder to investigate. You are absolutely right that simply having the data available isn't always enough to be able to use it, however we've also seen examples of where dubious or wrong mathematical methods being applied to data in academic research so it's important that information on this is available with the results of the research.
Even more reason for us to want it putting there. Publishing research based on falsified information should be a pretty major crime and shouldn't be tolerated. It misleads the public, wastes scientists time trying to build on it etc.
It's a perfectly effective store thanks. The money I didn't spend years ago went into savings and investments and is certainly worth more now than it was then in real terms. The fact BTC are seen as being more like gold, something to be hoarded, than a currency is a pretty clear indication that it isn't working very well as a replacement currency.
Pithy but complete nonsense ;)
The fact a compelling sounding but superficial argument can be made that libertarians are basement dwelling rejects it's painfully easy to do the same for other inclinations.
For example: Socialists are people who were so coddled as children by their parents that they are afraid, and don't have the understanding, to run their own lives so need a powerful parent figure to do the thinking and tell them what to do.
Now that's a load of bollocks with no evidence to back it up, exactly like the Libertarian example.
A pretty poor argument for bitcoin given the price volatility. The reason most of my investments aren't in gold is that I'm not interested in storing most of my wealth in an asset that will rise and fall based based on market conditions. I'm perfectly happy keeping my savings in a currency that deflates gradually, I can get 4-6% interest on money I don't need for a few years which I'm confident will match or exceed the loss of value due to inflation.
I have. It would suck. The rich can avoid debt and sit on their wealth while it accumulates. The poor however can watch as their mortgage increases with value alongside their wages rather than gradually getting smaller. Deflation encourages hoarding wealth and inflation encourages investment and wealth creation. Ideally you don't want a huge amount of either, but a small amount of deflation is certainly better for the economy than deflation.
The idea that someone who owns a £10 million property would hate deflation is nonsense. If he thought that cash would get a better return than property he could sell the asset and hold cash instead. Look at the median networth of an American. It's pretty much sweet FA so who cares if their savings are going to go uup by a couple of % a year when their debts will as well and they often have debts that outweigh savings. Deflation is no use to anyone who isn't able to accumulate, or hasn't already accumulated, money.
The point of Godwinning references is that constantly comparing relatively minor infringements to mind-shatteringly large acts of inhumanity not only doesn't add to debates it quickly destroys them.
When I say something like "I don't think it is wrong for a country to have a leader with considerable powers" if the next response is "That's the sort of thing the NAZIS said, who are you hitler?" any reasonable discussion has ended.
Some events are significant enough that they rightly can be compared reasonably and maybe Godwin shouldn't be claimed in those cases, but until we get some relatively in internet discussions (lololololol) most comparisons to Nazism will be completely inappropriate and unhelpful.
This. You're a student or a late teen kid at home. Chances are you have a laptop and use it in your 'room' the single room in the house or student accomodation that is yours. Unless you always shutdown your laptop before getting changed, coming back from a shower etc then invariably you're going to wind up undressed in the same room as a device with a camera. Sure you could always turn your laptop to face away but wouldn't it be nice if we could do something to stop the risk entirely rather than force everyone to be mega-paranoid about everything.
Encryption keys aren't protected by the 5th amendment right to silence. If you are asked to provide it by a court and don't then you'll likely in as bad or worse situation than if you did.
His mistake was doing it in the first place. If he hadn't admitted it then they'd likely have been able to get a warrant. They'd take his computer and all other electronics and then he'd better be damn confident there was nothing on it that could in any way implicate him. Even if there wasn't then he's not safe because any investigation worth a damn is going to probe into what he claims he was doing on Tor and do you really think the network activity for browsing porn, surfing silroad or whatever looks like that of sending an email. If he says he sent an email to anyone identifiable then they'll get that person up, in court under oath, to swear they receive it (having already collected and analysed their electronics as well).
I'm a more than slightly cynical person and think I'd probably make a pretty poor jurist because to me 'reasonable doubt' is a hugely wide definition that almost anyone fits. However if I'm presented with evidence of network traffic that would be expected when sending an email via the claimed anonymous email and nothing at all like it would if the defendant was doing whatever else he claimed then I'm confident that he's lying and if he's lying then I'm deciding whether there is a plausible reason for that other than he committed the crime; and even if there was then he still lied under oath which is a crime in itself.
We over-react when sentencing for any number of crimes and to be fair we probably are in this case as well but that doesn't mean that the incident wasn't handled correctly, nor does it mean that it wasn't a serious crime and deserving of a strong punishment. What % chance of a bomb threat being a hoax should there be before we decide not to evacuate? Who measures it, is there a convenient bomb-threat-seriousness-omiter that they can use? Ultimately, unless we are overwhelmingly confident (pretty much the person who called it in has admitted it and we have evidence it was them) then we're going to have to respond.
The threat will have had a considerable impact from police and university resources investigating it, to wasted university resources for the cancelled exam, distress for some students, and potential affect on results across multiple exams for students. A punishment in line with that for a severe assault wouldn't be remotely unreasonable, in my opinion, though I'd probably think the typical punishment for that is also too severe.
Germany is part of the EU so it's no harder to delivery to a German 5 mins from the Dutch border from the Netherlands than it is to supply it from a hub in Germany but equally far away. That said, Germany is a pretty big country and servicing the majority of it from distribution centres in other countries would add costs. The Czechs might welcome the work that gets moved there but the Dutch, Danes, French and Austrians probably aren't that interested in getting hand me down jobs that the Germans rejected.
No. You fought a war of independence because you didn't like taxes and you really didn't like taxes from a government you had no representation in. When you won independence the government couldn't bring in taxes, because it would be too like the British, so to pay its army etc it sold the land instead; much of it Indian land which it forcefully evicted them from leading to thousands of deaths.
;)
But that's all good right because taxes are just plain wrong by comparison
You can choose not to install it. If you don't trust the app dev to correctly disclose what permissions they need then walk away. People will turn permissions off, break the app and then slate the app for not working. Better to build the app to test for permissions on launch, explain to users that haven't given all permissions that it can't run till they re-enable and close.
Wouldn't the logical thing here be for the Google to make the install menu advanced enough to allow devs to give users install options and permissions as required rather than letting users switch stuff off and see what breaks? If I was a dev I'd produce apps that check for all required permissions and explain and shutdown if some are restricted. Why? Because I don't want negative reviews because someone decided to turn off a permission and the app didn't work right.
We are in control, we're just negligent. In the UK we still have full access to everything our MPs have voted for, their statements and to elections where we choose them. We have everything we need to change the face of our democracy except sufficient desire to actually put the work in and do it.
The rules, in theory and when applied as originally intended, are to stop people from hiding large sums of money to avoid it being seized when convicted, lost in divorce or taken in inheritance tax. If I wanted to avoid IHT and withdrew £10,000,000 and bought bitcoin tokens to hide the money then the government wants records to be kept so it can in theory track my attempt at avoidance (actually in the UK they can simply point out the missing £10,000,000 which can't be explained and tax it without ever seeing it, so it's not as relevant here).
In theory it makes sense: I don't want middle class people stuck paying IHT while the super wealthy can just ship the money off to a no records foriegn bank account where it can't be found.
In the UK we have energy tariffs called econ 7 for homes as an option. Basically instead of having 1 rate you get charged less for using power for a window overnight and more the rest of the day. It's hard to move power use from daytime to early morning but I've always wondered whether, given the 50% odd discount, whether it could be cost effective to fit a battery that charged overnight and then discharged during the day...
I'm not sure I've ever seen a more blatant example of it taking one to see one. Young and carrying something more advanced than a pen and paper you say, fuck me why didn't they shoot that hipster on the spot!!!
Well done rebel. You sure showed them by giving them what they wanted and then using an opportunity to inconvenience them for taking your stuff and refusing to return it. That's about as 'rebel' and sucking a bikers cock and calling yourself a 'bad ass'.
Seriously? Start a list of ones where you won't be and stop pretending like one or two places are somehow massively worse. Why is Snowden still in Russia? Because he couldn't get to South America without some country he would need to pass via screwing him over. Do you think Chinese rules give you more protection then US/UK/NZ rules?
We're fucked and it's basically our own fault. People will give up almost anything and put up with almost anything, that doesn't cause too much visible inconvenience to their daily life, if they think it'll make them safer or help catch 'bad guys'. You can argue that governments encourage that view or take advantage of it but ultimately it's the fact that the western peoples are such a bunch of ignorant cowards that is sleep walking us to tyranny,
I might be overly optimistic but outside of the UK, where when detained at an airport it can be a crime not to answer a question (what the fuck?), I don't think you'd be breaking the law for refusing to give the IP and password to a server located in another country?
5 seconds research and you'd know enough about it to not posting misleading nonsense. Unless NZ has unusually tight controls on seized electronics then they can pretty much keep them as long as they want, which if they did want to inconvenience the guy would certainly be after he has left NZ and headed back to Europe.
I used to wonder why anyone would carry files etc to other countries when they could be stored on so many different services online. I have, in fact, as a matter of habit always reset my android phone before travel on the basis that I can re-install apps, accounts etc after leaving the airport. It now makes more sense. They are already capturing so much about information shared online that sneaker nets are probably one of the bigger threats to them. Who cares if I don't keep files on my laptop but instead on Dropbox if the government can just look in my dropbox at will.
The Shires (not shire ;) ). I certainly can't comment for every company in the UK and clearly there are some severe examples of abuse going on. I've worked for 3 medium to large businesses in the manufacturing sector and when it comes to safe working it is virtually always the business trying to force people to follow policies they don't want to (and not because of performance measures that aren't related to it). I've been involved in two business units trying to get dust masks used and I kid you not that in the first the push-back was because the operatives liked having a chat while they worked.
Every country will have people breaking the law. The measure is how often that happens, how actively the country is checking for it and how severe the punishment is when caught; the UK today seems to have a pretty pro-worker balance in this regard. Just compare the work conditions between Amazon US and UK.
Well we do have laws that require the item is returned in the UK and guess what? I don't go home every day to find dozens of unrequested parcels and demands to pay for them. As much as it might stretch the imaginations of some people on here it is not, in fact, impossible to define items sent in error rather than intentionally as having different legal status.
Sometimes a small obligation can come with buying something. If I buy milk from a local supermarket and there is a recall then I will need to visit a store, get a refund and buy some more. I don't get to demand that they come to my door at an exact time of my choosing to collect the faulty product and delivery a replacement. If a company is shoddy and keeps making errors that inconvenience customers they'll lose customers. If a company is intentionally doing it then they will be breaking the law, won't be able to recover the goods and will go out of business.
What should also be noted is that the US has basically the same legal framework. For all the parroting of the USPS advice on unsolicited gifts it's very noticeable that no one has mentioned the FTC's advice (write and offer to return it): http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise nor come up with an example of someone who got sued for refusing to return something that was clearly a shipping error.