If you are in the UK, the packages declared value* is over £15 (£30 for gifts) and the package doesn't slip through (some packages don't seem to get assessed for VAT even though they should be) you will get charged the VAT (normally 20). If it's above some higher value then you may also have to pay customs duty. You will also have to pay a fee for collecting those charges. With the post office this is arround £10, with courior services it can be much higher.
* Sellers in some countries habbitually lie on customs forms.
There are some exceptions. I have received a package once that said "trade sample" on it for which I was not charged anything.
If they had decided that it was because of the possible disproportionate sentence, or that the years of indecision had punished him enough then this would be fine. But a decision where "the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights", and the decision that "Mr McKinnon would be likely to take his own life if he was sent to face trial in the US" are bad news
I am just glad that this decision was made after we got rid of Abu Hamsa. In the UK we have a lot of Muslims who want to destroy our society and impose Sharia law. They will gladly kill themselves to do so. What's the betting that the next load of Muzzie terrorists that are due for extradition say that they will commit suicide if they do? If they attempted a suicide bombing or something it would be very hard to argue that they would not really do it. This president could be a real problem.
IANAL but looking at the draft regulations they have this totally wrong.
1.1.3. Category D desktop computers and integrated desktop
computers meeting all of the following technical parameters are
exempt from the requirements specified in points 1.1.1 and
1.1.2:
(a) a minimum of six physical cores in the central processing
unit (CPU); and
(b) discrete GPU(s) providing total frame buffer bandwidths
above 320 GB/s; and
(c) a minimum 16GB of system memory; and
(d) a PSU with a rated output power of at least 1000 W.
So the high end cards in high end systems are not banned but exempt. Anyone who is a lawyer care to comment on my interpretation?
While the book notes that almost no prior knowledge of mathematics is required since the book deliberately avoids the details of the mathematical techniques underpinning cryptographic mechanisms. That might be a bit of a misnomer as the book does get into the mathematics of cryptography
While the review makes no claim as to the reviewer's grasp of the English language. That might be a blatantly obvious conclusion as it is nigh unreadable.
No he's just demonstrating how something can be encrypted without mathematics
If you can figure out what's wrong with responding to an article about a rape with "what's the bet he's black?," you can figure out what's wrong with your post. If you cannot, you're probably a bigot.
In what way is one's racial background equivalent to the social groups one hangs out with?
A lot of people make this mistake. A number of times I have been called a racist for objecting to Islamic terrorism, and by people who might be surprised at my race too!
When I was at Uni I knew a number of jokers who would have signed people up to all sorts. It was pre-Facebook days but I remember getting signed up at my parents address to things ranging from "the Watch Tower" to "Latex interest group". Surely she could have said something like "I'll kill that , I'm going to find a way to sign them up to the "friends of westboro" group - and nobody would be the wiser
I do not have a Facebook account, therefore your assertion that everyone has a Facebook account is false. I do not have an account because I cannot be bothered to jump through privacy setting hoops to keep control of information that is mine in the first place.
An alternative is to have multiple accounts for different interest groups. Set them all so only friends can view information and the only way that they can know it belongs to you is if you accept a request. If someone requests the "wrong" one reject it with an "I don't know you" and they will probably mention it in email. I have not done this but I think it would be feasible.
There is no money in TV market, most companies in the market lose money only a hand full make money. Apple knowing them would sell their tv's at 50-100% markup compared to next closest set. Only apple fanboy idiots would buy them, everyone else will say screw that and get cheaper ones that are proven to be good quality tv.
But the apple fanbois would buy one just because it's Apple
To address this, the Linux Foundation bootloader will present its own splash screen and require user input before it actually boots. In this way, it can't be silently installed and used to hand control to a rootkit without the user's knowledge
Doesn't this mean it is unsuitable for server use - or any "headless" operation such as MythTV?
From TFA:
To facilitate repeat booting (and to make the pre-bootloader useful for booting hard disks as well as USB keys or DVDs) the pre-bootloader will also check to see if the platform is booting in Setup Mode and if it is, will ask the user for permission to install the signature of loader.efi into the authorized signatures database. If the user gives permission, the signature will be installed and loader.efi will then boot up without any present user tests on all subsequent occasions even after the platform is placed back into secure boot mode.
So they offer a solution for your problem, but user input is required for this as well.
OK, so what's to stop me installing a compromised version of Windows? If you can disable all warnings then isn't this bypassing any advantage of a secure boot?
To address this, the Linux Foundation bootloader will present its own splash screen and require user input before it actually boots. In this way, it can't be silently installed and used to hand control to a rootkit without the user's knowledge
Doesn't this mean it is unsuitable for server use - or any "headless" operation such as MythTV?
but! If it wasn't for that video our US embassies around the world wouldn't of been attacked/rioted at and the one in Libya wouldn't of been raided the the ambassador killed! Hope and Change demands this!
So you want to prevent everyone's freedom of expression because the Muzzies can't control themselves?
It's going to happen some day. The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
One little tragic baby step at a time.
Absolutely. They wand a censorship board that will say "kill the non-believers wherever you find them" is a valid religious sentiment, but "Sharia Law is incompatible with human rights" will be banned.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are in the UK, the packages declared value* is over £15 (£30 for gifts) and the package doesn't slip through (some packages don't seem to get assessed for VAT even though they should be) you will get charged the VAT (normally 20). If it's above some higher value then you may also have to pay customs duty. You will also have to pay a fee for collecting those charges. With the post office this is arround £10, with courior services it can be much higher.
* Sellers in some countries habbitually lie on customs forms.
There are some exceptions. I have received a package once that said "trade sample" on it for which I was not charged anything.
Einstein did invent the atomic bomb, didn't he...?
No. next question
If they had decided that it was because of the possible disproportionate sentence, or that the years of indecision had punished him enough then this would be fine. But a decision where "the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights", and the decision that "Mr McKinnon would be likely to take his own life if he was sent to face trial in the US" are bad news
I am just glad that this decision was made after we got rid of Abu Hamsa. In the UK we have a lot of Muslims who want to destroy our society and impose Sharia law. They will gladly kill themselves to do so. What's the betting that the next load of Muzzie terrorists that are due for extradition say that they will commit suicide if they do? If they attempted a suicide bombing or something it would be very hard to argue that they would not really do it. This president could be a real problem.
I figure most Brits will be for this, even if it's just for them sticking it to the US.
Yea ... it does feel good!
Hey I just hacked you, and I may be crazy, but I was looking for ET, so don't extradite me...
Sorry, our alien overlords insist
Bush probably would have already started bombing the UK in retaliation, but Obama will probably think of some other way to screw things up
If Mitt wins the bombers will be on their way soon enough
Unlike Americans, Europeans are more worried about corporations spying on them than their governments.
As it turns out, any information you give to a corporation ends up at the government.
And with all the "outsourcing" vica versa
...and what happens if this works and google reverts the policy?
You'd have ten bleeding passwords to remember instead on one sign-on
Don't buy anything what is made in foreign country.....
Oh wait....
The guy living in a shed in a potato patch just shouted "don't buy anything!"
1.1.3. Category D desktop computers and integrated desktop
computers meeting all of the following technical parameters are
exempt from the requirements specified in points 1.1.1 and
1.1.2:
(a) a minimum of six physical cores in the central processing
unit (CPU); and
(b) discrete GPU(s) providing total frame buffer bandwidths
above 320 GB/s; and
(c) a minimum 16GB of system memory; and
(d) a PSU with a rated output power of at least 1000 W.
So the high end cards in high end systems are not banned but exempt. Anyone who is a lawyer care to comment on my interpretation?
While the book notes that almost no prior knowledge of mathematics is required since the book deliberately avoids the details of the mathematical techniques underpinning cryptographic mechanisms. That might be a bit of a misnomer as the book does get into the mathematics of cryptography
While the review makes no claim as to the reviewer's grasp of the English language. That might be a blatantly obvious conclusion as it is nigh unreadable.
No he's just demonstrating how something can be encrypted without mathematics
I AM NOT A PRODUCT.
Well if you were and your private information was leaked then you might be a CROSS PRODUCT
How is a sexual preference at all comparable to a felony crime? Or any crime for that matter?
Try asking that if you live in an Islamic country.
If you can figure out what's wrong with responding to an article about a rape with "what's the bet he's black?," you can figure out what's wrong with your post. If you cannot, you're probably a bigot.
In what way is one's racial background equivalent to the social groups one hangs out with?
A lot of people make this mistake. A number of times I have been called a racist for objecting to Islamic terrorism, and by people who might be surprised at my race too!
Well, if he's allowed to have invisible friends then surely it's OK for him to have imaginary enemies as well? :P
I don't have any problem with that. Its when people with invisible friends have real enemies for imaginary reasons that I have a problem.
When I was at Uni I knew a number of jokers who would have signed people up to all sorts. It was pre-Facebook days but I remember getting signed up at my parents address to things ranging from "the Watch Tower" to "Latex interest group". Surely she could have said something like "I'll kill that , I'm going to find a way to sign them up to the "friends of westboro" group - and nobody would be the wiser
I do not have a Facebook account, therefore your assertion that everyone has a Facebook account is false. I do not have an account because I cannot be bothered to jump through privacy setting hoops to keep control of information that is mine in the first place.
An alternative is to have multiple accounts for different interest groups. Set them all so only friends can view information and the only way that they can know it belongs to you is if you accept a request. If someone requests the "wrong" one reject it with an "I don't know you" and they will probably mention it in email. I have not done this but I think it would be feasible.
There is no money in TV market, most companies in the market lose money only a hand full make money. Apple knowing them would sell their tv's at 50-100% markup compared to next closest set. Only apple fanboy idiots would buy them, everyone else will say screw that and get cheaper ones that are proven to be good quality tv.
But the apple fanbois would buy one just because it's Apple
From TFA:
To address this, the Linux Foundation bootloader will present its own splash screen and require user input before it actually boots. In this way, it can't be silently installed and used to hand control to a rootkit without the user's knowledge
Doesn't this mean it is unsuitable for server use - or any "headless" operation such as MythTV?
From TFA:
To facilitate repeat booting (and to make the pre-bootloader useful for booting hard disks as well as USB keys or DVDs) the pre-bootloader will also check to see if the platform is booting in Setup Mode and if it is, will ask the user for permission to install the signature of loader.efi into the authorized signatures database. If the user gives permission, the signature will be installed and loader.efi will then boot up without any present user tests on all subsequent occasions even after the platform is placed back into secure boot mode.
So they offer a solution for your problem, but user input is required for this as well.
OK, so what's to stop me installing a compromised version of Windows? If you can disable all warnings then isn't this bypassing any advantage of a secure boot?
To address this, the Linux Foundation bootloader will present its own splash screen and require user input before it actually boots. In this way, it can't be silently installed and used to hand control to a rootkit without the user's knowledge
Doesn't this mean it is unsuitable for server use - or any "headless" operation such as MythTV?
but! If it wasn't for that video our US embassies around the world wouldn't of been attacked/rioted at and the one in Libya wouldn't of been raided the the ambassador killed! Hope and Change demands this!
So you want to prevent everyone's freedom of expression because the Muzzies can't control themselves?
It's going to happen some day. The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
One little tragic baby step at a time.
Absolutely. They wand a censorship board that will say "kill the non-believers wherever you find them" is a valid religious sentiment, but "Sharia Law is incompatible with human rights" will be banned.
Perhaps the ones in favour were intercepted and censored in the spirit of the bill. ;-)
Government doesn't pass or reject bills based on what its subjects want. Government passes or rejects bills based on what it wants.
Which can involve brown envelopes full of cash
And the teenagers hanging out in the mall will always still look hawt.
AC
Hey is that you Jimmy Savile?