Nice dissembling. There were charity dinners and other fundraising efforts by the IRA in the US, where people rallied against the evil English imposition on their Irish-American ancestral roots and gave money explicitly to buy weapons used to kill civilians.
You're welcome to argue that's just a small subset of 307m citizens. That doesn't counter the original argument, and also disregards the police and fire service fundraiser events that weren't shut down by the civil authorities.
But hey, go use Google and find out for yourself.
Re:Where did they get the money for research?
on
3D Chocolate Printer
·
· Score: 1
Maybe the research was funded by a chocolatier. Maybe the complexity of achieving the correct temperature for the chocolate to allow it to be used as a building material, instead of clogging the delivery mechanism or flowing away was a non-trivial problem with applications in multiple fields. Maybe the publicity generated will secure funding for the university and/or increase their student intake. Maybe the researcher likes chocolate.
What's wrong with researching this? Sure, Fark's probably subtitled it with "Still no cure for cancer" but more esoteric things than this get serious attention.
A British company has moral, ethical and legal obligations to protect its customers' data. Exposing that data to the US by hosting on a server in the EU would be negligent, yet is the situation that Microsoft have admitted anybody using their service could find themselves in.
Throw in the almost certain misuse of secret corporate data for industrial espionage purposes (and don't even pretend the US Government don't play there) and there's a very compelling case to use EU only cloud providers (or host in-house).
Good comments. I'd also suggest watching a few TED talks - they're mostly quintessential multimedia presentations, with a mix of art, video, pictures and graphics to back up the talk... and yet it's a TALK, not a read.
I like short punchy slides with key words, concepts and (because I'm technical) diagrams on them. The talk is the content.
Forgive my confusion, but what the fuck is so confusing about "there's a barrier in front of me, I'd best turn my steering wheel"?
If you said you'd turned left instead of right, because it was the quickest route to your exit, I could almost understand - but even then, I'd query whether you'd even read the road markings, the street signs and the numerous other clues that hint at not driving into the flow of oncoming traffic.
A roundabout is just a one way street. You are capable of approaching a one way street from a side road, aren't you? You can turn off one into a side road, can't you? That's all you're doing with a roundabout. It just happens to be exceedingly short and infinitely long one way street.
Doesn't placing traffic lights on roundabouts defeat the purpose?
There are roundabouts that only have certain entrances/exits traffic lighted - that assures a primary route doesn't clog it, without forcing other routes to wait for a green light if there's a gap.
There are also roundabouts that have "peak time" traffic lights. When the flow of traffic is at its heaviest (when roundabouts become less optimal) the lights switch on and work much as lights anywhere do, but at other times you get the benefits and convenience of a roundabout.
they install them in little-used residential streets. It means no traffic to bother with, but it also means I have to navigate a silly turn instead of going straight
This is why we use mini-roundabouts which are usually a painted circle on the road (with maybe a convex tarmac circle that peaks at less than the height of the kerb). The rules of the road are exactly as for a roundabout, but if it's clear you just drive straight over the centre of it.
As a Christian, I kind of assume you're homophobic, sexist, irrational, corrupt and stupid. I don't assume for a moment you're nice, and I certainly don't expect it.
As an atheist I find it somewhat distressing that I know more about the bible than most Christians, including how utterly full of shit it is.
Theistic forms of governance work only through oppression and ignorance; don't expect me to support them and please, don't expect me to apologise for working to prevent them.
Maybe atheists would be less vocal if the people around them were more open to rational argument and critical thinking, instead of blindly accepting the mythical bullshit fed to them by exploitative people.
The point is it doesn't accomplish anything. The people who actually harm children in the pictures aren't necessarily the ones who possess the pictures
I disagree. So I went hunting:
Currently Interpolâ(TM)s Child Abuse Image database has more than 200,000 images showing the sexual abuse of over 20,000 individual children. [...] but fewer than 500 of these had been identified.
The authorities try and identify the children being abused, to provide support, prevent further abuse and ideally prosecute the abusers.
If someone has 200 pictures that are known to be of child abuse, and then has another 80 pictures that have never been seen before, there's a chance further identifying information will be available to aid tracking down the victim or the perpetrator, and there's a chance the person holding those images is involved in producing them.
The comedy is that Ken Clarke's had at least three of his constituents write to him highlighting how fucked up this proposal is, and all he's done in response is forward those letters to the minister involved, who in turn has done fuck all, and continues to exclude the Open Rights Group from the discussions.
Ken can of course hide behind the fact that he didn't actually vote for the Digital Economy Bill - albeit because he was on a fucking jolly instead of being in parliament, where he should have been voting against the corrupt inept and unworkable legislation.
The DEA needs gutting, and Ken needs kicking out of his cushy little job for life. He's the perfect example of why AV was needed - not necessarily because he'd have lost, but because he'd have had to start acting for his constituents.
My understanding is that The Pirate Bay just links to copyrighted material and doesn't actually host any. Google links to copyrighted material, and actually hosts an awful lot.
The moment this blocklist goes live I will personally demand that Google and every other major 'net search engine, and any website hosting forums that I can post links to are immediately added and blocked.
This is an unworkable system, I'm not going to tolerate it, and I assure you, my opposition is nothing to do with 'piracy'.
It's a fair point. A big part of the argument for prosecuting people who merely download an image is that they're creating demand for further images, and thus causing additional abuse.
Nonetheless it's hard to irrevocably remove anything from the Internet, so it's reasonable to assume that much of the extant material continues to be available, and that anybody 'collecting' is likely to come across and retain it.
Someone with a self-created library wont be caught through a DB lookup, but if they have just one image (out of potentially thousands) that a previous offender had then they will.
I suspect the reality is that most downloaders are leeches and not creators (as with any media exchange online) and so a DB lookup would likely have a very high hit rate on criminals.
There's a small chance of a false positive, but that's extremely easily checked by merely viewing any images that match a hash in the DB - which I'd expect to happen prior to any prosecution as a matter of course, not least because it would be done as part of providing evidence at a trial.
Then again, I don't work in law enforcement and I'm not intimately familiar with the subject matter, so I could be wrong on all counts:)
I agree entirely it's a very different action, with very different consequences. I was merely responding to a suggestion that people may get prosecuted for pointing out a speed trap by highlighting that people in the UK already have been.
Personally I think encouraging people to obey the law should be legal, and informing people of speed traps has an outcome that they slow down and stop speeding, which is the professed purpose of those traps (in the UK), so it's aiding the police and not obstructing them.
However, aiding someone holding a hostage by feeding him intelligence regarding police activities feels like it should come under some sort of aiding and abetting law.
Ever found, on the 'net or on someone's PC, or on someone's phone, or on someone's digital camera? Pretty easy.
Just take the md5 hash, and add it to the database. I'd be amazed if that's not already happening, and somewhat surprised if western police services weren't sharing/merging their databases internationally.
I guess you _could_ pay someone to flick through 80,000 photographs to see whether any of them contain illegal images, but a quick md5 hash check might give you enough positives for a conviction for just a couple of minutes effort.
Also, lets say that their real motivation is to get money for their drug habits, and to buy whores.
Many people think this is a valid and honourable motivation.
(me, I don't trust the dealers or the whores - neither career is sufficiently lucrative for the individual handling customer contact, and I don't want to fund the businessman exploiting those people)
I'm a very happy n900 owner and I'll be switching on Android just as soon as an Android phone that actually feels like an upgrade is available.
It's fuck all to do with the OS and everything to do with the app support. Frankly I can get shell access and write an app to fill any gaps in Android; I can't duplicate the efforts of the tens of thousands of app developers to re-implement their work on Maemo.
The women I know earn more than the men doing the same job.
In the UK on average male full time pay is higher than female full time pay. The study that discovered this (last couple of years) led to massive calls for corrective action so women would get paid the same as men. The study also showed that female part time pay is higher than male part time pay for the same role. There was no clamour for equal pay for men working part time.
Meanwhile women get to retire at 60 while men have to work until 65, women still live longer, and yes, there are massive differences in healthcare for men and women.
I'm a big fan of equality. It would be great to have some.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice dissembling. There were charity dinners and other fundraising efforts by the IRA in the US, where people rallied against the evil English imposition on their Irish-American ancestral roots and gave money explicitly to buy weapons used to kill civilians.
You're welcome to argue that's just a small subset of 307m citizens. That doesn't counter the original argument, and also disregards the police and fire service fundraiser events that weren't shut down by the civil authorities.
But hey, go use Google and find out for yourself.
Maybe the research was funded by a chocolatier.
Maybe the complexity of achieving the correct temperature for the chocolate to allow it to be used as a building material, instead of clogging the delivery mechanism or flowing away was a non-trivial problem with applications in multiple fields.
Maybe the publicity generated will secure funding for the university and/or increase their student intake.
Maybe the researcher likes chocolate.
What's wrong with researching this? Sure, Fark's probably subtitled it with "Still no cure for cancer" but more esoteric things than this get serious attention.
A British company has moral, ethical and legal obligations to protect its customers' data. Exposing that data to the US by hosting on a server in the EU would be negligent, yet is the situation that Microsoft have admitted anybody using their service could find themselves in.
Throw in the almost certain misuse of secret corporate data for industrial espionage purposes (and don't even pretend the US Government don't play there) and there's a very compelling case to use EU only cloud providers (or host in-house).
In English, all nouns are transgender.
girl? boy? Cederic?
Good comments. I'd also suggest watching a few TED talks - they're mostly quintessential multimedia presentations, with a mix of art, video, pictures and graphics to back up the talk... and yet it's a TALK, not a read.
I like short punchy slides with key words, concepts and (because I'm technical) diagrams on them. The talk is the content.
So you drive straight on at curves too?
Forgive my confusion, but what the fuck is so confusing about "there's a barrier in front of me, I'd best turn my steering wheel"?
If you said you'd turned left instead of right, because it was the quickest route to your exit, I could almost understand - but even then, I'd query whether you'd even read the road markings, the street signs and the numerous other clues that hint at not driving into the flow of oncoming traffic.
A roundabout is just a one way street. You are capable of approaching a one way street from a side road, aren't you? You can turn off one into a side road, can't you? That's all you're doing with a roundabout. It just happens to be exceedingly short and infinitely long one way street.
Doesn't placing traffic lights on roundabouts defeat the purpose?
There are roundabouts that only have certain entrances/exits traffic lighted - that assures a primary route doesn't clog it, without forcing other routes to wait for a green light if there's a gap.
There are also roundabouts that have "peak time" traffic lights. When the flow of traffic is at its heaviest (when roundabouts become less optimal) the lights switch on and work much as lights anywhere do, but at other times you get the benefits and convenience of a roundabout.
they install them in little-used residential streets. It means no traffic to bother with, but it also means I have to navigate a silly turn instead of going straight
This is why we use mini-roundabouts which are usually a painted circle on the road (with maybe a convex tarmac circle that peaks at less than the height of the kerb). The rules of the road are exactly as for a roundabout, but if it's clear you just drive straight over the centre of it.
Those work extremely well..
grok: v. intuitively comprehend to the fullest extent, including all subtle ramifications and the set of implications and opportunities that arise.
As a Christian, I kind of assume you're homophobic, sexist, irrational, corrupt and stupid. I don't assume for a moment you're nice, and I certainly don't expect it.
As an atheist I find it somewhat distressing that I know more about the bible than most Christians, including how utterly full of shit it is.
Theistic forms of governance work only through oppression and ignorance; don't expect me to support them and please, don't expect me to apologise for working to prevent them.
Maybe atheists would be less vocal if the people around them were more open to rational argument and critical thinking, instead of blindly accepting the mythical bullshit fed to them by exploitative people.
Fuck the 'average' user. Do not cut off swathes of the Internet because of the actions of 'average' users.
Do not implement industry controlled blocklists. Do not trust the media companies. Do not outsource legislation.
Which parts of these are anything to do with criminal actions?
The point is it doesn't accomplish anything. The people who actually harm children in the pictures aren't necessarily the ones who possess the pictures
I disagree. So I went hunting:
Currently Interpolâ(TM)s Child Abuse Image database has more than 200,000
images showing the sexual abuse of over 20,000 individual children.
[...]
but fewer than 500 of these had been identified.
(from http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/policyandpublicaffairs/policysummaries/childabuseimages_wdf56933.pdf)
The authorities try and identify the children being abused, to provide support, prevent further abuse and ideally prosecute the abusers.
If someone has 200 pictures that are known to be of child abuse, and then has another 80 pictures that have never been seen before, there's a chance further identifying information will be available to aid tracking down the victim or the perpetrator, and there's a chance the person holding those images is involved in producing them.
The comedy is that Ken Clarke's had at least three of his constituents write to him highlighting how fucked up this proposal is, and all he's done in response is forward those letters to the minister involved, who in turn has done fuck all, and continues to exclude the Open Rights Group from the discussions.
Ken can of course hide behind the fact that he didn't actually vote for the Digital Economy Bill - albeit because he was on a fucking jolly instead of being in parliament, where he should have been voting against the corrupt inept and unworkable legislation.
The DEA needs gutting, and Ken needs kicking out of his cushy little job for life. He's the perfect example of why AV was needed - not necessarily because he'd have lost, but because he'd have had to start acting for his constituents.
My understanding is that The Pirate Bay just links to copyrighted material and doesn't actually host any. Google links to copyrighted material, and actually hosts an awful lot.
The moment this blocklist goes live I will personally demand that Google and every other major 'net search engine, and any website hosting forums that I can post links to are immediately added and blocked.
This is an unworkable system, I'm not going to tolerate it, and I assure you, my opposition is nothing to do with 'piracy'.
It's a fair point. A big part of the argument for prosecuting people who merely download an image is that they're creating demand for further images, and thus causing additional abuse.
Nonetheless it's hard to irrevocably remove anything from the Internet, so it's reasonable to assume that much of the extant material continues to be available, and that anybody 'collecting' is likely to come across and retain it.
Someone with a self-created library wont be caught through a DB lookup, but if they have just one image (out of potentially thousands) that a previous offender had then they will.
I suspect the reality is that most downloaders are leeches and not creators (as with any media exchange online) and so a DB lookup would likely have a very high hit rate on criminals.
There's a small chance of a false positive, but that's extremely easily checked by merely viewing any images that match a hash in the DB - which I'd expect to happen prior to any prosecution as a matter of course, not least because it would be done as part of providing evidence at a trial.
Then again, I don't work in law enforcement and I'm not intimately familiar with the subject matter, so I could be wrong on all counts :)
I agree entirely it's a very different action, with very different consequences. I was merely responding to a suggestion that people may get prosecuted for pointing out a speed trap by highlighting that people in the UK already have been.
Personally I think encouraging people to obey the law should be legal, and informing people of speed traps has an outcome that they slow down and stop speeding, which is the professed purpose of those traps (in the UK), so it's aiding the police and not obstructing them.
However, aiding someone holding a hostage by feeding him intelligence regarding police activities feels like it should come under some sort of aiding and abetting law.
We had this debate on Slashdot yesterday. Your side of the argument lost.
I dunno. Then we start charging people for saying "hey, the police are trying to bust you" or "hey, there's a speed trap up ahead."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Driver-flashed-headlights-warn-motorists-speed-trap-fined.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4569124.stm
Tell you what, acquire a grenade, throw it 50y on a football field and stand there until it explodes.
Don't duck.
Then come back here with your braindead pointless pathetic fucking [citatation] fucking [needed]
ever created
Ever created, almost certainly not.
Ever found, on the 'net or on someone's PC, or on someone's phone, or on someone's digital camera? Pretty easy.
Just take the md5 hash, and add it to the database. I'd be amazed if that's not already happening, and somewhat surprised if western police services weren't sharing/merging their databases internationally.
I guess you _could_ pay someone to flick through 80,000 photographs to see whether any of them contain illegal images, but a quick md5 hash check might give you enough positives for a conviction for just a couple of minutes effort.
The thing I picked up from that is how well the Xtranormal voice synth copes with 'shitty ass'. Practically fluent!
(more work needed on 'motherfucking' though, alas)
Also, lets say that their real motivation is to get money for their drug habits, and to buy whores.
Many people think this is a valid and honourable motivation.
(me, I don't trust the dealers or the whores - neither career is sufficiently lucrative for the individual handling customer contact, and I don't want to fund the businessman exploiting those people)
hmm. 'trun' isn't an acceptable abbreviation for 'to turn' in your lexicon?
I thought his analogy was very apt, irrespective of his dyslexia.
I'm a very happy n900 owner and I'll be switching on Android just as soon as an Android phone that actually feels like an upgrade is available.
It's fuck all to do with the OS and everything to do with the app support. Frankly I can get shell access and write an app to fill any gaps in Android; I can't duplicate the efforts of the tens of thousands of app developers to re-implement their work on Maemo.
The women I know earn more than the men doing the same job.
In the UK on average male full time pay is higher than female full time pay. The study that discovered this (last couple of years) led to massive calls for corrective action so women would get paid the same as men.
The study also showed that female part time pay is higher than male part time pay for the same role. There was no clamour for equal pay for men working part time.
Meanwhile women get to retire at 60 while men have to work until 65, women still live longer, and yes, there are massive differences in healthcare for men and women.
I'm a big fan of equality. It would be great to have some.
"I never had the keys" is sadly also not a defence, even when true.
"There is no encrypted file/partition" is sadly also not a defence, even when true.
That law is asinine and malicious and scares me.