Posts by Ben Tasker 2250 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Oct 2007
Might just be me, but if I visit a thread that I previously sorted in "Newest" order when it loads the 'Newest' button will be grayed as though it has remembered my preference but the page is still in thread order.
Means I have to click 'thread', wait for that to load and then whack 'Newest' again. Yeah I know, two extra clicks *grumble grumble*
I await suggestion that I auto-fornicate and just put up with it :D
> Google knoe exactly what is contained in every page they index, no exceptions
Shall we try for the list of obvious exceptions?
- Video without Metadata
- Images without Metadata
Tell me, exactly how are Google to identify the content if I upload a transcoded video of Mr Moseley as myvid1.avi with no metadata at all? The page content may just say "Formula 1's finest hour!"
The point I'm making is that you're almost right - Google CAN pinpoint indexable content. What they can't do is identify content that has no easy way of being identified. Without metadata, tags etc unless the video is called maxmoselysexvid.avi for all Google knows it could be a video of my cat.
Google have never shown any resistance to taking those pages out of their index when they are notified of each of their pages. It's a huge burden on Mr Mosely yes, but it's all they are legally obliged to do. It's also about the most they can accurately do at this point, short of dropping any references to his name, F1 Sex or similar other keywords. At which point this comment thread will fall out of Google as well.
Theres a huge difference between publishing something and linking to it. NoTW had editorial control but decided to publish, whereas Google have no such control over who posts what and where. Expecting a search engine to act as a gatekeeper to the Internet is absolutely ridiculous.
I see why the guy wants it removed, but sadly its never going to go away. Its not feasible for Google to autodetect, especially as this would open the floodgates.
Imagine what happens if Google are forced to use this mechanism for superinjunctions, something already abused by companies.
I must be reading another thread? I can't see anyone saying Max got what he deserved (Jokes aside). What I do see is a lot of people pointing out that the MP is asking for something that can't reasonably be acheived, and probably shouldn't be implemented even if it were 100% possible.
Google removes links as soon as they are made aware of them. Perhaps Max should hire someone to write a crawler that looks for these sites and auto-detect them himself. Hell if he can get the false positives down I doubt Google would even care if the submissions came from his own bot!
Sorry, 2000 word limit! Just a small extra note;
My view is that the only way things like this can be more easily discouraged is to ensure that the original source (NoTW in this case) is so heavily punished that it becomes less desirable to do so.
Think of the punishment NoTW got in contrast to the benefit they gained (sales). If a redtop knew it would lose more than it would gain it'd at least go towards preventing the rags from publishing bullshit. Of course you then get into freedom of the press.
I don't know the exact answer, but implementing any form of censorship (especially an automated one) is definitely not the way to go IMHO
Which is exactly what they are doing at the moment. When notified of an (for the sake of brevity) infringing site, they de-list it.
That's not whats being asked of them here though;
There's a certain video of Max published on the net.
At the moment, if it appears on ABC.com/Max he needs to tell them about it, which is a lot of effort because it may well be published on XYZ.net (or even ABC.com/Max2)
What he's asking is that rather than having to notify them of every page (which is an insurmountable task really) that Google detect the video in software and auto-delist pages. That's a very, very different proposition and is never going to be 100% accurate (point of fact, do you err on the side of caution and risk false positives, or risk false negatives and being sued?).
There's a big difference between monitoring YouTube and monitoring everything else. Even if you were to use video fingerprinting that won't be 100% effective (I could make dramatic changes to the video whilst still ensuring the original was the primary focus).
It's not impossible but it's not a good idea, and is something that will get misused should it be implemented.
The idea that people can only find things through Google also ignores the wider picture. It may not be in Google, but if I link to it on Facebook, everyone on my page will know the URL. That's part of how videos go viral in the first place!
> They have already admitted that they are obliged to remove all links that they are advised of,
> so they have just as much obligation to remove new links to the same content
Except of course the first is a legal obligation, the second is a moral obligation that you (I assume) would like to see imposed. It's not that trivial for them to do when you consider that this wouldn't be the only thing they'd have to search for.
> "he comes over as a sane sensible person"
With an apparent lack of understanding about how the Internet works. I can only imagine the hell he goes through knowing most people he's met will have seen it, but as Google themselves have said - censoring search results based on an algorithm is a bad idea. It's also very much the thin end of the wedge.
As another commentard pointed out, what happens when people stop posting it as "Max Mosley" and instead as "That F1 Dude"? Although it's a huge burden on him, the current process of identify site and then report it works well.
Can't say I wouldn't be tempted to go the same route as him if something similar happened to me though!
Then he'll probably ask that someone watches any video, and looks at any stills before they are added to the index just in case it's that video.
What I find interesting is how easily Google could manipulate it's indexes to serve it's own ends. Conservatives cost us a lot of money in extra work? Drop the feckers from the Index.
I liked the change to stopping AC's from choosing an icon, but is there any chance of re-allowing the Joke Alert icon? I do make the occasional joke that, whilst it appeals to my sense of humour, I don't necessarily want my name next to it!
Without the Joke Alert, some can look like trolling and invite a splurge of invective that hurts my poor little eyes (even if it is often well deserved)
Not just the content.... but the "little things" that mean when I glance at some random guy's screen, I know he's a vulture
I also find the use of that ingenious term 'twatdangle' is something of a giveaway! Be nice if we could have an icon for that! To keep it clean, you could always go for an obscure reference to it - maybe a pussy(cat) being held up by it's tail?
Most places do seem to use fixed width, but I'd agree it can occasionally be annoying. I'll quite often sit with my littleun in my lap and have a read, a widescreen format means more text will be visible before I have to wrestle my hands away from him to scroll down!
Not looked at how you've implemented the width, but assuming it's a fixed width div, what about a link that runs some JS to change the width to 100%. Those that want to use it can (and should expect that formatting issues may occur) whilst the others can read as is?
Yeah OK, I know the Forum search box only went live today (or I've been blind the last few days), but I noticed earlier when browsing on my phone that I can't actually use it.
If I whack in a search term and press enter the phone just moves to the next input box which is Search IT jobs.
Tis only a little thing, and I can probably live without it, but if a phone's browser is detected can you serve a little submit button? The moving to the next box is probably more to do with the crappy default browser on Android than the site, but it'd be handy for when I'm too lazy to move off the sofa
You'd also have to think about whether you wanted to store those avatars;
Another site I use allows you to just specify a URL, the image on the end of it will be vetted and then the avatar is approved/disapproved. The problem is, what's to stop me changing that image to something that would obviously have been disapproved?
The flip side of the coin is that you force people to upload, but then have to absorb storage for the many wonderful images that people will try and use. This'd be even worse if its on a per post basis rather than per comment.
Moderation levels the same either way, but one route carries higher risk of publishing willies whilst the other has a (potentially substantial) storage cost.
There's a way round it, but I'm not entirely sure what it is!
"... public on AGW because of their belief in the balance of nature"
Yet tell them that the Greeks used to believe illnesses were caused by humors being out of balance and they'll laugh!
There's no balance, there's cause and effect but quite how anyone can picture nature as a seesaw is beyond me.
This set me wondering about how the energy density of blood actually stacks up against other things. Couldn't find a reliable source so have relied on a forum (I won't link to it as it's potentially NSFW).
Unit of blood if 450 mL, typical glucose level is 100 mg/dL, so a unit would contain around 450mg.
Energy densite of carbs is 4 kcal/gram so that gives 1.8 calories per unit
Normal hemoglobin concentration would be 15 g/dL or 67.5g in a unit. At 4kcal/g a unit would have 270 calories from hemoglobin.
Plasma is approx 55%, with Total serum protein at 60-80g per litre (of plasma) so that's 17.325g ir 69.3 calories.
Fat levels are under 150mb/dL, so 371.25mg of fat per unit. Energy density is 9kcal/gram, contributing 3.34 calories
So that's around 344.44 calories per unit of blood (others quote 600 calories)
Average Adult contains 10-12 units of blood. Reckon Nuclear might be the better way, before ethics are even considered
IIRC the data may be 'ok' but the methods used to process the raw data remain undocumented. Therefore CRU have reached no empirical conclusion because an essential aspect of scientific methodology has been missed - repeatability.
So no it won't provide any data against AGW, but it also doesn't actually provide any data for AGW either.
If no-one is able to sit down and repeat the methods they used to generate their final data, their results cannot be relied on. Not just because they appear to be lying bastards, but because even honest scientists make mistakes. That's part of the reason repeatability is so crucial, to check for mistakes, extraneous variables - anything that could have influenced your results.
That'd suit me well!
As for blood of grandchildren, probably not going to work and is almost definitely a little too extreme. Of course, if the country goes bust as a result of building windfarms that don't generate enough power then we may well be paying with the lives of our grandchildren who'll get to live in abject poverty.
See think of the children works both ways!
Sorry slightly OT, but something that keeps popping into my head (you triggered it by mentioning vast expense);
Think about your power supplier, most will now claim "15% from renewables" or similar. I'd love to at least have the option of a supplier who said "0% from renewables, with reduction in price as a result". OK it's not eco-friendly, but the reality is there are families who just can't afford to pay the high prices that go with taking your high horse when it comes to power generation.
Of course, things like the Kyoto agreement knock this idea on it's ass because we'd all end up paying the price through our taxes when the deadlines are missed. Still, it'd be nice to think there was some aspect of competition open.
Nuke cos I live near one and have yet to have cause for alarm.
</tangent>
I entirely see your point, don't get me wrong, but when the changes being asked for/imposed have a real impact on peoples lives (whether financially or otherwise) are you at all surprised that the inertia of the status quo will win out?
I'm no fan of analogies, so I won't use one here! Given the following, what do you think most people will choose
Option a) Spend a fortune on new forms of power (turbines don't come cheap) and it's possible it may save the earth in the future (but we don't know for sure if it'll make the blindest bit of difference)
Option b) Save that money, at least until there is some credible evidence that harm is being done
That's why the likes of Jones have been so damaging. You could be right, CO2 could be absolutely terrible, but because they've completely undermined the credibility of the 'evidence' most people will go with Option b.
I'm personally of the view that where you aren't sure of the consequences of change, it's often wiser to stick with the status quo (which doesn't hold true for everything). There is a risk in leaving the status quo in place, but what if our efforts to reduce CO2 are in fact causing harm?
Your drugs company analysis is slightly flawed in comparison,The drugs company has not yet released the drug, wherehas we are already releasing CO2.
Consider in your scenario where 'benizac' is found to have some potential complications, but is also currently essential to a lot of people (can't think of a good illness, so let's call it benitoe!). Do you withdraw the drug completely, reduce the availability (knowing this will have a large impact on those who need it) or do you try to make people aware whilst doing in-depth research so that you can adequately explain why it needs to be withdrawn (and as evidence arises you can probably substantiate the need to start reducing levels).
The problem is at the moment we seem to be reducing, leading to wide scale impact - cost of power and fuel being obvious examples - without having any credible science to back up why it needs to happen.
Do I recall reading somewhere that not only is methane potentially a much bigger potential cause, but that it would be comparatively easy to deal with when compared to the current fixation on carbon?
You're right though, plunging ahead and reducing carbon emissions isn't necessarily a good move until we can substantiate what the cause is. Sort of like trying to cure malaria by poisoning mosquitos and then wondering why all the bats are dying off!
@Mark - There's quite a good (but long) article on Seed Magazine about this sort of thing today (Scientists being paid to do research who then compromise their integrity). Was actually trying to find that famous quote (I forget half of it, or who said it) about a scientist without credibility. Worth a read though - http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_state_of_the_scientist/
By undermining the credibility of any research related to climate change, I'd say Jones et al were far worse. While I accept that in an ideal world everyone would look at it and say "wouldn't harm to change a few things just in case" that's not the world we live in. There are some dramatic and expensive changes (Wind turbines being a good example) being called for and made in the name of climate change. Most people are not going to be happy about this when there's a lack of credible evidence to suggest that it'll make any difference.
That's where the real cock-ups come from, by undermining the credibility that is essential when making a point (especially if you are refusing to release the data!) they've actually been entirely counter productive.
My personal view is that the impact mankind is having on the climate is probably quite small (doesn't mean the climate isn't changing though!), but I'm more than willing to reconsider it when credible evidence is presented. The problem is, given my cynical mind, it'll need to be damn strong evidence now that the games played by Jones et al have come to light.
So whilst the critics aren't entirely blameless, I do think that their reaction is understandable. When you have people who are likely to cry conspiracy anyway, you need to be damn careful to make sure you are being as transparent as possible.
Given that it's not possible to prove that we are not contributing (prove a negative) it's therefore necessary to prove that we are. The lower the credibility of the 'yes' camp (thanks to Jones and others) the harder they have to work to actually prove it without questions being asked about methodology, cherry picking the results etc.
Hate to tell you this, but you've been misinformed.
If the Ole Bill kick your door in and find evidence of a crime, the cost of the door is yours to pay.
If they find nothing, you may get some money but only if they've made an actual mistake (got the address wrong for example). See this lovely lass.
They do of course have to (re)secure the property, and a failure to do so could result in them being liable for loss. Not sure this is something that translates well to the Internet though, they haven't for example published the contents of the servers far and wide (which could be a data protection issue depending what's hosted). The data hosted is quite unlikely to be stolen.
The senior manager at HP presumably plugged into a work PC? Slightly different to using something at home and getting prosecuted.
I'm not criticising your position, it's clearly something you feel very strongly about. Was just suggesting it's a possible risk depending on the circumstances (which are of course very important in themselves!)
Where things get really confused though, is when you say "Copyright infringement" most people will think Music/Vids. There's no denying that those two industries have pursued some foolhardy tactics in the past, the problem being that those actions are then used to tarnish the other copyright reliant industries (and the BSA is no angel either).
The reason that the action with MU was disproportionate is that there were legitimate users of the system (however foolhardy that may have been) who are now being harmed by the actions of the US. There are many appropriate resolutions the US could have used to avoid risking deletion/unavailable files etc (many of which have been posted in this thread somewhere). If Dotcom is guilty then he will be punished, but even if he isn't people have potentially lost access to some of their files (and I won't disagree if you point out they should have a backup!).
Part of the reason PIPA/SOPA were so bad was because the Media industries were effectively trying to acquire a disproportionate level of control over the Internet. That's why people were upset there.
All that said, I agree with comments you've made in other threads. If I write the software, I have a right to specify conditions for use (including price). If you want to use that software, you have to follow those conditions. Similarly if I want to release it under a BSD license, that's entirely my choice too. Too many people do want something for nothing, but don't make the mistake of assuming those buggers would have paid anyway (and there are potentially upsides to having your stuff pirated, albeit small).
"anyone caught with illegal software or prosecuted for offences privately will have their employment terminated as we are all members of FAST".
Not sure if you're in the UK, but if so I strongly suspect the latter would lose you a case of Unfair Dismissal at a tribunal. The former would be acceptable if it was being used at work (as that puts the business at risk) or indeed if they had nabbed a copy of software licensed to the business.
But if someone chooses to use a dodgy copy of Office at home, and you fire them you're really not likely to be able to win that one. You have to show that their actions have led to a breakdown of trust - but it's gotta be relevant to the business. Saying we don't like Copyright infringers won't cut it, and being a member of FAST doesn't make that argument any easier. IANAL though so YMMV.
I'd also say that a number of people aren't defending Dot. com, but are saying that those who put legitimate files on those servers now stand to lose out. Which is a fair assessment IMHO. But yeah, it does look like MU was aimed at facilitating copyright infringement. Responses need to be proportional though, so you can see why some people are upset?
"anyone storing legal documents on megaupload"
I strongly suspect you won't find any. Or at least none that aren't leaks, any Lawyer who used something like Megaupload to store their data should probably be disbarred!
What is of course possible, is that cases in other jurisdictions could be fatally prejudiced. If I was suing you for (I dunno,) defamation, then it'd be nice to be able to provide the file as well as evidence that it was there. If it got deleted because of the Yanks, that'd be pretty fatal to my (ill thought out) case.
It wouldn't however be classed as perverting the course of justice AFAIK
others aren't. I bought the 10th anniversary Red Dwarf boxset because I considered it worth the money.
OTOH there's also plenty that I wouldn't buy. You're certainly going to get me to struggle if you ask me to name a film in the last few months I'd even consider buying at full price. Especially as I (rather naively) forked over £4 to rent the heap of shite that was 'bad bosses' (or was it horrible bosses?).
Most films now I'll wait until they come on TV, if they are any good I may then look at buying (by which time they are cheaper). I certainly won't pay full price for a DVD without at least speaking to as many people who've seen it as I can. £20 is a lot to pay for something that may well become a shiny mat for my coffee mug
I think the issue is slightly more complex.
Samsung want to license at a higher rate for the period before Apple actually came and asked for permission, and at the same rate as everyone else from when Apple requested a license.
I could be wrong, it may well be I'm thinking of someone else and Apple.
Reminds me a little of the business Phorm's CEO wsa involved in. Forget what it was called now, but they wrote a piece of software that got labelled malware.
He then tried to use semantics to try and explain why his bit of code that was sending data off, had snuck along with some other software and was generally quite undesirable was not in fact malware.
Exactly what this reminded me of in all honesty, but I can also see that the AV vendors have every reason to try and call it malware.
Exactly what I thought, saying the market would have shrunk without tablets is like saying "You wouldn't have got cancer if you didn't smoke"! The PC market may well have grown without the new form factor (i.e. if Tablets didn't exist).
Given the cost of Tablets, PC's etc and the current economic climate I'm not at all surprised that people are buying one or the other - no bugger can afford both!
Interesting stats though, I've been toying with the idea of a tablet
Something I really struggle with (given that I have to know why something broke) is that sometimes you need to do such an indepth post mortem that it may not be worth the cost of paying someone to do it.
Take your outage, say that cost the business £50 (made up number), if it's going to take you hours to thoroughly investigate then it may be better to accept that there's probably a small chance of it happening again (given you can't find anything too obvious) than to delve to the bottom.
It's not something I've ever been any good at, if something breaks I need to know why. But it's something I've come across in my (soon to end!) current employment.
Given that it relates to the (relatively) recent DDoS of EasyDNS I'm not sure I'd call it an advert. Besides which, it's actually useful to find out which providers are any cop especially when there's a good chance a customer might ask you.
Trevor gets a lot of stick in comments from time to time, but being accused of advertising is a new one on me!
I see what you are saying, but I think you're still missing an important distinction here - Gary was an unauthorised access.
If a Pen Tester finds it, yes you'd probably cross your fingers (depending on the threat assessment etc.). If someone not authorised to access your system finds it? You take it down. It's that simple, you have no idea what they've done to the other terminals, there may even be malware running.
So had an authorised Pen Tester found it, they probably would have crossed their fingers whilst they ran costs. But it wasn't a Pen Tester, from their point of view it was a hacker/cracker and their systems were compromised. It's a (supposedly) secure system, and you do not leave a secure system running in use when you suspect compromise.
To clarify: Gary did not have any authorisation to access their systems. That's what changed the scenario, and if you've worked with secure systems you should know as well as I do that as soon as you find evidence of a compromise (in this case the message Gary left) you isolate the system. If that means that 20,000 systems stop as a result, that is what you do. Security is supposed to be paramount on these systems (though let's be honest, they could've tried harder at an earlier date).
The downing of a system is partially related to the problem, but make no mistake about it - the method of discovery should always be considered. If someone who appears to be a White-hat tells you about a hole out of the blue, you are at the very least going to isolate the system whilst you run your own security audit.
What the DoD did before Gary (i.e. not securing their systems) was very bad IT. However, what they did afterwards was entirely by the book for a military system (at least with regards to taking it down)
That doesn't mean, however, that they aren't trying to make the case worse. But taking the systems offline is one thing that should have happened in that scenario, and it is a consequence of Gary's actions. Although it's an unintended consequence (presumably) so are many other things you can be prosecuted for.
You've touched on the important point here - What he did was not right, i.e. it was wrong.
This is why the systems being down are attributed to him. Had he been a pen tester, then yes, the downtime would have happened, but and this is critical would have happened in a planned way at a time those responsible believed to be reasonable.
I'm not saying it's fair that the blame for this lays at his door, but it is an obvious indirect consequence when pissing about on someone elses network.
I agree that they are in fact shooting the messenger, but that's exactly what you should expect to happen when you are doing wrong. He didn't knock on the door and politely tell them, he kicked his way through the (in this case unlocked) door and left a note.
I'd say there's a certain amount of embarassement at higher levels which Gary is unfortunately paying the price for, again it's not fair but it's a position that can be legally justified.
If it helps, think about it as though it were a business. An unscheduled outage could cost the business a lot of money, a scheduled outage will be planned to minimise that. What Gary 'caused' is the former wherehas any repairs resulting from a pen testers report would generally fall under the latter.
Both sides have fucked up, the DoD should have taken security far, far, far more seriously and Gary should never have gone poking around in the first place. The simple fact is though, two fuck-ups do not make a right and complaining about that outages that occurred as a result of his actions shows nothing but a naive view of how the world actually works.
All that said, I'll say again - I don't think he should be extradited. He was in the UK, so they should try him here especially given the precedents others have referenced. That doesn't however change the fact that the allegations are more or less exactly what I would expect to be levied in these or similar circumstances. It's incredibly simple - if you are doing wrong, don't be surprised when indirect consequences are added to the list (you brought them to light whilst doing wrong, so they will be blamed on you).
I'm a Linux user but couldn't give a toss about the change, largely for the reasons you specify (never that bothered about the weather in quite that level of realtime anyway).
What does bother me is another Tax-payer funded org going the route of AIR. As others have said, why not a nice simple API containing the basics?
Someone mentioned Dominos? I'm hungry now!
Which I suspect is why the laws talk about reasonable adjustments. What they don't do is say every business has to bend to every whim.
If BMI can show it's going to cost a fortune to re-do their site, it won't be seen as a reasonable adjustment. The problem IMO with leaving to bad publicity is it means there's no good measure of reasonable;
1. You run a shop and haven't put in a ramp. The reason being (for whatever reason) it would cost a fortune, you may not necessarily own the land the ramp would need to absorb (call it a big step!).
2 .However, I'm something of a media whore and manage to whip up a serious storm of people slating your business.
Or, of course, we could take option 3 - use the law. You'd present your case, I'd present mine. The court would probably find that it didn't constitute a reasonable adjustment and so you'd walk away. Of course I could still then try step 2, but you would have won at court and might be able to defend yourself a bit.
The problem with trial by media (aka bad publicity) is it tends to be very one-sided and represent the feeling of the day. By putting these things into law we can at least aim for some consistency (not that we always get it).
It's much the same as Health & Safety - most of it should be common sense, there should be no need for it to be in law. The reality in the cold light of day is that we live in a world where sometimes things have to be in law otherwise they will just be ignored.
"In other words.... directing.... anti-competive"
My first thought was "No it's not" - if you haven't paid a licensing fee for the music then you aren't legally using it so can't actually complain.
But then..... what's the betting that this'll potentially be quite badly implemented. I search for "New Indie Music mp3" and the first few sites listed will be the ones that have agreements with PRS etc. Newer, unheard of bands may well lose out as a result
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
