If it's in the "New Scientist" ...
... it can safely be ignored (unless they have got a decent editorial staff again). It is the Daily Fail of science tabloids.
4159 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
I've been using FF4 for a couple of weeks now. I have found it more stable than any of the later versions of FF3: for instance, it doesn't seem to keep tripping over the Flash add-on, which I was having with FF3. There are still several of my favourite add-ons that don't work with FF4, but I'm assuming the devs are waiting until they know what their target is.
It does seem to be a bit quicker loading from cold, but pages don't seem to render any quicker. Annoyingly, Mozilla have shifted buttons around from the places they used to be (Home and Refresh, for instance), and tabs are over the navigation bar by default, which seems to be odd, though it is probably just what I got used to. However, a few minutes looking through various menus got it all back to the way I like it.
Unfortunately, we are never going back to the days of FF2, which was just about the best iteration of the program I used. Bling counts, and unless another browser comes along that is as secure and configurable comes along (and I haven't found one yet, though I'm open to suggestions), I'll stick with FF.
... isn't that the problem being looked at? There is certainly an argument that it is better to have in-house resources that are a predictable cost than outsourced ones that vary depending on all sorts of things. There is also the level of commitment to doing the job properly - there is always a question as to whether an outsider with no continuing responsibility for what has been done might be less interested in doing the job correctly. Not to mention the fact that any problems can be dealt with quicker in-house, rather than waiting for some contractor to arrive from, say, Portugal (like the automated passport gates at Heathrow).
The answer is somewhere in between - have a core staff of your own techies, and buy in expertise when it is necessary (and make part of the contract include training up the internal staff so that you don't need to buy in the same expertise twice).
... "Traditional analysis of "competing" languages points to the eventual extinction of one, as was pretty much the case with ... Welsh and English," to suggest that Welsh had made English extinct. I admit that, come closing time, it seems that it might be the case what with all the spitting and slavering and hacking and slurring, but English is still most definitely the spoken language here.
Regarding Welsh as an extinct language - my wife and I have different opinions. She comes from a country which is very proud of the fact that they use a language that was basically invented by nationalists in the late 19th Century (i.e. Czech)*, and thinks that anyone should be able to speak any language they like, and have it recognised. On the other hand, I don't see the point of having made-up languages whether or not they have some basis in a language that people once spoke, particularly since they all seem to involve a lot of spitting and tongue-cramping noises.
* Czech, like Welsh, was a series of dialects spoken in different areas, and rarely written down. In order to make a language that could function as a badge of membership of a particular group, a written, standardised form was deliberately created (rather than evolved, like English, Spanish, and German, but not French which has conscious interference from language police), and is seriously compromised. Czech deliberately has strange letters (such as "ř", which represents "rzh", where the "zh" is like the "s" in "pleasure", even though they have two letters - "r" and "ž" - which would make the same sound. Even using the diacritic over certain letters was basically so people could look at it and differentiate it from other similar languages, which make the same sounds with different spellings (such as Polish). If you ever want to start a vigorous argument amongst Czechs simply suggest that they might have been better keeping German as their language after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, since they would then be less isolated from the rest of Europe. It is amazing how many will agree!
... is what public opinion says it is. The criminal action lies with the guards, the government, and the apologists. Whilst I understand that "doxing" my not merely affect the people doing this, but their families and friends, I completely support Anonymous in this. It is not vigilante, it is revolution that is long overdue. However, all corrupt regimes like to characterise revolution as criminal behaviour.
The sooner people that have think they can do disgusting things without retribution realise that the world has changed, and that they now have to take responsibility for their actions in the wider world, the better it will all be. Let the trials begin.
As I've said here before, I am as honest and law-abiding person as most others, but there is nothing that would get me to report anything directly to the police that does not have immediate impact on me (and I mean that in the sense of having to get a crime number for the purposes of insurance). The police are at best useless, and at worse likely to investigate the reporter. However, I would use Crimestoppers for an offence against the person.
Let the downvotes and the "my family are all in the force and are lovely" comments begin ...
... Communist regimes work(ed) the same way. At least one member of the Party in every apartment block, in your pub and at your workplace (usually one you knew about, and another you didn't). Total and utter shits, every single one of them, and I cannot see why we should not vilify the "volunteers" doing this as well - after all, they all have the same cry: "It's for the good of the community!".
... I don't believe that they didn't realise the wider implications. They might not have been the main reason for the foul drafting of the laws (which have more to do with having legislation guided by "victims" - something New Labour specialised in, with the assumption that everyone is a victim of white British men, who in turn aren't victims often enough), but they damn well did see the potential for social control that they offered.
As far as I know, (and I have passingly good knowledge) there is no equivalent to ACLU anywhere in Europe, but it is long past time for one to exist. The closest in the UK is Liberty, but they don't quite meet the same level of aggressiveness required.
You may just have given me a project!
I understand your frustration. It is not a good feeling when you start to examine this pernicious law, and realise that there is neither rhyme nor reason to it, unless you start treading into ground that makes you wonder if you are paranoid (since it seems that this law is there merely to ensure that almost anyone can be prosecuted for something at any time).
This law, along with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, needs seriously overhauling, and cutting back, and very, very soon.
The law was proved not to be an ass - this bloke is out, albeit with a reputation tarnished forever. The ass here was the incompetent, target chasing police (again), and the CPS which is filled with people with 2:2 law degrees from the University of Does-that -place-actually-have-a-university? We have allowed those in charge of prosecutions to come from such a low level of education and innate common sense that we, as a population, are no longer safe from those that are supposed to protect us. Fortunately, more judges are stepping up to the challenge, and delivering judgments like this.
... for the identity of people charged with offences to be kept secret unless found guilty, unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise, a decision that would have to come from the judge (this is already done in some cases, for instance where is might lead to identification of a child in a sexual abuse case). Too much now rides on mere accusation for anonymity not to be the default situation.
Now, I like the back and forward keys around the arrows. I desperately miss them when I'm on a normal keyboard (I use a who-knows-how-old X40 bought second-hand in preference to my desktop). My gripes are the backspace and delete keys - both are a bit fiddly to hit reliably.
I definitely agree with the trackpoint - mice and trackpads just mess up the flow. I don't know why trackpoints haven't become industry standard, because they are so much more ergonomically efficient.
... any sentence that begins "Everyone knows ..." is automatically suspect, and often wrong. I once read a suggestion that researchers looking for funding should specifically search out instances of "everyone knows", because no-one actually does, and a grant application can therefore be built.
If I buy something, the starting point is that it is mine to do with what I want. That presumption is rebuttable in certain cases, such as not copying something and passing it off as my own, but, in general, hardware is mine to do with as I please. If there is anything modifying that, then it should not be in small print!! It is a major factor in whether I decide to buy something, and should therefore be made very, very clear. Like it or not, the majority of people think that the software is only the stuff they buy to play the games. This means that unless there is a huge sticker on everything that says, in effect, "You only think this is yours", then the assumption that hardware and firmware goes in favour of the person who owns it.
Out of interest, what other things would you buy that you don't have full control over as soon as you hand over the relevant payment?
... why anyone with a Facebook account that is a bit "controversial" can't just put up a "We are here at www.????.com" pointer, and then use the chatty features to point to new things on the website. This allows it to have a presence on this apparently invaluable* resource where its fans can chat, but there is nothing that can lead to the site being taken down.
However, I presume I'm missing something.
*I say "apparently invaluable" because I have never used Facebook, and don't understand why it is so popular.
Even if I decide not to use my skills to fix the car, or do some work in the house, I certainly don't go to any of the places whose names I can remember from endless adverts. I use small, local traders or friends who need a bit of money to do the work. They usually do a better job, tailor their approach to me, and appreciate the business. Hopefully, at the same time, we'll both have a bit of a laugh and enjoy the time spent together. That is why Facebook is not going to be on my list of bookmarks, ever, and I would rather hope others will come to that same conclusion.
My answers are:
I want based on the the best data, that does not identify anyone personally. There is no need at all for it to be traceable back to an individual, or even an address. By all means, have a section where people can put identifiable information in if they want to, but the default should be genuinely anonymous. Mere numbers are sufficient for the purposes that are given (future planning, etc), and the requirements of future genealogists are irrelevant.
Views on religious views may not be intrusive for some, but they may well be for others. Some have long memories, and remember what the consequences of having a central database containing name, address, and religion can be (that isn't a Godwin - it is fact and relevant to the discussion). Once again, if people were allowed to put in information on a voluntary basis, we might get a clear view of how many people of certain religions there are, but there are genuine reasons why some view it with trepidation. Personally, I believe religious views to be irrelevant to anything, so, perversely, I am happy to put my lack of religion on the census form.
B all means, let us have accuracy and equality of access, but let us think very hard about what information is actually *necessary* before it is collected.
"You won't protect the environment or cut down on the waste you produce, you won't drive less and you won't stop flying ... [but] the value of the census goes way beyond contemporary issues." Sorry, Tron, but you are conflating totally different issues here. You clearly seem to think that the flying/driving/recycling thing is important, and I can only assume that is because you think that by doing these things less we will be helping future generations (which I will accept on the face of it). However, surely, these things are generally regarded as relevant to the health and well-being of these future generations, whereas providing census information so that there can be the equivalent of "Who Do You Think You Are" on the media machines is ... well, frivolous, at best.*
*However, I do regard genealogy as a waste of time generally, so my opinion is coloured by that. I don't care what my ancestors did, and I really couldn't care less if any putative future generations of Potsherds can't find anything about me!
"I would personally want to torture and kill anyone who abused my children in that way as, I imagine, would any parent. " I as a reasonably well-balanced person, would take far more into account than mere "abuse". Severity and frequency would play a big part. There are far worse things that could happen to children than some other child playing "doctors and nurses" with them, for instance, and I wouldn't be overly upset if my 15 year-old daughter was having a sexual relationship with anyone, including, say, a 50 year-old man. These are irrelevancies, and it is time the law looked at real harms, not imaginary ones.
"Far too often I guess it comes down to he said, she said." And so it should. Remember: guilty unless proven guilty, burden of proof on the prosecution, and guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. In a situation where there are only two people with no witnesses, the prosecution always has the difficult job because the burden of proof is really difficult, and there should always be reasonable doubt in the mind of a member of the jury.
Fiddling around the edges to make sexual offences more capable of successful prosecution has made the country a worse place, not a better one, even for those it was meant to protect.
Assuming the report is actually what she said, I find the clause "...which will assert that the rights of citizens come before those of criminals" extremely worrying. It implies that this putative Bill of Rights will remove citizenship from criminals, which will certainly make it easier for the government, since there will only be about three voters in the country after a few years!
Please, please, please, anyone in tempted to state anything along these lines - remember that a criminal is a citizen as well, and has basic rights that must be protected. Don't agree? - well, think about that speeding/drunk and disorderly/breach of the peace/littering you have in your past. Do you want to be an outlaw for the rest of your life, because that is what the assertion that a criminal is not a citizen means.
"Brodie Clark ... said: “There was no breach of security or immigration control. E-Gates are used in conjunction with manual checking by border officials ... , and the border was not compromised as a result of the incident. The gates have now re-opened and we will continue to monitor their performance to ensure they operate safely and securely. To date more than 3 million people have used the E-Gates system.""
This is a willful smokescreen that misses the importance of this failure. The staff noticed that these two had switched passports and got through (any bets that it was a couple of teenagers just seeing what would happen, and being really obvious about it?). However, that shows that it is possible to game the system, and that there has been an unknown number of false positives generated by the system, which may only be the two in this case, but with a sample of 3 million is likely to be higher.
OK, false positives are always going to be a problem with any workable identity system dealing with thousands of people a day (as someone else said above, I know someone that has gone through borders with the IDs of several different people). The only advantage I can see here is that there is a second level of security - the staff - that aren't there when there are human passport checkers. However, they are around to deal with negatives not positives.
This is a waste of time and money, and Brodie Clark clearly knows it.
... surely something that was an evolutionary step towards something else, but which no longer exists in itself, is extinct. I'm thinking, say, of trilobites, which (AFAIK) no longer exist in anything other than fossil form, but which have descendants we see now (again, AFAIK - I don't think trilobites were a dead-end, but if they were, substitute something else that wasn't). This would cover dinosaurs still being extinct, but with a healthy family of descendants, wouldn't it?
... as long as they make it clear what the price is going to be at the preliminary "looking" stage, not at the end.
I really don't like Ryanair, and will not use them for anything, but they are not he only airline doing this - Jet2 (booked by my wife, not me) have just charged us £4 each for printing our boarding cards. Yes, you read that correctly - I've been charged for using my own printer, ink and electricity! Bastards.
Fir those of you saying "fly with flag carriers", that isn't so easy for those of us that live outside London. Either there is a huge expense in travel to the airport by other means, or we need to catch a connecting flight. If it is a connecting flight operated by the airline, then you are paying for a 50% higher chance of having your luggage lost (based on my experience). I'll stick with BMIbaby, thanks!