Nobody has convicted him of rape. True.
But what I don't see is anybody suggesting that he should be jailed for that without a trial. If you have seen such a suggestion, could you point to it?
3118 posts • joined 25 Mar 2010
and moving your files off the OS partition actually is a very sensible thing to do. Most unkind to sting these users
They didn't sting *those* users, those users were fine. The ones who got stung were the ones who started saving *some* of their files on another partition, but still left others in the original location. Which is *not* really "a very sensible thing to do" in my estimation.
It's "a top priority", "a critical priority". In other words, it's one of many such "priorities". How many, exactly? - might actually be an interesting question to ask, next time they lay themselves open to such interrogation.
I'm sure they're "sincere in their desire to be more secure", just like I'm sincere in my desire to be more healthy. Wanting something, no matter how "sincere", is not enough. You also need to be willing to give up something else to get it. What, specifically, is Intel willing to cut down on, to improve security?
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
If you insist on knocking people down just because they're popular, you risk lowering everyone to the same level. You miss the salient fact that some people really are a whole heap worse or better than others.
"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones." I would rather have a world in which Trump had died and McCain and Jobs lived.
In most countries, journalists don't have any special privileges. If they can do it, so can you.
US law, for instance, allows "journalists" to claim limited immunity for not giving up the name of a source. But the kicker is, there is no real definitive description of "journalist". If you, as a private individual, want to claim that you were acting "as a journalist" when you made that blog post, you can.
(This is a necessary consequence of the First Amendment, which makes it illegal for the government to pass a law saying "these are the criteria for being a journalist".)
In Russia... I don't know, but I imagine people who pull this kind of stunt when the Kremliin doesn't want them to, are running considerable risks that have nothing to do with the courts.
It's more accurate to say that the US, like Russia and for that matter every other country, feels that its laws don't cover the whole planet, and therefore anything that happens outside its borders is no concern of its courts, and therefore doesn't need to be legal.
It may be against some other country's laws, but as far as the US courts are concerned, that's Someone Else's Problem.
It's more obvious with the US and Russia, because they've got the resources and the brass face to pull off these operations more often than anyone else. But every country takes that attitude.
You don't think Putin would trade the Skripals, then order them murdered in the most publicly attributable way possible, just pour encourager les autres? Somehow I can easily see him doing exactly that.
I'm sure the GRU agents will be fine, they'll just have to keep a low profile for a while. Maybe they've been shuffled to desk jobs, or maybe they're even now recovering from plastic surgery. You don't pack trained assassins off to Siberia just for getting made one time, they're too valuable a resource.
And as has been observed, the US doesn't give a toss about "reasonable cause". In fact, nothing in their so-wonderful Constitution applies to non-citizens entering their borders.
This is widely believed, but it's not true. The constitution and its protections apply to anyone within US jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship.
American citizens like to forget this, because it makes them feel special. Politicians like to forget it, because it makes their voters feel special, and simultaneously allows them to pass laws breaching those protections and pretending that they're only for foreigners, when in fact - once the law is passed - it by definition applies to everyone.
In a way it's funny that the "trade craft" of visiting our major Nato ally is now something like visiting East Berlin in the early 80s
New Zealand is not anybody's "major Nato ally". Perhaps you are getting it mixed up with some other country. At least NZ doesn't subject you to mugshots and fingerprinting (fingerprinting! Seriously, why?) on entry, like some "major Nato allies" I could name.
If you think that the officials are going to be passing around your family photos for their titillation and amusement, then... I suggest you lobby for them to get a pay rise so that they can afford broadband. Believe me, there's better material already online.
More to the point, what do you expect you'll find on it when you get it back?
If you honestly believe that the authorities would do that just to get at you personally, then sorry to break it to you, but you've already lost. Not just the battle, you've lost the whole war, and your country is officially a shithole now. Or maybe you're just paranoid.
In a previous role I had accounts on my phone which allowed access to security and audit documentation for a sensitive UK Government IT system. I personally wouldn't have cared who saw it except that I'd signed some paperwork that would let me be jailed if I made them available.
Then you'll be pleased to note that the phone is examined in flight mode. What you have "access" to is literally neither here nor there. Unless you're rash enough to store local copies on the phone itself.
That sounds like a very expensive way to make a point. Why don't you just stay away?
I'm happy to unlock my phone for any reasonable authority who asks politely. It's a phone. What do you expect they'll find? By this time they've already got my name, address, biography and family details.
Seriously, I've never seen so much fuss made about a provision that - by current international standards - is still incredibly mild (by which I mean, you're subject to way more intrusive searches if you fly into, say, the USA or Australia, where they will simply seize your device - indefinitely - if you refuse to unlock it on demand). What the hey do some of you people keep on your phones, anyway?
If you're transiting through a US airport, then you're considered to be entering the country and are subject to all the checks that come with that process, including customs and immigration. I bitterly remember standing in line at LAX after a 12 hour flight, to explain to a frankly incredulous immigration officer that I didn't have an address in the US because I was never planning to enter the blasted place.
If you're transiting through NZ - from one international flight straight on to another - currently you are not required to go through NZ customs. There's been no announcement of any plan to change that.
It's not the dividend, it's the whole point of Brexit for the politicians
It's not "the politicians" who wanted Brexit in the first place.
Something like 80% of them campaigned against it, and something like 75% would still like to stop it, if only they could figure out a way to pin the blame on everyone but themselves.
I use Skype every week to talk to an elderly and technophobic relative, on the far side of the planet.
What version is he using? Heck if I know, and I'm damn sure he wouldn't even understand the question. But if it suddenly stops working, I wouldn't give much for his chances of learning to use anything else. It's taken him several years to learn how to receive calls on Skype, and even now he's far from confident with it.
Dear Microsoft: is it really asking too much for you to just STOP FUCKING AROUND WITH THINGS THAT ALREADY WORK?
British wartime intelligence went to great lengths to keep the secret. The high command even (as mentioned above, and downvoted for some reason) sometimes refused to act on Ultra intel, because they felt it could blow the gaffe.
There were some close calls, and the Germans must have had suspicions from time to time, but never to the point of acting on them, at least not concertedly and effectively.
Heck, if they'd just stopped saying "Heil Hitler" in every other message, that alone would have made the job significantly harder.
Ah, you're lucky you got to talk to a human...
Last time I tried to call a system like that, it wouldn't give me that option, not even by the time-honoured "wait two hours for the call centre drone to wake up" route. The only way to talk to a human was to request a call back. Since the phone I was using wouldn't accept the incoming call, that left me pretty well stuck.
Facebook clearly can't come up with any plausible way of fighting "fake news", and so it's focusing on what it can do. There's no suggestion, as far as I know, that hacking Facebook accounts is a major issue, but at least we know how to make it more difficult, so let's do that anyway.
To me the solution is so simple, I wonder what is the obvious thing I'm missing:
Let advertisers aim their ads at whoever they like. But also make all ads available to anyone who requests them, filtered only by such terms as the viewer specifies.
Then any woman using Facebook would easily be able to get a list of ads for job type XY, even if the advertisers themselves ticked "men only".
I loathe Trump, and I think Kavanaugh is a lying partisan hack who doesn't belong anywhere near any judicial bench, let alone the USSC...
But I have to give Trump his due. He may not care much himself about "freedom of speech", but his administration on the whole has been more favourable to it than others.
Having a legitimate disk copy of a given movie would seem to be a pretty good license to freely download a working copy from the Internet, in the event that the rights holder somehow revoked the functionality of the physical disk.
You're not a lawyer, are you?
You can certainly argue that having a legit disc copy gives you the right to do whatever you like with that disc, within reason - including, for instance, putting it into any kind of disc reader of your choice. But to claim that it gives you the right to make another copy of whatever work happens to be on that disc - is pretty much the opposite of how copyright works.
This is... a not entirely unforeseeable aspect of the tragedy of Brexit.
DEFRA, like for that matter every other gov't department both in the UK and in Europe, can't fully "prepare" for Brexit when no-one has the faintest idea of what, specifically, it's preparing for. And with negotiations still up in the air, and expected to come down to a traditional EU-style deadline-crushing intensive finale, no-one is going to know that until it's too late.
If they'd gone to the other extreme - creating contingency plans to cover every possible outcome of the negotiations - they'd have been (rightly) castigated for wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on consultants planning for things that were never going to happen.
The takeaway from this, apart from "let's shelve Brexit for at least ten years or so", is: don't have a referendum with a vague proposal. Negotiate and pass all the laws you need to first. Then the only question on the referendum paper is, "should these laws go into effect?".
The idea is not that anyone could infallibility spot a fake, that's too much to ask. But it should be possible to demonstrate that the picture or footage I took has not been doctored.
Sure, it may be edited for legit reasons - but then, if challenged, I'd still be able to provide the original for comparison.
We really, urgently, need some way of authenticating "real", un-doctored video. Digital signatures embedded at the moment the image/footage is taken. Why is that not standard on every camera by now?
Get on it, camera makers. It may be too late already, but that's no reason not to do it anyway.
Don't be silly. We've seen what happens when big govt systems are built that way. They're an unmitigated catastrophe in both cost and functionality.
At least this one is working, in the sense that it hasn't completely cut off the function of its departments. Compared with, e.g., the NHS information system, or Universal Credit, or any number of other public sector IT projects - £17 million a year sounds like a bargain.
To be fair, that's not worse than useless. It's clearly a story that's thrown together very quickly on the basis of a pretty unexciting press release - but those press releases, and stories, are often the necessary building blocks of serious analysis.
The Internet has a *terrible* memory. I've tried finding things I posted on Usenet 20 years ago, and had no luck despite knowing exactly what I was looking for, and having a whole department of Google to draw on. Try finding a website from that era - chances are that even the Wayback machine only has a small selection of pages, if that.
It's a total myth that once you post it online it's there forever. Sure, *someone* probably has access to that material - but not ordinary drones like us.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020