Posts by Bernard M. Orwell 1177 publicly visible posts • joined 12 May 2010
I have.
Most of it is dross and routine reporting, in order to get at the interesting stuff you need decent search algorithims and an awareness that searching for specific terms will yield specific results which, as always, can be used to serve a specific agenda whether for or against.
Here you go, a decent analysis of the documents contents; including reports of action that are held as war crimes under a whole range of conventions; let alone common morality.
Please be aware that this video is censured in several countries including the USA and may not be viewable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=METSuKyY-t4&feature=related
The current BBC Science Editor, appointed in January 2012 is a chap by the name of David Shukman. Prior to this appointment, Shukman was the Climate and Environment advisor to the BBC news service.
Before making this appointment, the BBC did not have a science editor at all. The BBC had no clear agenda or regulation that constrained their science reporting, and were not under any law or government directive to "sing from a particular songsheet". This allowed them a large degree of latitude when it came to making science programming; a given program could be as biased as it wished to be in any direction it so desired.
The appointment of the position of Science Editor for the BBC arose from a BBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science, which found much to praise but also much to criticise, including an apparent bias towards pro-AGW and climate related articles in general. Link to the report follows, be warned; it's a PDF, and a big one. (but quite an enlightening read).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality.pdf
However, Shukman is set to change the de facto lack of bias in the BBC and apply an agenda all of his own to future programming. In one of his opening statements (on Radio 4) Shukman said that there will be less airtime given to "minority scientific views" and that programming "must follow the scientific consensus, especially on matters such as climate change."
Some more info follows:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/science-editor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shukman
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/16/bbc-david-shukman-science-editor
"In the "Real World" ®, many people that lost that sort of sensitive / personal data would be instantly sacked without compensation."
Err.....no. They may face corrective or disciplinary action, but an INSTANT sacking would be a breach of UK employment law. Also, it is not in the employers power to decide whether they would be "compensation" or not; that will either be a clause in the employment contract or at the discretion of an employment tribunal or court.
"Mny people do actually do just that. For 6 months, I drove to places in London (av. 260 miles) and back 5 days a week, leaving home at 5 am and getting home 9 - 10 pm after a full days work."
If this amount of travel is a requirement of your employment then your employed may be in breach of the EU working directive laws (limiting your working hours to 48 per week, INCLUDING travel times) and possibly also in breach of the UK employment laws which state that an employee must be permitted 11 hours between shifts (defined as a "working period") before being required to return to work.
Folks, there are a lot of knee-jerk "Sack them/I'd be sacked" stuff being posted on this forum; I *strongly* suggest you find out about your employment rights, get a copy of your contract (if you don't have one, you're being illegally employed) and join a union!
Get educated before your employer tramples you in the name of profit or simple expediency.
....Did you work in the UK, Field Marshal? If so, was it within the last 20 years?
Under UK employment law, you can't be "immediately sacked" for any of the things you mentioned (possibly with the exception of losing the company 100k) as none of them are definable as gross misconduct. Disciplinary action may be invoked in some of those examples, but there are various procedures that must be followed during such action before dismissal can be considered, and then only as a final recourse, just about anything else can be considered as either unfair or constructive dismissal and that gives you a legal case to put before an employment tribunal.
Unless, of course, they had been included as specific clauses in your employment contract and you had voluntarily agreed to them.
Oh, and if you work in a "secure government role", in which case you can certainly be dismissed if you cause a serious breach of security through direct action (but not INaction).
It's illegal to put camera anywhere where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the UK. In other words, toilets, showers, changing cubicles etc. are all place where you can't put a camera for any reason. Any place that does so is in breach of the privacy laws we have in the UK.
However, you CAN put a camera just about anywhere else you like, without a permit, for any reason. So, if you wanted to film your employees going about their daily work, and discipline them if they do something you don't like, you CAN (providing the disciplinary is within the employment law guidelines).
So, to clarify, in the UK it would be PERFECTLY LEGAL AND ACCEPTABLE to put cameras outside a changing room (or anywhere else in the workplace, such as over a till, let's say) and then discipline the guards for not performing their duties. You would have no case to answer here, and the guards wouldn't have had much in the way of legal recourse.
Yeah, sucks to be the UK; the most monitored country in the world, bar none. China beats us on liberties yet again.
(Caveat: I am not a China fan and believe that we should do better here in the UK).
...but I'll take it a step further. It's not just the tech companies but a great deal of manufacturing that relies on the abuse and exploitation of the workforce, and its not just in China either; you can find examples wherever you might reside.
We largely choose to turn a blind eye to such working practices whilst we revel in the cheap goods that forced or coerced labour can provide.
Perhaps it's time we examined the sources of our disposable goods a little more closely?
...it's simple extortion.
Hacktivism involves trying to make a political or social point, and should not involve trying to make money from a "victim" or we are no better than the corporates we protest against.
Whoever this bunch are, they've done us a dis-service, but please, El Reg, don't call them hacktivists anymore?
Actually, there's very little reason that a biological system couldn't exist on, say, liquid arsenic just as well as water. It would take very little change to DNA for a species to be able to breath Sulpher Dioxide and drink Arsenic.
We look for water primarily because we have proof of water-requiring life-forms, but we should also recognise that we take this proof from a sample of only one. Us.
I broadly agree with what you're saying, but be wary of using the industries own figures to support an argument against them. They are well known to vastly exaggerate the damage that piracy is causing to their business (They never say "their business", note, they always pretend its stuggling artists, cf "content creators" who suffer this terrible, terrible crime).
For example, take a look at the case brought against the reincarnation of Limewire, extrapolating from this particular instance it's not a huge leap to realise that the "recording industry", as a whole, are actually daring to claim that piracy, as a whole, is costing them MORE than all the money there is in the entire world.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/06/08/159217/riaa-says-limewire-owes-15-trillion
Good, solid figures there, eh?
"I've worked with kids who will urinate in a bottle in their room, rather than leave the screen."
Translation...
"I've watched a particular South Park episode and leapt to some conclusions that will keep the gossip-mongers, ill-educated media and the PC brigade happy, increasing my social standing with those groups."
Couldn't agree more, and you've not even touched on the reinterpretations, reprints and politically inspired rewrites, let alone the apocrypha which changes the bibles fundamental meanings entirely (which is why it was utterly suppressed)...
...and thats all before we even open another religions texts!
Fairy Tales for feeble minds and naught else.
Let us assume that God is real, and that his promises in his holy book are honest and true. What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:
Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways.
Will anything happen? No. Of course not.
This is very odd. Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers.
We are therefore left with a quandry; either the bible is false and prayers don't work that way (if this is true, how can we assume anything in the bible, or any other holy text, is true?), or, prayers do not work because there is no God to hear us (Occams Razor works nicely here), or, if there IS a god, then he chooses to not answer the prayer in direct contravention of what his only chosen son; a manifestation of himself; promised. (God is a liar and cannot be trusted).
One of those explanations; by simple inductive reasoning, must be true. Which one? Or, perhaps you have an alternative explanation?
I can produce more evidence for the existence of UFO's than for God, and I don't believe in those either.
An experiment then, to determine whether there is any evidence for your belief. First, a quote, from your own texts:
"The Word of God says that there are only two situations in which a man or woman cannot receive forgiveness. The first and most common is when they are in a state of unforgiveness. That is to say that they have been wronged (or sinned against) and they refuse to forgive the person, which we find in Mark 11:25"
So, according to that 2000 year old book written in the 19th century, I cannot be forgiven by your imaginary deity if I denounce the holy spirit. Ok, I denounce the holy spirit....
....wait....
...oh look, the nature of my existence hasn't changed. Experiment over.
And, for the record, I could easily translate the light of distant stars into an alternative wavelength (lets say audio, or radio, like we already do...) and play the sound of stars to a blind person.
Now, give me one shred of physical, measureable proof your particular version of god exists. When that fails, try to find any evidence of any god. And seeing as you liked to shackle my argument with the childish "Lack of evidence is not lack of fact" argument, I will respond with "personal experience is not physical proof", denying you the use of "I've MET god at a personal level in my heart" argument.
... a new term, seeing as you religious types like to debate the meaning of the words "Atheist" and "Agnostic". I have chosen to reject both of them and now call myself an anti-theist.
As an antitheist I am directly and fundamentally opposed to the practice and teaching of all religion, and I believe firmly that religion has nothing of merit to offer mankind and, indeed, is the direct and correlative cause of much human suffering. I directly oppose its tenets, power and establishment. I reject the notion of a divine being of any kind and actively work towards the destruction of the illogical notion of such a being. My tools for disproving and dissolving such primitive thinking are the scientific method, modern and ancient philosophy, reason and logic. I am also very well schooled in many religious methods and texts, being able to quote the inconsitencies and cyclic arguments in all of the main systems of belief. I take particular delight in pointing out their hypocracies. I will publically argue against the moronic notions of creationism, blind faith and religious obescience wherever I may find them and will actively seek out the lies and peddlers of lies to expose them for what they are. I will not rest until mankind is liberated from the chains of religious nonsense. I do not believe in god, gods or any translation or interpretation thereof and will present extensive proof, through debate, science and demonstration that there are no such beings or powers. I am willing to subject myself to any test of reason or experiment that the religious establishments wish to present in order to reinforce their beliefs, and challenge them to face the same tests and experiments that I pro-offer.
I trust that my description of the state of anti-theism suffices to eliminate any doubt whatsoever as whether I hold a 'faith' or not.
Oh, and I used to be a methodist minister.
Any questions?
“On the internet, all those same guys that are complaining I made a change are completely changing the movie,” Lucas remarks. “I’m saying: ‘Fine. But my movie, with my name on it, that says I did it, needs to be the way I want it’.” ~ George Lucas, 2012
But....
"These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires." - George Lucas, 1988
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians" ~ George Lucas, 1988
"In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten." ~ George Lucas, 1988
Guess enough money will change anyone's principles, eh? Now, I don't think anyone can deny that Star Wars is part of western cultural heritage and could even be classed as a work of art, so again I say good riddance to Lucas (who, lets be honest, wrote/directed almost NONE of the original Star Wars trilogy.).
...what are you into then?
Movies? TV Series? Golf? Footie? WWE? Bird Watching? Music? Gardening? Reading? Going to the pub with your mates every friday? Church on a sunday? Something else?
You surely have a hobby/interest/enthusiasm of some kind too, so quit knocking ours.
Of course, if you don't have a pastime that engages you then I'd suggest it's YOU who needs to get out a bit...
Stop conflating Marxism with Communism. Marx was a critic of communism, and it is this failing to understand the distinction between marxism/socialism and communism that plagues western capitalist thinking and leads to the American idea of "liberalism/socialism" being somehow evil and wrong.
We have one child, and have taken a deliberate decision to not have anymore directly because both my wife and I feel that human population is near out of control. Since the 1950's (not that long ago) the population of the planet has exploded and is set to expand exponentially, near doubling in the not distant future.
Balance that against (in the UK) there are more than 30,000 children requring permanent adoption and yet only 83 were placed into permanent homes during 2010-2011.
We felt the choice was clear; restrict ourselves to one birth and then adopt. I urge anyone thinking they'd like a large(r) family to consider the same path as we've taken.
I might broadly agree with the statement "access to the internet is not a human right", but I don't think the statement means that the chap who invented TCP/IP is an experienced social philosopher or student of international law.
Ergo, I must discard the statement as a simple "appeal to celebrity" as it would be no more or less valid if it had been said by anyone who works with technology.
Our corporate overlords gave to us...
one rebid process, two new service models, three redeployments, four broken tape drives, five pointless calls, six wastes of time, seven brand new spreadsheets, eight Lean Team tossers, nine pointless restores, ten failed laptops, eleven hours of unpaid overtime and a threat of redundancy.
gotta love it when you get TUPe'd just before xmas. During a rebid. And a service model realignment.
If you offend the guy that gets to choose what evidence is presented then you are at a disadvantage in the legal case that follows?
So, it all comes down to personal feelings rather than imperical evidence?
Yeah, Mannings screwed then.
But so is the US legal system. Clearly.
I find it deeply ironic that you quote about truth from a book that is clearly entirely devoid of any provable truths whatsoever.
Well done.
When you get over the anger you are now experiencing as a result of my denigration of your holy book, try some grown up thinking:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
"Truth is subjective; for each viewer there is a seperate truth and even by combining all of those experiences we will never arrive at an imperical answer. There is no truth, other than what you decide for yourself."
"The Article 32 hearing is a military pre-trial, in which the accusations and evidence will be tested to see whether they’re likely to hold up in a full trial."
So, let me get this straight, Manning has been held for 18 months, mostly in solitary confinement, under difficult conditions (suicide watch etc), but not only has he had no hearing, not only has he had no trial, not only has he not been charged but they don't even know, after all that time, if they have any evidence that indicate they can charge him at all?
That's clearly not just.
Manning is a political prisoner, just like any of those held in less "democratic" nations without charge for political activism.
Charge him, or let him go you fascist thugs.
Pre-Crime anyone?
Data trawling by private companies of personal data in order to identify pre-crime?
Consent signed by teenagers who often can't legally consent to other things because they're technically children?
Are we happy with this?
Personally, not. Not one tiny bit.
Legal Aid doesn't come from the taxpayers purse. It's effectively a charity funded by big business and has almost zero input from the public purse. Court costs are only ever funded by tax-payers when the Crown is involved in a matter of extra-judiciary law (such as the special committee investigating Murdoch) and Assanges case doesn't qualify.
Isaac Asimov never wrote a story called "I, Robot".
The book with the same title is a collection of short stories by Asimov which he originally intended to be called something entirely different, but was over-ruled by his publisher. None of the stories in the collection are called "I, Robot", although the "Three Laws of Robotics" do feature heavily throughout.
The publisher obtained the title for the collection from another writer entirely (Eando Binder), who HAD written a (pretty bad) story called "I, Robot".
The film bears no resemblance whatsoever to either Binder or Asimovs work.
The story in which a robot "gets religion" is, I think, part of the Caves of Steel series which partly inspired the film.
"News of the breach coincides with the release of Skyrim, the fifth game in Bethesda Software's popular Elder Scrolls series; unlocking the game and playing it online required access to Steam's online services."
What has that got to do with this? Aside from being incorrect (Skyrim is not an online game and you do not "play it online") Steam released quite a few other games on the same day. So, what are you saying here exactly?
This arose due to a requirement under UK gambling & gaming laws. If you create a game wherein a prize may be offered (known as an AWP or Amusement With Prizes model), then you have to be compliant with the gambling statutes.
If you say "No purchase neccessary" then you aren't asking for a payment in return for the chance of a prize and therefore you are not offering an AWP and no longer need to be compliant.
The problem, I believe, is that we've had a fair few years now, since the birth of the interwebs, where we've been bombarded first of all with spam mail, then pop-ups, then pop-unders, then roll-overs, then more spam mail and so on. Then, we got bombarded with people telling us all these were scams, ID theft attempts, 419's, viruses, trojans and so on.
Now, I think we have a tendancy to assume ALL web-based advertising is probably some sort of scam, and its this that retailers are trying to overcome.
Certainly, speaking for myself, my natural reaction to internet advertising is a cautious one, and certainly not an impulsive-let's-buy-it one.
The reason it's more of an issue in the UK? Well, we're far more cynical than most of our partner nations, aren't we?
Bit of a mountain to climb there, big biz. Good luck to you!
Apologies AC10:47...
It was a link to a video of the redoubtable James May visiting and explaining the Solar Tower array in Spain, quite a remarkable piece of energy tech. I strongly reccomend that you watch the video when you get back home.
In the meantime, here's a paper (pdf) on the subject.
http://www.iea.org/impagr/cip/pdf/issue36solarp.pdf
Yo yourself too, old chap.
So, thats the American idea of Liberty is it? You can be charged with offenses, but not accorded the right to defend yourself using the same legal standards of the same nation? Not sure I'm suprised by the hypocritical double standard you illustrate.
Note well, I do not say that the EU is any better. They're just as bad, its just that this case happens to be US-centric ('cos they made it so). I am not anti-american, per se, I am anti-oppresive government of all kinds. Before you say it, I am aware that makes me anti-government on the whole, but I don't want government gone, I want BETTER government, honest, open government that abides by the standards to which it pays lip service.
And yes, those same online pharmacies operate all over the world, and I don't see them getting prosecuted either. (More's the pity). US doesn't own/regulate the internet, despite their best efforts to date.
"Seeing as its the U.S. Constitution and applies to U.S. citizens how does he believe it applies to him? I'm a bit confused on that one as I don't recall any other gvmt adopting our laws."
Why not? The US thinks their laws apply to him, so surely should their rights should also?
Ah, America, p&** them off and they cripple you. Official.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
