I'm guessing i may be switching VPN provider too
I'm half way through my current subscription - renews April 2022, so i'll give them until then, before making my decision.
180 posts • joined 6 Aug 2014
I'd guess not, you'd probably still say 8
Why, well it seems that 'Planet' is a protected title within this solar system, and when Pluto was found to be using it incorrectly, the title was stripped and Pluto became a TNO.
So, the other TNO's unfortunately do not have whatever qualifications or experience are necessary to be allowed to use the protected title of 'Planet'
The big 8 have really got a corner on that part of the market.
There are a number of companies doing research into, and building prototypes of what they call Adversarial glasses - essentially mundane looking glasses that baffle facial recognition systems, making it impossible to be recognised - often even as a human face, nevermind a specific person.
The ones i've seen definitely look just like normal prescription glasses. If facial recognition becomes to pervasive, this technology will continue to develop to match it.
There are other technologies being developed as well, what amounts to optical masking lights built into hats and clothing, preventing cameras from getting a decent picture.
This shows a lack of understanding about international politics.
If (IF) another nation was influencing the UK to leave the EU, it may have had nothing to do with the UK, and everything to do with the EU - as in, remove one of the biggest members of the EU, reduce its bargaining power, weaken a trading block, improve your own situation.
It may not even be that, it could be targeting other nations that utilise the UK as an entryway into the EU, as a way to diminish their trade and political strength.
There could be lots of reasons why Russia, the USA, China, etc etc would want the UK to exit the EU without the impact on the UK (positive or negative) being even remotely relevant to the decision making. If you think such foreign entities would influence the UK democracy just to get the politicians they want in the UK, then you have a far too UK centric view of international relations.
Is that it's very hard to do augmented reality stuff that overlays whats in the background/in front of you, without using some means of image recording.
If you want a virtual desktop/keyboard/CAD setup, the augmented reality device needs to know where the solid things in front of you actually are.
They will always end up with some form of camera fitted.
If it's not currently a crime, they aren't criminals, so by making it a criminal offence you are creating new criminals.
So, what should have been said is 'making perpetrators aware that this is a crime'
The thing is, it already is a crime - so they are already a criminal. However, in Maryland they can now prosecute the same individual for two crimes, not one, for each individual offence - which means more time in prison (assuming they were daft enough to commit their crime in the USA whilst they are actually in the USA), more profit made by the private prison services, and in theory more corporate taxes paid by them.
Everyone is happy (Except the criminal, who doesn't really care because chances are they aren't in the USA and have no intention of ever physically being there)
Convoluted - yes, pointless - probably.
I've been shouted at/questioned about where I came from.
I'm a big, bald white bloke with a very slight northern accent.
I'm from a little town in between Wigan and Bolton, i was born in Ormskirk.
But because i don't sound like whatever the people shouting at me thought a Brit should sound like, I got told to go back to where i came from (which, in all honesty, isn't a huge trek - its about an hour on the train).
Idiocy reigns supreme in the streets of the UK
Whats the CON-GRAB thing about
(Asking as someone who genuinely doesn't understand what your trying to say)
EDIT: Though, in hindsight, i'm wondering if you are trying to call out congress for being money grubbing politicians, much like the rest of them - so i still don't really see what you are trying to say.
My employer regularly tells new employees that they aren't allowed to talk about their salary.
Then they meet me, and i tell them that our employer is not allowed to say that, as your salary is part of your data, and as such the decision to disclose it is entirely up to you, they have no say in the matter.
Isn't in allowing people who are allowed to own real guns the opportunity to print out a cheap shitty gun.
The actual problem is in giving people who aren't allowed to own guns (say, ex-cons, children, etc etc) the opportunity to make themselves a shitty gun.
And sure, the gun may be shitty and as likely to injure the person using the gun as much as anything they are shooting at - do we really want to add children injured/killed through misadventure with a shitty printed gun to the number of children injured/killed because of a regular gun being used on them in a school?
Surely the most pro-gun advocate doesn't think children should be allowed to access guns freely and without supervision or training/education - because thats what this will get you.
I have the exact same problem, except almost everything i receive in error is from the USA - I am on some form of Parents email list for a school, some sort of alumni mailing list for a US university - i've been signed up to receive potential real estate options for when I move to the relevant area (i managed to get this one stopped). I've been told of by a religious leaded because my child had the temerity to go and represent her school at some national sporting even, rather than turn up for yet another sunday school something or other - I almost responded to this one as the preacher had the gall to complain that my child (not my child) was setting a very bad example to the other children by not sticking to their commitments, despite the child in question sticking to the commitment they made to their school and school team by playing for them in a national final.
Sometimes i respond to get it shut off - sometimes i just delete them. I've been in touch with people directly to have them inform whoever they are emailing that they have used the wrong email address.
Sometimes its funny, sometimes not. Whoever isn't getting their emails is often missing out on really important information (when to pick up their car, what their children are supposed to be doing, etc etc)
Yet another issue that is being used to divide the USA along partisan lines. It is unlikely to ever be solved at a federal level because the politicians are too busy using it as a 'we're right, you're wrong' talking point, which leaves almost no option for well-considered compromise.
Honestly, a country that can't really get laws through without having a majority in all of government to force them through has a massive issue in their politics. Politicians, and government, should be there to represent their people and find the best compromise for each issue. Unfortunately, there seems to be a real lack of politicians of a calibre enough to look beyond their own personal interest, party lines or corporate backers, and work out what is best for their country.
A long time ago, a friend of mine had an issue with something Blueyonder were doing - they were being fairly unhelpful over the phone and online, and so he took to going down to their head office and waiting to talk to someone, every day. (i suspect he made a moderate, but entirely legal, nuisance of himself). In the end, he got to talk to someone and the problem was fixed.
Is there an opportunity here for someone living near Googles HQ to be hired to go in and 'loiter with intent' to get to speak to an actual person (bonus paid if said professional botherer has actual legal training)
Might not work as well in the USA, but it worked pretty well in the UK
"oh, i didn't bring one - it works out cheaper for me to just buy one when i get here, and use pay as you go rather than pay the excessive fees needed to use my own phone here!"
It's the excuse i'll use - same for my laptop, if/when i have to travel to the USA, i'll be taking very little electronic gear (maybe i'll buy a new kindle, put some books on it and read on the flight)
As for social media accounts - well, i do have them, but i'm not sharing the passwords - that's a breach of the Terms and conditions i signed up for.
I would, however, prefer never to travel there. Unfortunately, i have family in the USA and i do miss them.
How long before we get some serious 'subtle' pieces of technology that cause facial recognition software to fail to recognise your face as a face.
(By subtle, i mean not including crazy makeup, weird tactical headwear, or bulky and obviously UV LED filled glasses.)
If this becomes too pervasive, i can't imagine it will take too long for people to build wearable anti-surveillance gear that is available to the public and which isn't distinguishable from other regular gear (like glasses, necklaces, etc)
Turns up in films and some sci-fi books.
The idea that you wear something that essentially makes it impossible for the camera to clearly see your face (either infrared LEDs - though, most decent cameras do have IR filtering), or some other form of non-visible light)
Surely can't be that long until someone comes up with something. I know i've seen at least one video of people using an image on a card that prevents at least one type of facial recognition software from detecting you're even there. No idea how viable that would be unless you knew for sure the weaknesses of the system you would be recorded by.
When i hear the 'i have nothing to hide' idiocy, i usually respond with one of the following
"Cool, can i have the access details for your bank account please"
"Cool, can i put a webcam in your bedroom then please"
Then i explain that 'nothing to hide doesn't mean nothing i want to keep private'
I usually follow that with "besides, if it was just the police and GCHQ accessing your data, i'd probably see your point, but its all of government, including the jobsworths in local council who want to spy on your bin usage. Do you think they've been properly vetted to make sure they are decent people who won't misuse their power to get one over on a neighbour they don't like?"
Considering a lot of our elected officials are clearly showing signs of calcium deficiency (first symptom on the list is: Mental confusion, irritability, depression, and anxiety.) then it seems like the milkshake incident could be classed as performing our civil duty in ensuring the health and wellbeing of those who are supposed to steer this nation.
Clearly their inability to manage anything remotely resembling effective governance is a sign of their mental confusion from lack of calcium. Providing high calcium milk based refreshment should be considered the act of a Hero in these trying times. Rapid disbersement of such refreshment can only be lauded as a strong motivation to provide emergency medical assistance.
From what I know, he will spend 3.25 years locked up, and then a further 3.25 years having to visit a parole officer and meet any other 'requirements' that they deem necessary. At any point, if they deem him to be in breach of those requirements they can send him back to prison to finish his sentence. He may also receive additional sentencing for whatever caused him to breach his parole. (think it's called 'being on license' in the UK)
Those requirements could include not using a PC outside of specific locations (his place of employment if he has one, etc), meeting a parole officer every day, every week or on some other schedule. It varies, and more restrictions can be applied if they feel he needs it.
It's a fairly simply truism of politicians that they rarely get involved with anything until they have direct experience of it - Then they suddenly change their tune and they were 'all for it' after all.
So, time to start buying the location data of the three problematic commissioners and making it available publicly.
There is no crime of 'statutory rape' in UK law - There is a whole bunch of other crimes that vary depending upon the age of the underage individual - however, in the UK a 16yr old having sex with a 15yr old, even if prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law is unlikely to spend a long time in jail, as they too are a minor.
I have the exact same problem with some fellow in the USA somewhere - i'm regularly getting emails from the garage looking after his car, the school that his children go to, the various organisations that he is involved with.
If it's not an automated or mass mailing, i generally try to email back and let them know that I got the email, not the person they are trying to talk to. It's more than a bit annoying tbh, but there doesn't seem any way to fix it - we have the same email address before the @gmail.com, with the exception that one of us has a dot and the other doesn't
Fortunately, we are thousands of miles away, though tbh i've had an email from some bible camp complaining about one of his children considering some school based formal activity as more important than some random weekend event for the bible camp that made me very much want to slap the sender (self righteous religious person thinking that making the kid stand on the side of some event and clap was more important than something they had made actual commitments too. But i'm biased, being an atheist and all)
Pretty sure the other fellow is deep in bible belt USA somewhere, but can't remember exactly where.
Wish there was some way to fix it (if anyone knows how, let me know, will be a great help)
I'm a little confused as to why someone can't tell the difference between being observed 100% of the time when i'm in public (where, likely, i shall be most likely doing things that i don't mind other people seeing me doing, cos i'm in public - and would quite like to have criminals caught out because they are doing things they don't want others to see, also in public) and with someone monitoring 100% of what I do when i'm in the privacy of my own home, on my own PC - where i should feel safe to do the legal things i'd like to do that, despite being 100% legal, i'd still like to keep private.
I feel like this is a slightly more nuanced version of 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' which totally fails to take into account that i do have something to hide, which is why i don't walk around in public naked - i wear clothes, even when the weather is awesome and totally suited to nudity.
Having something to hide doesn't mean the something is illegal, just private.
I'm personally of the opinion that anyone who says "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear'" should be forced to publish every aspect of their life (active webcams in every room of their house, broadcasting all the time - total access to their bank accounts to everyone, all their bills, browsing history and 100% of their life totally viewable by anyone at any time.)
Tbh, i'd be less concerned by the IPB if only GCHQ and the police could access the details, and only with a warrant. As it is, it is accessible by almost anyone in government (or even NGO/QUANGO's) without any warrant at all.
It's pretty much a given that we will eventually have vehicles capable of driving themselves in all situations better than a human.
I suspect the real problem is a misunderstanding of the likely timetable, rather than a misunderstanding of what is actually achievable. It will happen, possibly not in my lifetime (i reckon i've got another good 40years in me - well, possibly 20 good years, 20 grumpy years, but we'll see :)
What happens if the US companies that use Chinese parts to manufacture their technological goods start moving their locations that put all the Chinese parts together out to other cheap countries, assemble the parts and then ship the whole item to the US.
Does that mean the item is now coming from the new country, and not China - or does the tariff still apply for the Chinese parts in the completed product.
(i.e. what if Apple put all the pieces together in Mexico, or some other Central or South American country, and just ship completed products to the USA - does that bypass the Tariff, and essentially negate the need to build expensive manufacturing arms in the USA?)
Hoping someone with a much better understanding of the way these things works can answer this.
When travelling to the USA, you take no digital items. Easy enough to buy a phone and SIM in the USA and likely will be cheaper to use whilst you are there.
As for your laptop, up to you - you could create a ghost image, upload the image somewhere secure, and then securely wipe your laptop and leave only a clean install. This won't stop them installing hardware based bugging, or some of the more extreme variants of malware that can survive a full wipe - but they won't get anything about you from the device.
Then wipe it as best you can, before putting the ghost image back on - rinse and repeat on the way hom (just in case)
If you think brexit is going to reduce nanny-state-ism in the UK, you really haven't been paying attention for the last 50+ years.
Westminster are notorious for trying to create a nanny state. Either by outlawing the viewing of things that you are legally allowed to do, or going all Mary Whitehouse on everything even remotely fun.
“By using this combination of visual data and AI to see through walls, we can enable better scene understanding and smarter environments to live safer, more productive lives,” said Mingmin Zhao, first author of the paper and a PhD student at MIT. ®
I don't want to live a more productive life, i want to live a significantly less productive life, one that maybe involves lots of travel, no money worries and the freedom to do whatever i fancy.
I seem to be able to negotiate a price reduction each year, by accepting an upgrade to my service. I've rarely had problems, and when i do the really easy to remember helpline number* hasn't had long queues, and i've had an engineer out fairly quickly.
I can only assume based on the complaints against Virgin Media is that they have totally different service centres for different parts of the country. I've used them in 4 properties so far, and generally been happy with the service
*Its really easy to remember, just dial 150 of 151 from your Virgin landline
Well, they have 316 seats our of 650 - 18 seats represent Northern Ireland, so if we knocked that down to GB only, they'd have 316 seats out of 632 - so they have exactly half, and are 1 seat away from a bare minimum majority.
So not quite a majority, but very close.
This, however misses the issue
Its not saying 'tractors' have to pay more to use the road, its saying 'Brand X tractors' have to pay more to use the road, however, 'Brand Y tractors', who, btw the road owner owns, can't travel for free.
Or, to use a simpler analogy, if Ford owned the roads, they could say 'all cars travel free, all vehicles with more than 4 wheels have to pay extra, unless they are made by ford, then they travel for free'
Thats a better analogy for roat (net) neutrality.
The internet is already not equal for types of packets, some things take up more bandwidth, and get higher priority - but the ISPs don't currently differentiate between different flavours of X (where x is a specific type of internet traffic)
The loss of net neutrality means that they can now discriminate based on the source of X.
To be honest, the US has lots of prior experience of claiming jurisdiction over things that haven't had anything to do with them.
NatWest Three – extradited to Texas on fraud charges against a UK bank while they were living in the UK and working for the UK bank.
Ian Norris of Morgan Crucible – alleged price fixing (while in the UK and price fixing was not a crime in the UK at the time).
Chances are, they will get there way in this case as well, though tbh, Lauri broke UK law, whilst in the UK, and has never visited the USA. He should be tried in the UK.
The fact that in the UK he will be assured of a viable defence team is one thing that should be considered - there is no legal aid in the USA, and as many have pointed out, the US justice system is a profit-mongering abuse of power and has a very low rehabilitation rate.
Alex Stone – alleged child abuse, charges subsequently dropped after 6 months in US jail. According to Mr. Stone "there appeared to be no defence to extradition and no evidence at all was presented in this case"
Well, from what I can see
1. Clearly the ISPs, as they will be able to increase the cost of purchasing online services that they don't provide (for instance, Netflix vs the ISP's own streaming video service) - not only by increasing the cost to the consumer to get access to Netflix, but also by charging Netflix more to send data across their services. This second cost will then end up being passed on to consumers by Netflix.
2. Anything new will likely by stymied by having to pay the fees needed to get decent access to the ISP's bandwidth. Services may not suffer, but rather costs will go up, and all of that additional cost will end up in the hands of the ISPs.
Actually, i think a lot of them had a problem with Clinton rigging the democratic primary - and i suspect a lot of democrats that were complicit in that are deeply regretting doing so, as Sanders would likely have stood a much better chance of winning than Hillary.
Tbh, an election with two candidates unhappy with the status quo would have made for a much more interesting election.
The problem here is the near monopoly in regards to ISP provision in large parts of the US.
You don't need any form of net neutrality regulation if you have a healthy amount of competition, because then the various nasty things that not being neutral can be tested with real customers, to see if they walk to other ISPs or not.
However, if you only have 1-2 options for ISP, and they both decide to throttle your access to streaming TV if you don't pay extra, you are basically screwed.
So, if the plan is to fix the massive monopolies, then you can go without NN, however with the monopolies in place then you need to regulate how much they are allowed to screw their locked in customers.
Of course they pay tax on it - of course, if all they are earning is the UBI, then they have a tax bill of zero (cos £4800 a year is less than the £12k or so a year that is the minimum for paying tax)
If, however, they are already earning £35k a year, then the extra £4800 will be taxed as any other income.
Current welfare costs in the UK are about £253 billion a year - that's where most of this comes from - the universal income, set at £150 for pensioners, £100 for working age adults and £50 per child, would cost around 49% of the UK's income from tax. The current welfare provisions cost about 33%, so it would be more expensive - however the majority of that 315billion that it would cost would actually get spent and would circulate back to the government, increasing the annual tax income by some.
You could reduce the UBI cost to around the same as the current welfare provisions by reducing the amount - this is why people suggest that the amount would need to be calculated based on the current economy - the richer the country was, the more would be paid to everyone
Pretty much every time i've seen a reasonable UBI proposal, the amount has always been in line with current benefits (pensions, child benefits and unemployment)
No-one has suggested UBI be set to be enough to live on, its always been a 'safety net' of a small amount. Sure, in the far future where all work is done by robots, we may have to look at a UBI of a level enough to live on, just so that the companies can make profit by selling things to people.
But what is being proposed these days is a replacement for most of the current welfare benefits (which does mean unemployment, pensions, child benefit will all go) - all that will remain will be a top up for disability and housing. The rest is removed by the UBI
Btw, getting £100 a week per adult, and £50 a week per child is more than you would get on unemployment in the UK, and more than you would get for child benefit in the current setup.
In all honesty, if you dropped it to £75 a week for a working age adult, and £35 per child, (£150 for a pensioner) the costs would be in line with current UK welfare provisions, but with reduced administration costs
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022