Posts by PapaD 180 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Aug 2014
Rather than allowing wealthy organisations to spend billions trying to get the law changed in their favour, we should just make it illegal. I'd very much like politicians to make decisions based on the facts (which might mean we need to get rid of the idiots and hire some experts for the jobs), rather than on who paid the most to said politician, or offered the most cushy post-political career
Maybe then we'd get politicians interested in improving the country, rather than lining their own pockets.
I think part of the problem with this article is the assumption that the EU doesn't want US companies slurping up EU citizens data because they want to do the data slurping themselves, so that they can gain the benefit of the data.
Completely missing the point that the opposition to the data slurping is because of the laws and expectations about privacy within the EU. We don't just want the data not slurped to the US, we want it not slurped at all.
At least not without our express permission (opt in, rather than opt out)
The problem is, the testing process for checking whether people are fit to drive (driving test) will penalise you for not hitting the 'target' speed
I was failed on one of my tests because I failed to reach the posted speed limit (60mph) on a road that had a hairpin bend at the end, with an immediate (and very visible) marked area where the limit dropped to 30mph
I'd driven the road many times, and found that if I accelerated enough to come close to the speed limit, I'd have to slam the anchors on when I hit that bend, to be able to take it safely and be under 30mph in the relevant 30mph zone. I'd previously worked out that 50mph was a safe speed to take that stretch of road.
I was failed, it was the only negative mark on an otherwise pristine test sheet - my instructor went nuts when he was informed what I failed on.
So, for all that good drivers know that knowing your road, and using an appropriate speed for the road and conditions is what matters, testers don't give a monkeys about realistic driving, only about 'letter of the law' driving, and they do seem to look at speed limits as targets.
So, how do those who aren't able to have a driver's licence vote (Often individuals disabled in some way)?
Seems an arbitrary way to decide who is allowed to vote.
As for the various options in the UK, what I'd most like would be an MP who would poll his constituents on as many upcoming votes as possible, to get a more constant view of what they actually want, and apply that information to his voting.
"I don't know which documents you are specifically referring to, the Quran is believed to be about 1400 years old... maybe you are referring to this?"
I meant the bible, I should have said compiled about 1600+ years ago, but I was erring on the side of caution - nevertheless, its an exceptionally old series of documents, which was finished being compiled around 397AD, and which many Americans use to create modern laws, without regard for 1600+ years of cultural, technological and intellectual progress.
As for the Title II issue, right or wrong will depend on the contents of those 300+pages, until then, its still likely to be better than allowing the telecoms monopolies to continue in their current form
I find it amusing that many republicans who are opposed to those proposed (secret, as yet unseen) 'Net Neutrality' rules on the basis that they are based on documents from the 1930's, but are still perfectly happy basing many other decisions, laws and such based on documents that are at least 1400 years old, if not older
Is this another attempt to destroy US corporations that provide online services.
How soon after all US made browsers have 'backdoors' before we get an immense rise in the use of non-US made browsers.
These guys are idiots - people care about their own privacy, even whilst advocating the moronic belief that 'if you've got nothing to hide......' to imply that they don't mind other people having their privacy breached.
So, another way to destroy American online business.
As I understand it, there is no 'spirit of the law'
Its a fancy term that people came up with to try and make people not do the things that the law allows them to do, because the law was badly written by a bunch of people most of us don't trust, and rushed into place.
From a legal standpoint, there is no 'spirit of the law' - you have the letter of the law, and precedent, and that's it.
The fix to this, of course, is to bloody well write the laws properly, with no room for manoeuvring or muppetry.
I love people come up with worst case scenarios, and then use them to argue against a new technology
Do you think, perhaps, the car will be programmed to not consider the pavement, or other pedestrian areas, available to drive upon, even in an emergency.
Also, as I understand it, the Google cars in California have driven 100's of thousands of miles, with no accidents - which is a significantly better record than human drivers.
The likelihood is that the computer driver will be a better/safer driver than most humans.
For the people who say they like driving, and would be bored sat in a car driving itself - well, consider those numerous morning commutes, where you could let the car drive through all of that rush hour traffic, whilst you do other stuff - once we get passed the point where a 'driver' has to still be capable of controlling the car and trust the computer enough, you'll be able to do all those things that stupid drivers currently do, only legally and safely (You know, those people chatting on the phone, reading the newspaper, eating breakfast, doing their makeup - I see an example of some form of idiocy behind the wheel every single day)
I'm not going to argue either side here, because too many people are already doing so
I'd just like to address the ongoing myth that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans do
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.VMtfC2cQXcs
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/07/carbon-footprint-volcano
I don't mind people arguing either side, I just get frustrated when people use easily disproved facts as key parts of their argument
(no working hyperlinks, not posted enough yet)
If this was really about their system security, they would have simply installed and made available a decent free Wi-Fi system.
Most people would use a decent and free Wi-Fi system over their own potentially limited bandwidth allocation.
The fact that they didn't do that means 1 of two things.
1. Its incredible difficult/expensive/impossible to do so (more knowledgeable people than me may know that answer to this one)
2. Its not about security, it is about money.
It all comes down to a really simple idea - and the current setup does not protect or enrich the content provider
1. Content author creates digital content that I want to view/read/listen to - I am willing to pay to do so
2. Content is released somewhere else in the world - I cannot legally purchase it, and won't be able to for some time
3. Piracy?
The publisher creates artificial scarcity, the consumer can't purchase the product legally, and their only options are to wait a long period for the product, forget about the product (and possibly never purchase it in the future), or obtain it illegally.
2 of those 3 options don't help the content author - the first option feels unfair, which means we are more likely to choose option 2 or 3.
Essentially, piracy is caused by the publisher, they have the ability to cut out a large amount of piracy simply by releasing all digital content globally, they choose not to, ergo they are responsible for piracy.
My biggest concern right now is the erosion of options at the ballot box - Last time I checked (last week), my only options in the 2015 General election were Conservative, Labour or Ukip - none of which I would vote for.
I don't have an option that would allow me to influence a future vote on further snooping laws, as all of my options are in favour of it.
Not entirely sure what to do about that atm.
Sensitivity to depictions of their prophet, and the comparison that insulting the prophet is much the same as insulting their parents still doesn't give them the right to kill
If someone insulted my mum, I might rightly be annoyed at them , I may mouth of and insult them in turn, I may ignore them at parties, or if this is on an international scale, I may shun then diplomatically.
I certainly wouldn't pop round to their house and gun them down.
That's because I'm sane, and learnt in playgrounds about the difference between sticks/stones and names.
I can fully understand that others may disagree with the things I say, or the things I do - they have that right, they also have the right to call me out on my actions, to vocally disagree with my opinions, and to campaign for a better understanding between me and them - this is how adults handle disagreements.
They do not have the right to hunt me down and kill me, or anyone else for that matter.
One question I would like answered - Does the Koran specifically say that you aren't allowed to have a visual depiction of its author (not god, just the author)
Or is that something that got tacked on afterwards?
The biggest problem I can think of with the touch screen is that you can't control things without having to look at it - there is no tactile feedback like you'd get with any normal button/knob/dial - the only way to know whether pressing an option on a touch screen worked is to look (unless you are past the options screens and just increasing the volume on your music - then you can hear the difference)
But generally, a bad idea - unless all the controls are also duplicated in easily accessible physical parts near the steering wheel.
Hasn't recent scientific/dietary research shown us that saturated fat doesn't cause cholesterol - whilst the high calorific content of this piece of awesomeness may slow you down for the remainder of the day, and require significant effort to burn off, your arteries should be fine
So eat on I say, besides, why live long if you deny yourselves the pleasures of life - surely a shorter, more hedonistic life is preferential to a longer monastic one
Personally, I think google should have just forwarded all such requests to the relevant countries data protection authority, and let them make the decisions.
That way, little effort for google, no controversy about the things that are removed, and the people who are responsible for this kind of decision have to do all the work.
I also reckon, if they went this route, 99% of the requests would be rejected on the grounds that you have no right to remove entirely factual information about yourself.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
