Posts by Ed Blackshaw 627 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Aug 2007
It's a certificate to say they haven't found any 'evidence' yet to suggest that you might be a paedophile. For specific values of 'evidence' where 'evidence' is a member of the set ['hearsay', 'rumour', 'unfounded allegations', 'prosecutions where you were found to be not guilty', etc.]
The parameters for our own solar system are fairly well known. For example, the size, distance from Earht and temperature of the Sun are known to a fairly decent precision.
When you start talking about distant objects, things like distance are calculated indirectly from such arcane things as red-shifts in the star's spectrum, which in turn tells us how fast it is moving from us, and from that, teh distance is estimated. Estimates of size are based upon brightness and distance, and models of how types of star other than our sun are supposed to work. Compound the errors in these various methods, and values become somewhat less determinate.
What I am suggesting is that if there is a flaw in any of the models used to calculate these things (for example a solar system is moving at a different speed to that expected for its distance, thus altering the red-shift), then the assumptions that have been made in the calculations of the star's distance, size and temperature are invalid.
When they start measuring planets that are hotter than their host star or have an average density of less then that of expanded polystyrene, my immediate response would be to double check the instruments and the models they are using to calculate these values from the observations, as well as their assumptions about distance of host stars, etc.
The NHS budget for 2009 was £90B, that is 9, followed by ten zeroes. How exactly is £5000, one eighteen millionth of that amount going to make a spot of difference to patient care in any meaningful way? Not that I particularly condone giving games consoles to the criminally insane, but I really don't think the kneejerk nonsense from the Murdoch-mouthpiece the Sun is anything other than mind-numbingly stupid.
So, what is to stop someone at a hospital somewhere clicking the 'patient has given consent' button to get free access to all of your medical records?
The problem with the security model you give is that there is no authentication of you, the patient, at any point. Short of everyone going around with a RFID chip in their arm, or carrying an ID card around with them 24/7, this is not technically possible.
The only alternative I can think of would be the use of biometrics, and this fails for a number of reasons, for example:
- people in hospital are likely to be injured or seriously ill in some way, is it a good idea to wheel them up to an 'ID terminal' to take their 'biometric signature' before actually treating them in any way?
- current biometrics such as iris scans, etc. have appreciable false positive and false negative rates. Scale these up to the entire population, and the proportionate risk of misidentification scales up.
- performing biometric scans are quite likely to be impossible in many situations. Using the example of the iris scan again, in an eye hospital the very conditions the patients are presenting with are going to prevent the biometric being taken.
Unfortunately, for any such medical database to provide the services being touted, there exists the necessity for a large number of users to have access to the system, in an equally large number of locations. Short of having military-style security (which is unlikely to work anyway) in all hospitals, GP surgeries, drop-in centres etc., etc. this is always going to have security holes.
So, you claim, "I would find it quite comforting to think that if I were on holiday in another part of the country, or even another part of Europe, or the world, a Doctor could bring up my details."
My counter-claim, is that I find it deeply disturbing that an another part of the country, or even another part of Europe, or the world, a doctor, a nurse, a hospital database administrator, a random member of the public passing an unsecured terminal, or even a politician or civil servant could bring up personal, private, potentially embarrassing details about me from an all-encompassing system without my consent.
If that's your attitude, I'd hate to work for the poor folk you employ to do your software support. But then, I'd hate to work for a software company driven by the bullshit of the sales department, rather than one where software specifications are made according to sound reasoning, and the needs of the client.
I believe the Microsoft qoute is missing a comma. Here, fixed it for you:
"Microsoft takes intellectual property, seriously"
I mean, it's not the first time they have ripped off UI elements, and it won't be the last, and it's not like they're the only ones doing this sort of thing either.
As I understand it, the Gubmint isn't claiming that this report is wrong, and that these databases are operating legally. Instead, they are using some smoke-and-mirrors bullshit to claim that because the authors of the report didn't include some information that is not necessarily relevant tot eh conclusions, then they can put their fingers in their ears and chant 'la-la-la'?
That said, I've not actually read either the original report or the official response, so I may have got entirely the wrong end of the stick. Given the track record of our current administration, however, I doubt it.
A molecule cannot contain another molecule as part of its structure; substructures may be referred to as subunits or functional groups. I think what you meant to say was 'one more Oxygen atom'.
Unfortunately, this is also wrong. A quick search on t'internet will show you that, although these two molecules both have the same basic amphetamine skeleton, they differ by far more than the addition of an oxygen atom.
Specifically, mephedrone has a keto functional group, which is actually the addition of an oxygen atom and the removal of two hydrogen atoms, as well as a methyl group attached to the ring structure in the para position, as opposed to a methylenedioxy fused ring.
Given that both are small molecules, and small subsitutions on much larger molecules have significant effects on biological activity (cf. codeine and morphine), I think it is fair to say that whoever made this press release and claimed that these substances are "one molecule different" has absolutely no clue what they are talking about and anything they say should be discounted forthwith.
Ignore it. In much the same way all but the most impressionable children usually ignore the patronising crap spewed by government.
Money could be much better spent in educating children in the ways of questioning everything they are told, in the scientific method sense, with particular emphasis in questioning everything politicians say.
are the same lot who are convinced the LHC is going to end the universe. These scientists are being properly circumspect and following the evidence - i.e. there IS no statistcally significant evidence that mobiles do anything to your brain. The idiots who say otherwise do so because they lack the proper education to understand the physics of how mobiles work, which would highlight just how much bollocks they are talking.
"2) The energy companies will not be able to make the decision to cut someone off, they will have to get a court order and present it to the management companies, in much the same way that they have to get a warrant to enter your property to cut you off at the moment."
At which time, somebody in a call centre miles from where you live (quite possibly on another continent) miskeys the reference number for someone who is due to be disconnected, and you get unplugged instead. Can you honestly say this won't happen? When half of the companies on the internet can't even get my postal address correct because I live in a flat and it confuses the postcode lookup, do you really think the triply-outsourced-by-a-quango monkeys who will be operating this system will get it right?
"Whilst the Government is sympathetic to the arguments … that data collected for electoral purposes should only be used for electoral purposes, feedback from others suggests that the abolition of the Edited Register may have an impact on the economy and on wider society," it said.
Impact on the economy = some of those companies that phone you at teatime to try to sell you shit you don't want will go out fo business. Members of Parliament and their 'donation' contributing 'friends' who have financial interests in these companies will be out of pocket.
Impact on wider society = everybody with human blood in ther veins is marginally happier.
"The fact that the Bereavement Register is restricting messages to a Twitter-style 140 characters gives further cause for concern, as any life form that picks up the message is likely to take one look and write us off as a non-intelligent life form ripe for harvesting."
The way forward seems clear. Twitter must be destroyed for the sake of humankind. Rise up my brothers (and sisters) and rain the holy fire upon the abomination that is TXT SPK!
"So to answer your question, I think you should leave your religion OFF your CV unless you are applying to be an Imam / Rabbi / Priest / Bishop."
Even then, why put it on? It would be stating the obvious, surely. I can't foresee many Catholics applying for jobs as Imams any time soon.
However, the study was "carried out by Pro Juvenile – an organisation which aims to protect kids from unlimited videogame violence - and Trial, which fights to prevent people who commit war crimes getting away with it".
I can't help but think that these arganisations may be biased in some way towards finding the answers they may be looking for. The first group at least would seem to have a pretty clear ulterior motive to find 'evidence' that violent games are 'bad' for children.
I wonder how many controlled trials have been carried out to study whether players of violent computer games go on to commit acts of violence themselves. I can pretty much guarantee that there have been no such studies conducted to show any possible link between computer games which simulate breaches of such things as the Geneva Convention and people who actually commit such acts.
What I suspect this study ACTUALLY shows is that these two organisations are attempting to drum up some publicity for their causes by conducting a 'study' which supports their agenda.
"And if you think those who object to the phraseology are over-sensitive....say your 7 year old daughter comes to you, Dad, or you, Mom, and asks what the headline means. How are you planning to answer her?"
How about answering this in the way my parents (and I imagine many others) did when I asked such questions? That is, to state that it is a phrase that adults use and that they are too young to understand. When I was a child, I was occasionally exposed to adult humour on the television. The smutty stuff I simply didn't understand. My parents were intelligent enough to realise that what I didn't understand wasn't about to warp my precious little mind.
As to the original headline, when I read it, I thought that it was probably a little crude but then read past it and got on with my life, rather than immediately thinking, 'I should complain about that right now!' If the original commentard found this so offensive, then maybe he should be supervising his offsprings' use of the internet more thoroughly, or perhaps not allowing them access to it until he deems them old enough to view it's content. There is such a thing as parental responsibility after all.
Most of the exoplnaets discovered so far have been supermassive 'hot Jupiters', that is gas giants larger than Jupiter which orbit very close to their parent star (e.g. well within the orbit of Mercury). This is because the easiest method of detecting exoplanets is the 'wobble' caused by the orbits of such planets.
Smaller gas planets (such as Neptune) are harder to spot, as are planets orbiting further from their star, as these can only really be spotted when they transit (cross in formt of their parent star), which requires that they orbit in a plane that brings them between us and their parent star.
Small rocky planets, such as Earth are even harder still to spot, with ther discovery requiring methods such as looking for changes in their prent star's emission spectrum when they transit, as their size will mean that they hardly affect the amount of light reaching Earth at all.
Having said all that, what these researchers seem to have found is that there is some sort of relationship between close-orbiting large gas giants and low amounts of lithium in a star. Extrapolating this to draw a parallel between the existence of any sort of planetary system and observable lithium levels in a star's emission spectrum seems to be stretching it a little.
It's a difficult one to call; on the one hand you have one person using bullying behaviour on a public forum, on the other hand, you have another person taking a simple taunt and treating it as slander.
Is suspect that when the identity of the commenter is revealed, they will likely turn out to be a minor too, given the maturity of the insinuations being made. Maybe both parties should just grow up and move on?
What was the old saying again, 'sticks and stones...'
In which case, when the gubmint gets its fines (this is sure to happen, right?), this money would come from the exchequer and go... back in the same pot?
Or maybe, it should go back to us taxpayers as a rebate? Stop laughing at the back...
What is ACTUALLY required, IMHO are criminal sanctions against the individuals concerned, and not just the lowly scapegoats who get the blame for data leaks, but their superiors who put them in a position to leak the data and through negligence, allow it to happen. I would dearly love to see those senior civil servants and government ministers serving time for their wilful disregard for the privacy and rights of us minions, er.. sorry, voters. Same goes for those in big buisness who think that profits are more important than the rights of their customers. God forbid that there would ever be any cross-over between these two groups, of course...
From where I sit, what you say makes sense to me. I'd also suggest a much greater deal of transparency in the discussions and decisions that are currently made behind closed doors, for our 'benefit'.
However, the problem we have is that the political incumbents have no incentive to make any of the changes you suggest, and they are the only ones who have the power to do so. It is, in fact, a disincentive, as it essentially removes power from them.
The only really effective solution to proivide change is revolution. Unfortuantely, that is far from being a desirable outcome, as the changes that would result from that would most likely not be changes for the better, along with all the bloodshed that a civil war (which would be the likely outcome of any type of coup in this country) inevitably entails.
If I remember my history correctly, the last time we had a civil war in this country, we got rid of the monarchy, and then a while later, decided that actually we were better off with one all along. All it ended up achieving was a number of purposeless deaths.
So, I leave this as an exercise for the reader: How does one work within the system to effect real change that results in less corruption, greater openness and transparancy, and 'liberty and justice for all'? The US system is flawed, our system is flawed. Even the system in Greece (where they invented the word democracy) is far from perfect, although arguably better than ours. Answers on the back of a postcard please, no more than 30 words...
Unfortunately, the powers that be wish to have it a third way: a media driven populist decision designed to win the politician concerned political brownie points, with the illusion of scientific veracity. With the current lot, you can probably thrown a sense of moral superiority somewhere into the mix, along with half-truths, spin and scare tactics.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
