Posts by Voidstorm 68 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Mar 2018
Hell, the original referendum was a 38/36/26% split between leave, remain and fucked if I know.
How that becomes a quorum "majority" from the electorate is beyond me. It's more like a hung parliament...
oh, wait.
Johnson et al totally fear that a second referendum, far from reinforcing their position, would go the other way, as posters elsewhere have hinted that a million new voters would likely overturn the first result.
Given the scale of BS spewed by the leave campaign, that would not suprise me.
Which is why they are pulling this undemocratic shit.
I have this fabulous tulip bulb to sell you, for the mere cost of a house.
Value is perceptional.
Even the value of hard goods is subject to supply and demand, and virtual goods are no different, in truth, than a tulip bulb, a house, or a gold bar, or a bitcoin.
If a virtual object is hard to obtain, it will have value to somebody.
It has taken work to create, or skill to obtain, or luck to find, so it has value as a target for crime.
" Jake Moore, a security specialist from infosec biz ESET, opined: "This makes a mockery of the fundamental basics of encryption. Not only is it going against what privacy is all about: if you create a backdoor for the good guys, the bad guys won't be far behind."
"
This. When will the idiots-in-power realise that you can't keep the "master key" out of the wrong hands?
Wannacry was enabled by a leaked NSA system breaker, FFS.
They NEVER LEARN!!!
Governments hate having their secret naughty behaviour made undeniably public, right?
That makes me look at the so-called criminal prosecutions of this fellow with a very jaundiced eye indeed; he's publically shamed the whole US government, who were up to no good, and now they are hitting him with the biggest stick they can find.
Or, to put docs data another way :
38% of the electorate voted "Leave"
36% of the electorate voted "Remain"
28% of the electorate voted "Fucked if I know"
Is it truly a suprise to anyone that a consensus can't be reached, either in public or in parliament?
The tories ran with the part of the vote that suited their agenda.
To call it a majority when 64% of the electorate DID NOT CHOOSE that action is, frankly, offensive.
and the decision to run with a non-binding vote from less than half the population is continuing to bite us all in the ass...
The true problem with this sort of "fudgislation" [that word reasonable and its ilk, etc] is the uses to which it may be put not simply by the encumbents [who are bad enough] but by an unanticipated future regime.
After all, the people only get input about who forms the government ONCE per five years, these days.
And, of course, talking about impeaching a legitimate government could be construed as ... yes, you guessed it... treason, which is defined as "whatever we say it is".
This sort of broadbrush lawmakiing is the worst kind, even if you trust the idiots that passed it in the first place...
...some government asshole/idiot somewhere willing to use shit like this, regardless.
It's like a universal constant of human behaviour : "Somewhere there's always a big enough idiot in charge to do *anything*".
"Bad" people/organisations/governments do whatever crap they think they can get away with, right?
Somethiing tells me that the pimply youth of the UK will be the *first* ones to inventively find all the bypass techniques. That's how technology generally works, right? ;)
Seriously, why would any competent netizen voluntarily put that age verification info (credit card, passport, <insert other juicy data nuggets>) into a single-point-of-data-breach hive that's connected to the Internet?
Especially when said hive is acting-as-agent for the outsourcing gubmint? /lol
"Oh look : a speed test is being done!" *routes that traffic via superduper hi priority megafibre* "WOW, AMAZING RESULTS, your broadband is fine at 45MBps"
"Oh look, they are back to netflix" *hits the Nobble Button* "Jeez this sucks chunks, its like 3Mbps now"
The absence of net neutrality permits the above not so jokey scenario.
Yes, I'm a confirmed skeptic when it comes to monopoly telco assholes.
The HMRC know damn well they can't nail the big corporates, who cost the Revenoo (spit) tens of billions per annum. They're too big to touch, so they go for low-hanging fruit ..
... The little guys? Easy targets.
The worst part?
HMRC's Retroactive Application : if a contractor tried that shit on their invoices, they'd be laughed out of court.
The kind of kid that can't differentiate between the fictional world of games and the real world is the core issue.
So the tired old trope about videogames shoots its own foot right out of the gate.
The *kids themselves* are the problem, not the guns, knives, explosives or whatever else they get their hands on to commit mayhem. Including their hands.
Of course Mummy and Daddy's precious angel isn't fucking unhinged, oh no! /sarcasm
There's the problem right there : parents not being attentive to their kids going insane, with utter ignorance of a problem under their noses.
Basically: No, you don't get to do reams of naughty stuff and cover it up while each case against said naughty stuff drags on for years and you keep doing your underhanded shit all that time while getting off scot free.
This ruling says "Nope, not letting you hide your overarching bentness on a case by case basis. Everybody can see all your shit now and make up their own minds".
Having been a client-server Java developer for many years, this is the sort of thing you get in a postQA environment when you rollout a live solution and the stress-test hasn't been done well, and the stress-testing environment doesn't replicate the live one sufficiently effectively.
The internal resource shortages (threadpool, database connections, config problems etc are good examples) don't truly manifest themselves until a *genuine load* hits the *live techstack*; even with the best will in the world.
The fact that all three front end layers (Web, App and In-branch clients) are evidencing "Javabean" errors speaks to problems at the server layer of the architecture; hence the restrictions on number of logged in clients => less chance of server resource exhaustion.
Clearly there are issues with the not-so-adequate scale of the backend infrastructure. From experience, these are the hardest to assess from the point of view of a development team; even if the solution is properly written and tested, and passes QA, the live environment can hilight resource problems where the infrastructure isn't well provisioned.
And thats assuming a perfectly solid Dev/QA process, into the bargain
Funnily enough, there was a group of people about whom a very similar expression was made.
Who was it now....let me think. Aha. They were called "Jews"
The people branding them scum of the earth? ... The Nazis in germany in 1938.
The problem with your sentiment? Apart from freedom of everybody being eroded one statute at a time, and the sex workers getting forced into the shadows by this shit?
Backpage aren't selling the kids. They are what you might call a third party platform. Like Amazon. Twitter and many others. The madness of these Orwellian laws will not stop at backpage.
No sir.
The genuine issue here is that the US statutory authorities were advised that an explicit and visible crackdown on **sexwork generally** would not result in public support.
They were informed that if the narrative were spun as being "anti-sex trafficking of minors" then bills such as are mentioned in the article could easily be passed.
Lo and behold.
The size of the problem being *ostensibly* targeted has long been overstated by three orders of magnitude (The FBIs own case statistics bear that out). A huge population of NGO's has grown up on the back of this anti-trafficking rhetoric, getting millions of Federal tax dollars a year, for a problem with a magbitude of hundreds of cases, based on rehtorical claims of hundreds of *thousands*.
When you look into which organisations are behind the political figures, a disturbingly puritanical list of anti-sexuality, anti-sexwork groups comes to the surface. Don't take my word for it, go look yourself.
Thanks to the breadth and looseness of the legislation, a woman who is a sexworker, entirely voluntarily and excercising her own free choice todo so, can be arrested for (driving herself across a state line) er we mean "trafficking"
These laws in effect dispense with burden of proof, and leave the arrested person facing asset seizure and federal penalties of decades in jail for "trafficking" *herself*.
Yes, It's that bad.
If I were to say to you "Better 999 innocent people suffer, than 1 guilty person go free" you would be rightfully horrified. Yet that is *exactly* the mechanic behind these laws, as they are legislated and being applied.
They're after the pit vipers, sure, but nuking the zoo is the "silent agenda behind the one they're waving the big red flag for".
Go look at it, crtically. Then imagine your daughter/sister/aunt/mother is a voluntary sexworker. Like the majority, if you listen to sexworkers own accounts, are.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
