Posts by Andrew Norton 340 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Aug 2007
they do indeed.
my last large video was 5.03gb (70min long discussion on the right to repair) x264 video. If I hit 'download' on youtube to get a copy, the version that downloads is 303Mb.
It's why when you upload, you have to wait while it transcodes it, first into 360p, and then into the rest (first the SD versions, then 1080, and then 4k ones if the file is 4k)
"Would it not have been better to flood Parler with non-racist, democracy supporting, inclusive posts and posters? Highlight the weakness of the causes being put forward, the disjointed thinking and paranoia? Lance the boil and let it heal in the light and air, not just spread the poison elsewhere?"
Oh you sweet summer child...
I guess you missed the bit where they were frequently ban non-conservatives, and have done since june? (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml)
"whoops" perhaps?
92 was J/K with the August 1 split.
R-reg was 1 August 97 - 31 july 98. It was the year I and my friends passed our tests. I got a G-reg volvo 340, while my friend got a brand new (R) Fiesta (the 1.25). Both cars had pretty much identical performance to 70, ... or so I'm told because we totally didn't try dragging them down the southport coast road.
Also my RWD was a lot more fun, and my volvo suspension totally didn't tempt me into jumping it on Marshside road...
yeah, my old school friends have told me it's changed some. I even took my son on a bit of a streetview tour the other night of there, after the old swan water burst. my young years were spent in stoneycroft, knotty ash and kensington (my grandfather owned a store at the far end), but later on I spent a lot of time in wavertree going to school there.
To give people an idea how rough Kenny is, in 99 I took my first trip to the US to work on the very first BattleBots event in Long Beach. I decided to take public transit rather than a shuttle bus back to LAX, so it was bus to the subway to LAX. I screwed up and ended up walking around Compton toting two suitcases. I didn't know it was Compton because I was expecting 'bad', but it was nicer than the area I grew up, to me. So yeah, Kensington, not as nice as Compton in the 90s...
Wow, I grew up in Liverpool (and tested my Robot Wars bots in exchanges, since my team mate had access working for BT)
I was expecting to see all the high-end areas there, and yes, it was - Gattacre (the rich part) cressington, Childwall. Then F**k me, if I didn't see my home exchange, Stoneycroft there. It's a poor area, next to Kensington, which is one of the poorest in the country (and 2nd poorest in Europe back in the 80s). There was no DSL there as recently as 2003 (when i moved out) and phone line quality was BAD. Guess that prompted them to completely upgrade the exchanges.
it was a quarter-million last time, didn't stop him, because it's not HIS money. Supporters are people for him to use as long as he can, then discard when no longer of benefit to him (usually calling them a traitor, or a turncoat, or something similar)
Am I just weird then?
Because when I worked on a certain robot tv show, 50C was 'normal' for in the arena.
One season we filmed in San Fran, in an old WW2 warehouse converted into an event space... kinda in the bay. There's no AC, and it's June. And then we bring in the lighting. This was 2000 (in fact, I'm lucky in that the day after we'd finished filming and packing up - also my one sightseeing day - it hit 111F (44C) and a new record for San Fran, and 6 people passed out in the then-new PacBell park) and there was no LED lighting, it was all incandescent. We had full on TV lighting, and to ensure the lighting was constant, the lighting guys had taken the double-line of windows at the crown of the buildings room, and blacked them out with black curtains (so they were nice and hot). And by 'full on TV lighting', we're talking a 100,000W storm-strobe, and dozens of 1500W lights (maybe 60+) pointing into the arena. Oh, and the arena was lexan, between 1 and 1/4 inch thick throughout, the only air escape was the two 8x8 doors when they were open, or the two 3ft ducts for ventilation for IC engines to be used.
And me and the other 5 arena crew had to go in there, guard the arena hazards, and help the teams load upto 350lb bots on a cart, then clean up debris, then help the next team in there, and help them unload, Maybe 3 minutes inside every 10 minutes. Oh, and since we were safety, full protection gear - so kevlar pants, steel toe/shank boots,and body armour (one guy, living up to his ex-marine status, also then put some highly chromed plate armour on top).
We went through a case of water every 30 minutes or so. And we did it for 15 hours a day for 4 days filming. Inside the arena was easily 55C, hell the building was 45C minimum. And again, this building was literally ON the water, humidity was a bitch!
The building has since has AC put in.
The next filming was in Vegas in November. The pits were in tents in the parking lot, and most of the time it was below freezing. From one extreme to another, and I ended up running the pits/safety/testing area as being the only non-californian crew member (and, in fact, a brit) the cold didn't bother me a damned bit.
indeed. I've got a V20, but within 6 months of getting it, the glass over the cameras just randomly cracked. So I went and replaced it, and the mounting piece under it ended up coming off at some random point a week or two later.
Now if it's under 55F, the battery will randomly die at some point between 35% and 23%, which is annoying when I plug it in after it's powered itself off for 0 battery, and it immediately says 32%.
I love lots of things about it - the second screen, the actual manual camera ability as standard, but those build things are an issue.
"No. Not every site, just some you maybe knew of and some who were widely publicised. There were a great many membership sites that were a lot more quiet (in visibility, not in membership ;) ) and also many were outside the reach of the US companies and their abuse of the law."
Hi.
To those that don't know me, and who didn't bother to google me, since 07 I've been the head of research for TorrentFreak, and have been doing torrent research since 2004 (one reason Orlowski and Richard Bennett [when he wrote here] used to take such a fun interest in my comments). If the torrent site existed for more than 2 weeks, I was aware of it, and exactly how they ran (it's kinda my job to), and how they'd deal with unusual burst activities in account usage (we've run plenty of articles in the past on that very topic)
Also, here's another big hint - no tracker exists that runs software that hadn't been written yet. No 'supre secret tracker' is going to run the passcode system, years before the system had been written, and before clients would reliably support and pass said passcode along in the announce.
And yes, I remember the fun of unlimited time-limited dialup. some friends in the UK used to have NTL which had a 2 hour limit. So they set up a router PC that would drop the call at 1 hour 59min 50sec, and redial.If they were lucky, their IRC session wouldn't time out. Me, I had telewest, and that didn't have any connection limits - I once accidentally left it dialed up when I went on a 2.5 week job in Vegas filming BattleBots - which was annoying as the fax machine was on the same line and I was supposed to fax my arrival details so I could do a hot swap of bags to do another event. Ended up being dialed up for 37 days in one call. Yes, I well remember the pain of 5k/sec
Doesn't change any of the facts though. Unless you believe in time travel.
So, this is the early 2000's, right, and bittorrent. Ok, I'm going to call 7 kinds of BS on this.
So, in the early 00's, membership sites worked on IP, so random IP address suddenly showing up, unnusual bandwidth, nope, it'd have been investigated and locked for unusual behaviour, plus it's not like today with passcoded torrent announces.
They didn't come out til 05/06ish, post DHT. BUT, at that point every site got a LOT more paranoid (following EliteTorrent's busting) so they'd have been even less likely to accept a random account that's been in such poor condition, suddenly pumping gigs out. flagged and locked out.
And that makes it even more likely when he uses XPSP3 as an excuse, because that came out in 08.
So it's a good story, but doesn't fit with the facts of how such activity-logging trackers work (and I've been covering them for 15+ years). Complete fake.
Nope, the reason most dropped them in the US, was Andrew Cuomo, who started by trying to force AT&T to drop it, because of claims of child porn, and once AT&T dropped it, others in the US did so, and then ISPs elsewhere dropped it because of fear of similar complaints, and because with a sudden US drop, overall use was down.
Slow is right.
Takes 5 minutes to boil a full kettle's worth (1.7l) - because that's how big my tea mug is. (every time I've made an FCC submission over the last 2.5 years, I include a photo of my drinking from it, from my bigger, better insulated and non-corporate freebie mug, just to maybe annoy Pai)
And yes, the 110 does feel like a tingle, like you've just almost hit your funny bone. now the 230 from a dual phase socket (dryer, AC unit, cooker etc) will make me jump a little. (I'm used to it, from being drunk every single afternoon lab session through uni, at the electrical engineer and electronics department at liverpool uni, which is literally across the road from the union.
Of course he did. He got to be in the public eye, and get to claim 'persecution'. If he hadn't run away and face the swedish court, odds are that if he'd been convicted, that would have been his 'career' and his fame over. He'd be Bill Cosby'd
So between that, and living in a small space kinda reminiscent of his upbringing in the Great White Brotherhood (a cult he was part of in his youth) and then the traveler lifestyle he had in his teens.
Oh right, so what 'trivial' thing should they have done? He's in the Schengen zone, he could leave sweden to any other country in the block easily, even if they took his passport (assuming he only had the one). So how do you stop him going to Norway, Finland, or Denmark? You know, short of actually putting out an all-points warning (disproportionate) or placing him in custody.
He had recently (at the time) applied for residency, and even gave a press conference stating how honest the judiciary is, and how he felt moving there was so good because it protected him from the US requesting extradition for political crimes. And at the time, he was high publicity because of the collateral murder video and the [ultimately worthless] state department cables, so it was about erring on caution.
Also, I don't think you know what patronising means. It means acting as though you don't know basic stuff that everyone knows, and explaining it to you like you're an idiot, which you're not. It's clear you don't actually know this stuff, or you wouldn't make such silly statements. And this paragraph is patronising, but the rest is just a mixture of informative, and bruising to your inflated ego, which you're still protecting by posting as AC, so no-one but you knows you're getting schooled.
If you can't publicly stand behind your comments, you clearly don't think there's much to them. I know my stuff's right, thats why I don't have a problem putting my name to it. If I wanted to troll, then isn't that what the AC is for?
I know they don't HAVE to to do so.
However, they didn't put a block on his passport (for example) because they weren't expecting him to flee the country, given his lawyer had been in constant contact.
Not actively detaining him isn't the same as 'letting him leave'. Now, maybe they should have done the standard practice, and placed him in custody during the FIRST interview with Ny. But given his 'reputation' and media spotlight, and that it can look bad to detain him, plus with him being a publicly known 'face' who can't exactly hide inconspicuously, they didn't detain him, which Karl Alhem did express a little surprise at when testifying on behalf of Assange, saying he'd have done that.
So, what do you think Ny should have done? Given he's a well known person, his lawyer has been in constant contact, claims he hadn't told Assange to flee, and that once it was clear he'd left hte country, that he'd be right back for another interview set up. (I believe 2 or 3 such dates when Assange would be back in Sweden for the interview were set up by Assange/Hurtig, and not kept, before Ny went to the Court to start the proceedings, and issue the Red Notice.
So come on, Mr brave-only-when-anon, what should have been done instead?
Again, they didn't 'let him'. he fled, rather quickly before they were about to stop him. At that point, his lawyer had been in constant contact with the prosecutor, which is why they didn't even do the usual step of arresting him (something even the Assange experts found unusually lenient that they wouldn't do)
And if it sounds like I'm talking down to you, maybe I am, I tend to talk down to people who repeat the same bullshit statements saying they're all about 'truth' and 'exposing corruption' years after they've been admitted as lies by the people that created them. Don't want me to talk down to you, then get a clue and stop pushing nonsense to prop up your cult figurehead.
nope, because it's a COMPLETELY different situation, scenario, setup, country, and in fact the ONLY thing linking the two, is 'sweden'.
If you want a case to compare to, try Edward Lee Howard. Now, instead of being two egyptians who wanted asylum in Sweden but had it denied because of lies they told in processing, and were sent back to the home country where that home country violated an agreement it had with Sweden...
instead howard was a CIA official who defected to the USSR (the only one to do so) and was facing espionage charges. He was detained in sweden, and an extradition request was made based on those espionage charges. Sweden said 'no', and let him go free to Finland (where he presumably went on back into Russia).
Now, for some context, while the first case has just one point of similarity - 'Sweden', Howard has a bunch, with the US wanting someone for espionage, and that person being a person of interest to the US president (who had been head of the CIA, was Vice President when the defection happened, and was facing a tough re-election campaign, which he lost) and the person was not Swedish but was visiting the country.
Agiza and Alzery's case is one often pointed to by people who don't really know the details, but had it mentioned to them, usually by people who deliberately ignore Howard, as that undermines their case. And to add another nail to the claims of the Agiza/alzery 'evilness', one of them now lives happily.... in Sweden. Who took Egypt to task over their actions, and got him back, and gave him citizenship. Funny how THAT never gets mentioned either.... Almost like someone's trying to bullshit you.
WRONG.
It was reopened 3 days after Finne dropped it (and dropped it rather mysteriously). Assange's own lawyer testified that Ny did a first quick question after hte reopening. But are you ready for the fun part?
In the Feb2011 extradition hearing, Assange's lawyer testified that there'd been no attempt to interview Assange, and that the prosecutor said he was free to go. The expert witnesses testified on this as well.
That's what cook there talks about.
Slight problem though, as Ny's office supplied a whole bunch of communications with Hurtig, Assange's swedish lawyer, about interviews. So, who to believe? Well, Hurtig still had text messages on his phone from Ny arranging interviews and suchlike, which he had to read out in court. So, then Hurtig admitted the whole 'didn't interview' and 'said he was free to leave Sweden' was a deliberate lie. Hurtig then tried to claim that sure, he arranged on the 20th an interview with Ny for the 28th, but that he hadn't spoken to Assange since the 19th, and didn't until the 29th. It was only coincidence that Assange left Sweden suddenly for the UK (where he had no business) late on the 27th, hours after Ny's office had informed Hurtig that Assange would probably be taken into custody the following day. Oh, and then Assange and Hurtig kept promising Ny that he'd come back to Sweden for an interview in the following days, and never did.
Documentation of the communication with Ny's office was submitted to the court.
Cook's "opinion" piece is filled with the same lies that fill the defense assange site, including the claim " Interpol issued a Red Notice for Assange, usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals."
Red notices are not usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals, they're just the name of a notice for someone wanted internationally by a court either to be prosecuted, or to serve their sentence. It's usually a preliminary for extradition, and there's over 50,000 of them active right now. A blue notice is similar, but is for a witness, and a yellow one is for someone considered missing. Terrorists and dangerous criminals would get either an Orange or a Green notice.
So yes, he skipped Sweden to avoid arrest. In fact Assange's own defense experts, after having told the court that wikileaks had lied to them about the facts that their testimony was based on and been given the actual facts in the case by the court, all agreed with the prosecutor, with the one they usually point to (Karl Alhem) saying that he'd have gone for a Red Notice just like Ny did in those circumstances, and that Ny had been incredibly lenient with Assange, as it was standard practice to place people accused of these crimes in custody straight away.
Seriously, read the court findings from the Feb 2011 hearing, it destroys most of the stuff in that blogpost. Here, I'll make it easy http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html
Oh, and the leak was from Hurtig's office.
If you're going to say an article has 'decent run-downs of timelines and events', hows about actually making sure it does, instead of repeating lies that Assange's own defense team admitted to being deliberate lies more than 8 years ago.
He worked for a government lab while also getting his PHD in particle physics, and during some downtime created some code which generated a recursive zip file, and not just a straight one directory, recursion etc. no it had 4 directors at the top level, which looped back at various points after various other named directories. He then wanted to run the code through his code analyser at work at the government lab, where his major coding tools were (he worked on a major project involving creating software for new research models) so, as you do, he emailed it to his work address (because they don't like taking media and plugging it in, that way lies espionage, and virii and such.
And now you've probably guessed what happened....
I wish.
Back in 2013, I got messed around with by them over their privacy policies, or lack thereof. They'd arbitrarilly decide sites were commercial, and remove privacy protections, supposedly 'for the good of the visitor', because if I have a 'subscribe for emails when there's new posts', or links to my book for sale on amazon, they really need my home address, especially one that's been run through a bunch of databases to 'verify' it. Oh yeah, because they needed to verify things, because a legally recognized uk pseudonym (done to actually uniquely identify me, rather than hide me, and under which I do a lot of my business) was not acceptable.
I didn't find anyone to appeal to, but after making enough noise that the Guardian got involved, and Jimmy Wales started smacking them around a bit on Twitter, they relented that they'd hide my home details. Alas it'd been public for a day before I could change the address to a PO Box, because their system wouldn't let me change it before the deadline - even sent their director a video showing that) but I was forced to move, because i've been the target of SWATing before, from the likes of Jeremy Hammond (who is still in prison for another year or two) and others, so yeah, I don't want my home address out there. ICO didn't give a toss then. Luckily, GDPR has helped push it to where ti should have been.
but no, no-one to complain to.
I edit video (right this second, as I type this, I'm taking a break from editing a 7 hour multicamera 1080p sequence (most of the time has been spent on syncing, as some cameras were on for 90 seconds, then off again, and it was so noisy for much of it that it was hard to do an audio sync)
it's a myth you need to edit 4k on a 4k monitor. hell, my editor is set to do playback at 1/4 res and only shows full detail when paused. That's just because anything else is a waste. I can check the sharpness with stills, I'd rather have the fluidity with it for editing as the system isn't choking itself needlessly on playing back 4k while editing. once I get my edits done, do a test render, and play on a standalone 4k source is better.
Now, editing HDR video would require a HDR monitor, because color accuracy/correction, but that's another story.
Besides, while I have access to a bunch of 4k cameras, I rarely shoot in 4k, just no need for it, if my target playback audience is mainly using 1080, why waste time, space and processing power going 4k?
Shooting a film, sure, I'll go 4k. 90% of what I shoot ends up either on somewhere like youtube, OR used in events where the projector is 1080. So I'd rather do a damned good 1080p render, than a 4k render and hope whatever downscales it doesn't butcher it.
I have one of those stands.
it came with the Dell 2007FP monitor I picked up at Goodwill for $15. Well, when I say 'one of those stands', I meant it does everything that thousand dollar one does, and a little more.
It has the 90 degree pivot on the base, for easy rotating. it goes up and down the stand, it tilts back and forward, and it lets me rotate the display 90 degrees to make it portrait, as needed. Sure the monitor's only 1200x1600 rather than 6k, so i have about a tenth the resolution, but again, $15.
Manning was NOT pardoned.
Manning has been jailed for refusing to comply with a court order. It's real simple.
And what manning leaked, had already been investigated. A report on it was released 6 months before manning made contact with Assange, as was a book where a whole chapter was about that incident. Reuters wrote about it shortly after it happened, and saw parts of that video.
I know the narrative now is that Manning exposed warcrimes, but at the time, the narrative was about the attitudes of the pilots, as we already knew of the incident. It's great Retconing, but it's not true.
Sorry boyo, but all those 3 points are crap, and were admitted, BY HIS LAWYER to have been a lie they made up to make him seem better.
1) sorry, but the lawyer admitted under questioning in 2011, when confronted with evidence, that there was frequent communication with the prosecutor over interviews, and that dates were set. It was also established that just hours after the prosecutor informed the lawyer that Assange would be taken into custody, Assange left Sweden for the UK, where he promised to keep coming back.
So, when your argument is absolutely destroyed by the defendants own lawyer admitting in court it was a deliberate lie, that's a pretty big thumb in your eye.
2) under which definition of 'charges'. Do you mean the Swedish one? Then so what? He hadn't been charged, because he wasn't in custody and about to go to trial. No Swede would see that as unusual. You're no longer able to run away when you've been charged under Swedish law.
Or did you mean as in the US/UK meaning of charged? Sorry, the UK High Court addressed that in November 2011, and said 'yes, he was charged under our definition of charged', if not when Ny arranged things with Hurtig (Assange's lawyer) then CERTAINLY had by the time that Hurtig had appealed the case to the Svea Appeals Court.
Basic Facts...
3) The leak appears to have come from Hurtig's office. Those nasty Swedes, having his defense lawyer's office leak things to show how evil the police were being...
Look, I get you read his defense site, but given that his own legal team lied about the facts to judges, and their own legal experts, and admitted it, you think they're honestly going to tell the truth on their own website?
This was asked, and the answer was 'he does not'.
There is no class that excuses rape, it's not his religion (unless you buy into his belief in his own godhood), or any other protected class. As much was said in June 2012 when he ran to the embassy, that what he was claiming was not something recognised. Being on the run for something you did, from a justice system you'd earlier said was incredibly fair and now says is biased against you, then lying to people about it, is not a valid refugee status.
You are correct, it's called Speciality.
HOWEVER, your timeline is slightly off. The US filed the initial request, but have another week or two (until June 10 or thereabouts) to file the full formal extradition request paperwork, and in that time can submit superceeding indictments to replace the existing one. Once the extradition paperwork is filed though, then speciality kicks in, and they'd have to drop the request and start again.
And yes I note all the edgelords going 'but the us doesn't care about law' nonsense, when yes, the federal judges do care, and will throw things out. Federal judges aren't going to take that kind of shit though.
you're trying to equate the general, with the specific.
We knew about the incident, we didn't know some of the details.
It's the same as we know your name, we don't know all your details. You may say you have a credit card, you don't tell the word the number, etc.
You can post a picture of yourself, but that's not the same as me using your photos to construct a model to use for facial recognition systems.
Your partner may have a baby, you may even announce it, doesn't mean I get "speculum priviliedges, does it?
You see the difference between the general and the specific?
Yes.
Video footage of an already known incident (which already had a whole book chapter written about it published 6 months earlier)
And diplomatic cables that Manning had spent 3 months trying to get a news agency interested in, but which they turned down because there was nothing newsworthy in them.
Did you think there was something else released?
no, because then it becomes a trial, with all the preliminary expense.
The point of a grand jury is to determine if there's probable cause of a crime.
That's the bar, "probable cause". No exculpatory evidence. is there evidence that a crime has probably been committed?
The uk got rid of it, and just replaced it with the prosecutor deciding on their own.
No. and it's actually a big difference.
In "secret" only a few select people know what's going on, usually not the defense.
In a closed court, just the general public can't.
In a grand jury, it's members of the public that make it up, and there's a stenographer, who records what happens in court and everything. Just not open to the public.
So it's a CLOSED court , not a 'secret' boogie-man court.
And no, not a lawyer, just someone that bothered to read up on how things work.
You're wrong.
You can plead the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination in a Grand Jury.
Unless you have immunity from prosecution, at which point there is no possibility of self-incrimination, and so the 5th amendment protection can not be invoked.
Pardoned? who was pardoned?
Manning's sentence was COMMUTED. That means cut. No Pardon.
And this isn't about whistleblowing, it's about concealing evidence of crimes from the justice system. Amazingly enough, society tends to frown on those that try to hide crimes. Is it different when it's someone you like?
Probably the reason no-one cared, was because nothing Manning leaked was new or groundbreaking.
Manning tried for MONTHS to get a news agency interested in the cables. no-one cared, because there's nothing in them but routine minutiae, with no wrongdoing.
What about the video? Well, yes, the edited version looks bad; the unedited version less bad though (and thats the reason it was edited). Now, who remembers what the focus was on when it came out? That's right, it was on the 'callousness' of the pilots, and their language. You know why it wasn't that this happened at all? Because Reuters reported on it happening in 2007, two weeks after it occurred. Hell, it was even covered in depth in a book, including transcripts of the audio, released September 2009 - 6 months before manning got hold of the video.
its nothing to do with 'having served the time already', it's a great claim by Manning that its just the same thing as from the court martial, but it isn't
The reason manning can't plead the 5th is that the prosecutor granted immunity. it's about *different* stuff that what a JAG lawyer specifically asked about in relation to specific charges a few years ago.
The 5th amendment is only the right to remain silent to avoid self incrimination.
Manning was given immunity from prosecution for things arising from testimony. Now there's no interest in self preservation to compete with the interests of justice, so manning therefore can't claim self-interest and can only claim desire to conceal a crime.
unsurprisingly courts frown on attempting to conceal a crime.
Yes, immunity is a different beast.
No lawyer would take an immunity deal unless it was written. And there's a standard 'format' for it. The only way to revoke it is if the witness granted immunity then lies, at which point they've violated the terms of the immunity deal (testify honestly in exchange for immunity) and so it's gone.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
