Tax avoidance is legal.

Tax EVASION is another matter.

Making the alcohol content under the clearly-specifed taxable limit is no different to making 1596cc cars (where the tax limits change at 1600cc). It's fine. That's not the problem.

The problem is that a company can make £10bn, and not pay £1bn of tax that would otherwise be owed, just by using a loophole. Sure, we can't make them pay it retroactively because the loophole was legal. But we sure as hell can close the loophole and force them to change their business practices and/or pay the tax.

Honestly, I judge the very person announcing these measures more (and all his predecessors on all parties). They allowed this loophole to exist and did nothing until it was caught upon by the media. If it instantly disgusts the public as soon as it's found out, it should never have existed in the first place and SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE knew about it and had allowed it to happen right under their noses for DECADES. Probably because of a backhander to themselves, but who cares what the reason is.

You cannot have businesses with £10bn of UK coming in paying virtually NOTHING in tax to the UK. That's just ludicrous and poor financial policy.

Only since the 1200's, for that particular position.

I disagree.

It's about being sensible. I have only ever been in a full skid situation once and I was able to apply WHAT I'D BEEN TOLD in the heat of the moment, without ever having done it before*.

My father is car-mad and has run garages and serviced fleets of vehicles for decades. I just drive. I'm not interested in extreme situations or driving fast. But my father has for many years tried to get me on a skid-pan to "learn" how to control a skid. We never got around to it, and I'd never skidded.

But when I *did* skid, I was able to refer back to what I was told and even those "things you have to do for yourself, because in the heat of the moment, son, you'll forget and do the instinctual things instead" - and applied them.

I don't think driving is a learned behaviour at all, and I think it's EXACTLY the situations that are out-of-the-blue, unexpected, serious and panicky that you don't want to be interpreting the situation but "sticking to the rules you've been told, not what you 'feel' like doing".

Driving while towing a caravan and the caravan starts to rock - you got there through stupidity ONLY, you're even more stupid if you're at that point and DON'T know what you're supposed to do if that happens. It's like getting into a strange car and not bothering to look for the brake before you start off (and that's in the same position for EVERY car!)

If you follow the rule, you slow gently and stay straight. Sure, I bet a thousand drivers will tell you to spurt forward to bring the caravan back in line. But the rule won't hurt you, only inconvenience you.

Skidding - you got there through stupidity PROBABLY (especially if such skid means you end in a collision because you're too close / fast), you should know how to handle it (it's in the Highway Code in the UK!).

Emergency braking - instinct in all learner drivers is to stab the brake as hard as they can as fast as they can, which generates a skid that only ABS will save you from. Correct method is to apply brakes as normal, basically, but slightly quicker. Tell them that and it's what happens.

Riding on your gut / learned reaction to a situation is a bad idea, especially if you've taken to playing games testing the limits of your driving/vehicle beforehand. You'll think you "know" when it's about to skid and how much you can turn before it will lose grip, etc. when in reality the surfaces are vastly different and determinant on every day and on every road.

A computer has more than enough time to evaluate the problem, cause, and solution, and has no need to "guess" at the solution. It might not be able to avoid the collision - but then there's nothing it can do about that. Teaching it to work by an illogical application of arbitrary, self-formulated rules that can't be analysed or repeated reliably? That's just asking for trouble. Just program it to sit a few more feet back and follow the rules.

I get told all the time that some things you can't "pre-teach", like clutch control - it's not true. It's just that your kids get bored with the theory when they first drive and just want to do it. If you tell them to expect loose pedal, slight contact, then dipping of bonnet as the gear engages, and slow, smooth actions from day one, then clutch control isn't hard at all. The problem is that we expect them to "jump in" and try it without knowing what to expect, and that's when you kangaroo and stall.

But knowing what to expect is not about having done it several thousand times before, it can also just be about "this is what will happen, this is what you should do". It'll come swimming back to you when you need it.

Emergency situations, you follow the rules. Getting clever "because you think you can go around him before he hits you" is exactly what causes the problems. Hell, from what I see of UK drivers, I bet a significant portion of accidents are people who DON'T want to get stuck behind the main accident and a split-second decision makes them pass him so they aren't stuck waiting for his recovery.

I don't doubt that drivers should have a lot of time behind the wheel but the most dangerous of learners are those that are thrown into the car not knowing what anything does or how it will react and then taken out on the road - which I see *EVERY* learner driver doing while they're still unsure of every sign, every marking, what the other cars are doing, the width of their car, etc. A bit of pre-education could save a lot of time and bumps and stalls.

(* For me, there was a car in the "middle" - really second - lane of the motorway, in icy conditions, spun out of control in front of me and ended up hitting the barrier, coming back towards me and facing the traffic in the same lane. Total speeds were pathetically slow as it was heavy snow and ice and unusual weather for the location. I braked gently (in case I can't avoid him, still need to reduce my speed), check surroundings, steer gently around even though no wheels are claiming they have grip and are trying to brake... the ABS had kicked in, I was able to drift past them untouched while everyone around decided the best thing to do was SLAM BRAKES ON AND OMG OMG OMG WE'RE GOING TO HIT HIM AND I DON'T WANT TO STEER OUT THE WAY AND *BANG* CAR BEHIND HITS THEM *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* or even, in one case, to accelerate past him on the other side).

Rule-based driving is safe. Much safer than "best-guess-based-on-previous-experience". Sure, it's not much fun on a racetrack but you're not ON a racetrack (and I happen to find Formula One the most boring sport in the world as the cars are all the same so win only by fractions of a second and chance, and can never overtake and when they do, there'll be some silly rules against it).

I see very little ever coming from RMS that does not imply or pertain to open-source. If you have certain rights over the software, we're out of the field of proprietary, out of the field of freeware, out of every category EXCEPT open-source. The freedoms he wants are only given by open-source.

Thus, such distinctions only contribute to confusion and buzzwordmanship. I might distinguish liberal licences (e.g. BSD) from less liberal (e.g. GPL) from even less liberal (e.g. MS "open access" source agreements where you can't actually DO anything interesting with the code but might be able to see it) but actually they are all (to some extent) open-source, if not all "Free". The boundary. however, is overlapping if it exists at all and I think we all know that by "Open Source" we really tend towards the licences where you can DO SOMETHING with the code anyway.

So I find all the "not Linux, but GNU/Linux", "not Open, but instead Free" junk to just be unnecessary press facetime.

If you are advocating rights over the software you use, you are implying open-source and the ability to manipulate that source (at least for yourself). It's part and parcel of the same thing. Even if it's in the "we need a way for a user to do X on machine Y and all methods are proprietary", you're basically implying that someone needs to do X on Y in an open-source way to allow the user to do that (e.g. get GRUB bootloaders running on exotic proprietary hardware, etc.).

The ability to audit is also linked directly to the ability and right to see the source.

Thus, let's not try to break the issue down further. You want to be able to see everything the machine does? Then you need open-source, top-to-bottom.

The methodology is the ONLY practical way (maybe only way at all) to implement the philosophy.

Such pedantry is EXACTLY what's confusing people, and tying the word "Free" (which people read without the capital "F") into open-source, where it has little place (most open-source is free in both senses, but it certainly doesn't run to all).

Convenience trumps ideals more often than not.

Though I consider myself an open-source programmer, and an open-source advocate, it's not for the same reasons as Stallman. It's not because of some fantastical ideal (even though I'm right behind things like Freedom of Information Acts etc. I consider them an entirely separate matter, and FoI kind of implies open-source at the highest ends of government, but we have neither FoI nor OS at those points anyway), it's because it makes things easier and my code isn't in any way "precious" that I need to lock it away.

So when I go on forums, I apply my "IT guy" persona to things and thus you get automatic sharing anyway. How do you fix that problem? How did you configure that system to do that? What software did you use? Where's the script you wrote to do X? We share this information in the same way that we share code, and IT is quite an open profession in my experience. I can ring up old colleagues and get scripts and documentation that cost them HOURS of work sent over and nobody will make a big fuss about it. In fact, they're usually happy to help and the agreement is reciprocal anyway.

That, to me, is the essence of open-source, not some cataclysmic Big Brother event stopper. The fact is that, where it matters, we never have had the code, or even the data, or even acknowledgement of the existence of the data anyway. And it's perfectly possible to run any system without reliance on a particular company and with auditable source and for free. The "dream" has been achieved but now people want to move the goalposts.

I agree that we shouldn't rest on our laurels, but OS by its nature develops on its own anyway. The guys with iPhones? Maybe they like using iPhones and there's no OS equivalent that works how they want? Or maybe they are aware of the contradiction but want a fashion item. The beauty is that their choice is just that - theirs.

The options are out there. They could run Android, even a "clean" non-Google version, at any point. The goal should be for the option to exist, not to FORCE everyone onto open-source against their will. To me, that just reeks of the same problem we were trying to avoid.

And the options exist, therefore we're done.

So basically the card is overspecced for no sensible reason and you can't fill that amount of VRAM even at 8K with 8xFSAA (and when you do that, you get 9fps). Even SLI'ing 4 of those together won't get you 40fps at those res.

So the extra VRAM is entirely, completely pointless and they could have just supplied it with 8Gb (or less!), reduce the price slightly and had done with it and nobody would have noticed any difference.

Selling point of our product: "We've put in useless shit that you'll never be able to use anyway! And charged you a premium for it!"

Er... never heard of NAT? Or IP spoofing?

And, no, it's not related to the Net Boot things.

Update Cache basically is a way to deploy a Mac server on your network and stop all the iPads/iMacs on site trying to update from Apple directly.

The server advertises itself to Apple, who then redirect ANY machine that seems to have the same IP to update from the specified update server. For OS X updates, iOS updates, even apps. Basically, one "Apple Server" (or something that advertises itself as such) on your local network (or appearing to come from your IP) and you can push updates to all Apple devices on that network.

Sure, there's probably encryption and hashing and verifying and all that supposedly going on, but now Microsoft are copying this same idea for Windows 10 - having workstations push updates to other workstations. At that point, you better hope the verification code is good if your machine can get instructed to update from another location as if it were Windows Update or Apple iTunes, transparently.

This is the bit that makes me wonder about the "Update Cache" functionality on Apple devices where you can have a server on your local network that ALL devices behind that IP get their updates redirected to as soon as it's turned on.

Basically, Apple Macs and iPads will do "WSUS-like" updates automatically from any local Mac server that appears to come from the same IP as the Mac/iPad in question. Without asking. Without the clients knowing. And with its own local cache of updates.

How do you obtain the expected signatures to match against the package if not by HTTPS or similar?

As you point out, if Verisign is happy to oblige, then the signatures can be altered in-transit as easily as the packages here, and there'd be no warning.

It only takes one Apple-signed developer package in the hands of someone with this kind of access to fake the origin and authenticity of the package signature AND package if the connection itself isn't secure.

Reckless: "utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action;"

If I drove without plates, I'd be a fucking nervous wreck of the consequences.

If I parked in a handicapped spot, I'd move because I don't want to hinder some fucking handicapped guy through my own fucking ignorance.

Reckless doesn't have to mean "dangerous". It just means "doesn't give a shit". And you can arrested for driving "without giving a shit" without having to do things which are provably dangerous.

No amount of money should be able to excuse you for being a pillock.

If a millionaire gets fined $10, it's quite literally a joke not a deterrent. If a poor homeless guy gets fined $10, it's more than he can afford. Thus the treatment of the same crime for two people is unfair.

The alternative? You lose your licence at the same speed as everyone else. I guarantee you that in a choice between more points on your licence and a fine proportional to your income, you'll pick the fine. Because once you fill that licence, you're fucked unless you want to face the humiliation of sitting your test again.

The fine is a portion of your income. So it hurts all fairly. If you're worried about where the money goes, put it into a victim surcharge to pay towards reparations for victims of all crime.

But fuck your idea of "we should be thanking these people". I don't want a fucking idiot driving down my street too fast whether he has no money or is a millionaire. And I certainly don't want millionaires DELIBERATELY breaking the law because the consequences are so fucking pathetic to them that it will never matter.

Modulator-demodulator. It doesn't have any particular meaning and is the more generic word.

Your Ethernet port is a modem.
Your wireless card is a modem.
Technically, things like TV cards are modems.

A modem does not equate to something that only talks over a telephone landline.

But then, even so, the last few generations of GPRS, 3G chips actually speak an AT Hayes *MODEM* command set in order to ring, send text messages, dial-up to the Internet etc. I can't speak for 4G but I'd be shocked if your 4G dongle doesn't actually just present itself as a very fast modem.

The problem with almost all that you mention above is not that it doesn't work for you. It's that it is purely psychological (that doesn't mean "unimportant" as some of the worst conditions are purely psychological) but is advertised / recommended as a cure for physical conditions.

You are not going to cure a bad back with homeopathy any more than you're going to cure depression with trepanning.

The problem *I* have is that anything purely psychological DOES NOT WORK for me. Because, pretty much, I do not suffer from psychological problems (I'm socially awkward, but that's about it, and mostly because I have trouble tolerating people who can't form a coherent argument) and so I don't get psychosomatic pains or anything else. If I hurt, it's because I'm in pain. And painkillers and surgery will work but homeopathy WILL NOT.

The problem is the boundary - homeopathy is NOT medicine. The parts of homeopathy that could be, show no evidence of being so. The "like cures like" has been shown to be almost complete nonsense except where it crosses into genuine science (e.g. allergies to peanuts, which we can explain scientifically, and thus explain why taking tiny but ever-increasing doses of peanuts will eventually "cure" it in the majority of patients - WHETHER THEY BELIEVE IT OR NOT). That's no different to an ancient historical story of exposing yourselves gradually to poisons to make yourself "poison-proof" (which just means you die from being stabbed!).

If it works for you, great. Homeopathy, sitting in the park laughing with a bunch of strangers, acupuncture, whatever you like. But don't claim that it can cure physical problems, because medicine shows that it CANNOT. It probably can, however, cure or aid in psychological-based problems, psychosomatic pain, depression, and other things of that ilk.

In that respect, it's not different to a shampoo ad - rubbing keratin ON your hair does nothing to produce keratin IN your hair follicle, give you stronger hair or stop you going bald. The same way that moisturisers might make your skin feel different, and make you feel better, but don't actually do much for your skin that your last shower in plain water couldn't do.

However, the shampoo and soap industries are billion dollar industries still. Because it makes you feel better than just using a basic cheap soap (as someone who's washed their body and hair with washing-up liquid when there was no soap, I will quite happily claim that it's virtually indistinguishable in function apart from the artificially-added smell).

Your attitude is correct. It works for you, who cares if it's a placebo? However, the homeopathy industry as a whole is vehemently against such "naming" of their effect on humans. And that's where I differ. Placebo is a strong and necessary effect in medical science. We take account of it in every trial or research study, But what it's not is a cure. It's a baseline. Placebo is the base state of what the human could do for themselves with no medical intervention.

Homeopathy, therefore, is still placebo. That doesn't mean "not useful" or "not popular" just "not above baseline, medicinally". We could replicate the effects by sending you out on a picnic with your friends. And, thus, we have to treat all funding, recommendation, etc. the same for homeopathy as that action too. You wouldn't expect your doctor to pay for you to go on holiday, or on a picnic, so you can't expect health services to pay for homeopathy as a treatment.

Fortunately, this is a double-edged sword too. Because it's placebo, you are very, very, very unlikely to make ANYTHING you do any worse by taking up homeopathy, etc. (unless your doctor has specifically said not to do something it required you to do). So doctors can recommend that patients try it - it won't make them worse - but we should NOT be funding it and certainly not endorsing it as a miracle cure... but that's exactly what some of the most vocal homeopathists are demanding.

You found something that works. I know that doing this thing I do with my fingers (touching the tips of each finger against my thumb rapidly in succession) relaxes me. It works, but it's not medicine. It's psychological, so it can sometimes APPEAR to be authorised psychology, but it's not.

But it's not something the health services should be under pressure to fund, research (at least past basic viability if that viability test fails to demonstrate any effect above placebo) or waste time discussing over and over again.

It works for you? Great. But we can't be funding it for you. And it's not medicine. And it is just placebo. Just don't take offence at that assertion. A hug from a friend is largely placebo and that can change your life.

Why does feeling "natural" equate to better to our minds?

The foods you eat are artificially sweetened BECAUSE you will choose the sweeter, unnatural food by default (some people will choose based on conscious decision of the BACKGROUND, but put a bunch of people in a room and the sweeter and more tasty items go quicker).

The house you live in is an artificially simulated environment. The cool air is not a breeze, the hot air is not a summer's day, the dryness or humidity is completely artificial. But yet everyone has that.

Similarly, the scents you live with - the "natural" scents are now abhorrent to us and we replace them with unnatural and artificial ones.

To be honest, when I put a bulb in a room, I'm not TRYING to simulate sunlight - that's what a window is for. I'm trying to see what I'm doing, and for that colour hue bears no part in the proceeedings - brightness does more (hence why we "dim" lights for an intimate evening, not recolour the room).

Just because it's natural colouration doesn't mean we automatically prefer it - in many cases an "over-sense" is more comforting. Bright lights, in unnaturally white hues, sweet food, strong tastes, warm houses (or unnaturally cool in the summer!), loud music against a silent background, overpowering scents that would make wild animals run a mile.

We are no longer bound by the full Moon, by the winter Sun or by any of the other natural variations we would need to cope with. So why would we try to replicate a poor, orangey light that's actually closer to candlelight than the brilliant, all-illuminating white of the Sun?

The light is there to see by. Replicating the sunset / dawn is a secondary concern, especially as most suburban housing in my country probably doesn't get a lot of sunlight at those times at all because of all the other houses in the way.

And sunlight - have you any concept how bright that actually IS? It's unbelievable. A car headlight capable of illuminating the entire road for hundreds of metres ahead in the dead of night is barely visible in daylight.

Colour rendition is the last thing I care about in a bulb. Because, objectively, I probably couldn't tell anyway unless I was in a completely white room and under test conditions.

Turn on the bulb. Can you see your way to the fridge at midnight? Yes? Then it passes the "cheapest bulb" test. Turn it on while you're reading the paper in the late afternoon, can you read the paper? Yes? Then it passes the "expensive bulb" test.

Beyond that, who really cares? Your paint, your walls, your furniture, your windows, your lighting direction, your eyes and tiredness all affect what the actual colour you see is.

My girlfriend spent nearly £1000 on two new light fittings for the living room. We went from incandescent to LED in a 1930's house without changing anything else. At no point did we go "Oh, that's bad". It's as bright, much less powerful and though the colour tone may be slightly different after the first day you'll never notice.

The only concern ever was warm-up time but, as I demonstrated to her father, the warm-up time for an LED is non-existent - it's only the electronic dimmer I have on it that makes it "slide" in the light in under a second, so you don't get blinded by it coming on in the dark.

Can you see by it? Leave it for a week. Have you cared about the exact colour? End of.