Not on that rail network they aren't. QR has been struggling to make ends meet for a while, the go card system was supposed to improve the situation by reducing ticketing costs and reducing staffing requirements at smaller platforms. They don't have the money to invest in facial recognition software. The left bag systems would probably be running on the live feeds but the cameras don't have the resolution to pick out faces and track them through the system, it would be a major upgrade. As the system stands. They would have to do facial recognition the old fashioned way, by going back through the recorded feeds and looking at them. In TFA they say that they have footage from the bus where the card was used, bus dvrs are standalone and aren't suitable for facial recognition.

So Negative !

Phrase it like: "This bill is not of interest to the public, so we are allowing them to not see it"

So was that typo due to the Q and A keys being adjacent or because of you thinking of a word beginning with 'q' or because you were imagining the location of the 'q' key by thinking of the qwerty layout. Are these typos due to a failure in digital agility or some kind of Freudian finger slip ?

No one else noticed that the study was done by a marketing professor from a Business School. A survey of 512 people (quite a small number really) found that those people who use the Internet on a daily basis also preferred chocolate to granola, couldn't be bothered doing complicated puzzles, and maintained a lower balance on their credit card. Therefore, using the Internet makes you a stupid, fat, poor asshole. Perhaps this isn't the most conclusive study of the lowering of inhibitions or the generation of conflict online. What it looks like to me is a well timed grab for publicity just before the business department submits its request for funding for next year.

It would be easier again perhaps (given the level of technical skill they appear to have) to throw the alleged brick into the hard disk repeatedly.

Obligatory XCKD
Security

Some of us still read the Subject lines.
So that read:
On the Subject of my ass: If I want it preserved, I'll copy it to local storage or upload it to the cloud if I so choose. Other than that, if I hit the wipe button there better be smoke coming from it.

Which was a little disturbing, but it was followed by the eminently sensible:

If I wanted it "preserved" I wouldn't be wiping it out in the first place.

Which I will now unfortunately have pop into my mind every time I throw used paper into the bowl.

Lets just put it down to a rounding error shall we?

Most means more than 50%.
Allow me to run with that fact for a second
If it was not exactly 1.3 million requests, say 1.32 million requests and half of the actual figure was converted to a percentage against the concatenated figure of 1.3 million then you could end up with 50.76% both backed and unbacked by court orders. Rounding that to the nearest significant figure would show that 51% were backed and unbacked, which in both cases is a majority. Backed up by these figures we could state that most are backed by court orders but most aren't.

It could be a case of poor programming rather than poor grammar that is at fault here ....

It is an interesting concept. a DDoS for scam emails. You could probably automate the process.

If you had a 100K machines running 10 addresses, with automated responses to the standard formats of scam letters you could probably generate enough work to take a large portion of the scammers offline (By having them devote their time to chasing dead ends). This would reduce the profitability of the the industry and perhaps force them to find another way of making a living.

That is true but the idea is to reduce the ability to induce fear. I know a few people that in the cramped environment of a plane would be able to hold their own against the rest of the plane, they would have to though because people are not as scared of people as they are of a sharp object or the blood that using it creates. There are many items already on the plane that could do a lot of damage in the right hands but are not as obviously fear inspiring. I agree that the regulations do go too far and that it is all security theater. I just hope that they are putting well trained hand to hand fighters on the planes to sort out the dorks with tiny knives and just not telling us about it. I am surprised that they haven't banned red buttons and beards yet, TV and the news has taught us to fear a bearded guy with a red button more than anything else.

This is 100% on the money. Those with Mods, please get this read. There are a number of building projects here with # pronounced sharp here in Korea. Most people know the symbol from their music education, for notating a sharp note e.g A#. Koreans are well aware of the slang use of sharp in English, but are not really concerned with how it is generally used. So 'The #' means something classy, stylish, and well designed in Konglish. This would have nothing to do with Twitter, or it would be called #tower and not # Tower.

If a mini-bus is smaller than a bus, then a mini van is smaller than a van. How big is a van ?

Is the order:
segway, moped, motorbike, motor-trike, smart car, mini, small car, car, family car, SUV, minivan, Bentley, van, mini-bus, bus, truck, one-tonner, 18 wheeler ?

I can't understand it either, I mean it isn't like they have billions of dollars invested in a carriage network that could become obsolete faster than they could pull it out and sell it. Or even that it lower the barriers to competition to market that they haven't had to seriously compete in before. Why on earth would they be putting roadblocks in the way of progress here?, big companies never try to halt innovation when their core business is threatened. I mean the slavers, railways, big oil, all helped pushed human progress even change could have forced them to change their operation, didn't they?

Tis unimaginable that a organization of humans would ever try to decrease the wealth of humanity to increase their own wealth !

Were it so that these loving sheep be but the disguises of wolves, one's mind shall truly have been blown.

Not plain wrong, not even vanilla wrong. If I am to be any kind wrong may it be a kind of wild fig and truffle wrong that no one likes but everyone orders when they are on a first date to appear sophisticated and worldly.
I present words of others ( Australian others) on this particular issue when talking of messages from the US leaked by wikileaks:
"“AFACT and MPAA worked hard to get Village Roadshow and the Seven Network to agree to be the public Australian faces on the case to make it clear there are Australian equities at stake, and this isn’t just Hollywood “bullying some poor little Australian ISP,” the cable quoted the US Embassy as writing.
...
iiNet, the cable claimed, had been targeted because the ISP was “big enough to be important”, as the third-largest ISP in Australia. The MPAA didn’t go after Telstra, the cable claimed, because the telco was “the big guns” and had “the financial resources and demonstrated willingness to fight hard and dirty, in court and out."
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/30/wikileaks-cable-outs-secret-iitrial-background/
Well that does lend weight to idea that they thought they could bully, and that the financing was critical in deciding which ISP to target.
From the Sydney Morning Herald (Australian Author):
"It seems the MPAA deliberately avoided picking a fight with the more powerful Telstra, instead hoping for a quick victory against the smaller iiNet which could set a national and perhaps even international legal precedent to aid the Americans in their global fight against piracy" http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-on-the-go/afact-uncle-sams-puppet-in-iinet-trial-20110902-1jp4w.html

I am not alone in having formed the opinion that this matter was motivated by a desire to influence things overseas.
The references are provided so that you can see the basis from which I was representing the perceptions and intentions of the MPAA in this matter. I am going to also assume when you insisted that " you are just plain wrong" you intended that the MPAA and associated parties are just plain wrong, and that the cultural misunderstanding was on their part as well.
I did not state that Australia was singled out, we both know they weren't. I didn't state that Australia was actually the best choice either, the facts as you quite rightly pointed out, are proof of the issues with trying to slip something through in Australia. I am very proud of the efforts of the government regarding smoking (especially the ban in clubs etc) I just wish more people would quit. Thanks for the update on how that issue is progressing

Personally, I think they are barking up the wrong tree and this is not the best solution to their issue. I think this trend towards the legal department being a profit center through patents and other actions is not beneficial to markets or companies (designers and engineers have lower pay rates than lawyers).

:-)

I think there is a lot of smoke around what this is about.

The idea is to get a ruling that makes an ISP responsible for the the abuse of copyright that happens on its servers. This would lead to the the ISPs being forced to pay licencing fees to the licence owners. The costs involved with keeping track of and processing the licencing fees from a few thousand ISPs would be much easier than chasing individuals. This would turn the Internet into a solid revenue stream for the licence holders, and allow it to succeed radio and television as a source of royaties and insure against the failure of payed content such as DVDs and iTunes.

At the moment ISPs are treated like telephone carriers, the MPAA etc. want them treated as broadcasters were so that they can extract payment in a way that they are comfortable with.

Australia is a good place to do this in the eye of the MPAA because they feel that they can bully and buy the result, which they can use as a landmark in the UK, and then show as an example to courts in the US.

This is not about stopping people from sharing content, they want people to keep doing that as their content is being viewed more often. What they want is to get payed for people viewing it, regardless of how they got it, while still not having to pay for the distribution.