Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Question: (Score 1) 115

by GoddersUK (#47510363) Attached to: UK Users Overwhelmingly Spurn Broadband Filters
That's a different blocklist. The IWF's blocklist (as used by BT's cleanfeed) blocks child porn and, perhaps, other "illegal" content (although there's no way of finding out what it actually blocks in practice unless you hit a blocked page while using an ISP honest enough to not serve a fake 404) and is used by all large ISPs with no way to turn it off. The blocklists in question here are mandatory default-on in the "we'll regulate if you don't do it voluntarily" fashion and block a whole variety of legal content from the genuinely objectionable through it's a question of taste to the innocuous. They're not set directly by the government, rather they're purchased by the ISPs from third parties and you can opt to have them turned off (if you don't mind the embarrassment of asking...). That's not to say the government interference here is a good thing for a whole range of reasons though.

Comment: No surprise (Score 1) 230

by GoddersUK (#47442109) Attached to: Geographic Segregation By Education
I'm a research student in London and I did my undergrad here too, what's amazed me is the number of people I know/knew who did their undergrad elsewhere that are now popping up all over the city. Turns out a graduate level job market attracts graduates who in turn attract graduate level jobs... What the summary fails to point out, of course, is that the growth of all the extra facilities - bars, restaurants, dry cleaners etc. - also ensure the job market grows in non-graduate jobs too, so it's win-win for everyone that lives in the lucky city. That city then grows at the expense of its neighbours that lose jobs in all sectors of the market (again, as we see in the UK where London and the south east is a giant black whole sucking up money and talent from the rest of the country). Whether or not you think this is a bad thing varies, of course...

Comment: Re:Seems appropriate (Score 3, Interesting) 353

by GoddersUK (#47419497) Attached to: UK Computing Student Jailed After Failing To Hand Over Crypto Keys
Not true. ( guy wasn't convicted until he decided to reveal it as part of separate proceedings proving he hadn't forgotten it; I'm surprised they didn't have him for perjury or something too.) Think about it - if that was the law every time you visit an SSL secured website you'd be breaking the law since your computer doesn't record the session keys. And perfect forward secrecy would be illegal too. Not that I'd put any of that past the government here, mind you, but it hasn't happened yet.

Comment: False dilema (Score 0) 333

Perhaps they were pushing the button AND thinking... shocking, I know. Typically the deeper in thought I am the more likely I am to absently mindedly do things like repeatedly prod a button that produces some kind of effect. I guess it ties up the bits of my brain that control my body so they don't distract the thinking bits?

Comment: Precedent (Score 1) 210

Well the court judgement was not a good judgement; it set a precedent without any guidance about how to apply it to other cases. It also wasn't a good judgement because it creates a right to alter history, but that's another thing... Also Google have received tens of thousands of requests, can they really be expected to give each one a thorough legal analysis? Of course not, they'll just play it safe. So it may be an error of judgement by Google, but that's only because the court made an error of judgement.

Comment: Re:Libertarian nirvana (Score 1) 534

What's wrong with that comment? Scarecrows should love this - a huge straw man deliberately elevated to the level of (attempted) serious discussion. Everything is better with logical fallacies. Next step should be ad hominem and argument from emotion to eliminate true discussion.

Comment: Re:Can someone translate the summary into English? (Score 4, Interesting) 250

by GoddersUK (#47271817) Attached to: TrueCrypt Author Claims That Forking Is Impossible
So far as I can tell he claims that it would be impossible to re-license it under an OSS license and allow Matthew Green to use the trademark. This may be "impossible" because he doesn't control the IP or he may just be using it as a figure of speech to say that he won't comply with the request. The article title somewhat misleadingly takes the quote out of context. Of course it's just an anonymously posted email on Pastbin, I wouldn't put too much stock by it unless there's some independent confirmation of its validity.

Comment: aka (Score 5, Interesting) 186

by GoddersUK (#47211037) Attached to: Toyota Investigating Hovercars
small hovercraft.

this is probably no simple process

Surely the underlying technology required is essentially what's already been developed for hovercraft, which already come in car sized variants. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it would be easy to stick a car body on them, develop intuitive controls and stick them on public roads; I'm just not sure the technology is as novel and underdeveloped as the summary makes out.

+ - GCHQ destruction of Guardian computers raises questions 1

Submitted by GoddersUK
GoddersUK (1262110) writes "Remember when, in an exercise in pointlessness, men in black from GCHQ oversaw destruction of computer equipment that the Guardian had been using to report the Snowden disclosures? Well Privacy International are reporting that the Guardian let them take a look at the destroyed computers and they were surprised by what they found. Under the direction of GCHQ technicians the Guardian staff seemingly intentionally and specifically targeted apparently mundane components of the computers in question, including chips on the keyboard and trackpad controllers and the LCD inverter. This raises two disturbing possibilities: Either GCHQ's technicians are incompetent or they know something about computer hardware that we don't. Especially given that GCHQ knew the distruction was all a charade so there was no reason to be paranoid in performing it."

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman