Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Consipricy nuts, go! (Score 4, Interesting) 75

Meanwhile Russia has actually kidnapped a Ukrainian doing nothing illegal beyond defending her country against Russian state sponsored terrorists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

I have zero sympathy for Russia in this case given that they're crying wolf whilst doing exactly what they're crying about to others.

Comment: Re:UK is not a free country (Score 1) 123

by Xest (#47425723) Attached to: UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws

No, the reason I originally wrote that I'm torn was because I meant I was torn between the fact that yes we're a fucked up country, but we're also not as bad as we could be. I'm torn in the fact that in the global rankings of shit countries we actually do very well, but doing very well is still apparently depressingly bad.

It's really quite sad. It's almost like we need a new cold war so that Western countries can actually pretend to be the freedom loving side again and actually have to do something to prove that.

I do sympathise with your point though for what it's worth, I've noticed much of the logic you describe in many guises ranging from people with the viewpoint that America is bad so Iran must be good, rather than the more rational possibility involving shades of grey for both, through to North Korea is worse so Britain must be perfect. I do know where you're coming from.

Comment: Re:"Emergency" laws. (Score 1) 123

by Xest (#47425677) Attached to: UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws

I think it depends what level you're at, genuinely there are a large number of MPs that really don't get much on the side (other than the expenses they manage to fiddle). It's easy to see people like Tony Blair, or Chelsea Clinton (who last I checked was never a British MP) and assume they all make millions but that's rarely true. Even the genuine millionaires largely came into the profession with their fortunes in the first place which is a problem in itself, albeit it a separate one.

Comment: Re:Talking of FUD (Score 2) 123

by Xest (#47425667) Attached to: UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws

"and then and only then does the prosecution"

Where exactly does the law state that? There's no "then and only then" or similar even written there, this is an assumption you've made up to try and align your incorrect understanding of RIPA with what's actually written. The rest of your rant is therefore irrelevant because it's based on a mis-reading of the law, and insertion of a clause that just is not there. You're effectively parroting the Daily Mail esque FUD that The Register has spouted over the years, and ultimately that's the problem with reading The Register, it'll let you be about as informed as someone who gets all their news from Fox.

This is the same publication after all that was claiming the Eurofighter had no air to ground capability whilst it was actually blowing up tanks in Libya. Yes. Really.

Now read the news Statesman article you linked to,where you claim someone quite plausibly forgot his password, I quote:

"Evidence showed that the defendant admitted in police interviews that he had set an encrypted password of between 40 and 50 characters containing both letters and numbers using an encryption software programme and that he had had originally relied on his memory to recall it but could not recall it when he was served with the notice.

The jury heard both the prosecution and defence case and accepted the prosecution case that the defendant must have kept a record of this very complex password, rather than relying on memory"

So again we're talking about someone stupid enough to incriminate himself, he admitted he had set the password, he admitted he knew the length and consistency but could not even begin to take a stab at what it was. Hence, the jury found his story to simply not be plausible. You have to keep in mind that in such trials a combination of things are taken into account that are not ever recorded in reports on it - if someone keeps changing their story this may not be mentioned but it's enough for the jury to take into account to reach a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion.

Worse, even the CPS themselves highlight that your earlier interpretation of the law is wrong:

"As the defendant claimed to have forgotten a password that he had previously memorised, it was for the prosecution to rebut this and to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that this was not the reason for the defendant failing to disclose it."

Note that they themselves accept that it's upto the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he hadn't simply forgotten it. Something they must hence have achieved to obtain the conviction.

This is a far cry from simply saying "I've no idea what it is I never set it", or simply "I forgot it". As I said, no such case to date has ever happened - all convictions have been based on the stupidity of self incrimination and why? Because guess what, a lot of criminals crack under cross-examination and that's one of the key methods juries and judges use in determining cases.

So to jump to the conclusion he genuinely forgot it and is a victim of injustice is complete nonsense. You claim the judge must have been corrupt, okay, sure, so why didn't he appeal to get another judge? It's not like this is the US where he wouldn't have been able to afford representation, he'd have got full legal aid in 2009.

Comment: Re:UK is not a free country (Score 1) 123

by Xest (#47425279) Attached to: UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws

I never said that, you're just drawing a conclusion that isn't there. I'm merely stating that some things are worse elsewhere, that doesn't inherently mean I believe therefore that everything is okay. There's always room for improvement but I tend to weight things based on comparisons to other countries. If we're in the top 20 globally that doesn't mean we're doing good overall, it just means we're doing well relatively.

I think you're missing the point of relatively well, vs. absolutely well, and making some implication that I must mean that because it's not as bad as elsewhere then in an absolute manner it's okay, but that makes no sense as you pointed out yourself so I don't really know why you'd jump to such a conclusion in the first place.

Comment: Re:"Emergency" laws. (Score 2, Insightful) 123

by Xest (#47424463) Attached to: UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws

This bit was a complete joke too:

"I am simply not prepared to be a prime minister who has to address the people after a terrorist incident and explain that I could have done more to prevent it."

Right, but you're willing to stand up and be the cunt the said fuck you to human rights law and obliterated all remaining semblance of privacy in the UK? What a twat.

Comment: Re:UK is not a free country (Score 5, Informative) 123

by Xest (#47424407) Attached to: UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws

I'm torn because whilst things like this sicken me (as a British citizen) I think it's still sensationalist nonsense to claim Britain isn't a free country, god only knows we still don't have quite the limits on free speech of France and Germany. As Western countries go we're still pretty free, and Western countries are still generally freer than most, so it seems a silly stretch to claim Britain isn't a free country. Most things used when citing Britain as not free are FUD made up by people who love to bash Britain, or like a bit of conspiracy theory or reason to bitch and moan in general, for example, claims about CCTV counts that include static traffic cameras that only take photos of people actually speeding - i.e. breaking the law and don't have a capability for constant monitoring, or only log a text response when a particular number plate is detected. Do I like them? no, but it's hardly the constantly filmed bullshit the paranoid conspiracy theorists claim it is. Similarly there's a lot of FUD about RIPA's password clause by people who haven't read the law which explicitly states that police have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has a key before they can be prosecuted for not handing it over (if you don't believe me Google it - section 53.3 makes the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt that a suspect actually holds the key explicit in law) which is in contradiction to the nonsense about how you can arbitrarily convicted with that as the excuse - you can't, it's never happened, everyone prosecuted to date has been like the plonker in yesterday's news story who incriminated themselves for the simple reason they were actually dickheads.

But this? this is genuinely fucking embarrassing. This is a genuine what the flying fuck are you thinking politicians? This is a genuine there is something very broken with our country. It's not that we're not still free, we really are, anyone who claims otherwise is full of shit, the problem is that there's a slippery slope that we might slide down to become not free, and that's the real worry. Sometimes slippery slope arguments don't occur making them a fallacy, but sometimes they do, and I'm not willing to accept that risk when the claimed benefit just does not exist - 7/7 still happened, the Boston bombings still happened - blanket data sweeping does not work, terrorist attacks are still occuring as (in)frequently as they always have even with the NSA and GCHQ's absolutely massive dragnet.

The worst part is they're saying this is a temporary power that'll be reviewed in 2016 when Labour will almost certainly be in power. The Milliband/Brown/Balls strain of Labour is the most dictatorial leadership we've seen in decades given that they were the "brains" behind the ID card database, they wanted the IMP, they wanted a nationwide DNA database of everyone. I see little hope for this doing anything other than getting worse in the coming years.

Which is a shame, because things had largely gotten better in the last 4 years on this particular front - the Digital Economy Act whilst not destroyed has at least been gutted, the national ID database had been scrapped, the ability of many authorities such as local councils to spy had been massively curbed, CCTV had been scaled back. Still a hell of a long way to go, but definitely civil liberties had improved in the last 4 years, especially compared to the massive downward spiral under Brown. Unfortunately it seems the ConDems decided they'd fuck up the only thing they haven't fucked up right in their last 9 months. Why? What the fuck is wrong with them? We nearly did it. We nearly made it a full parliamentary term without dictatorship syndrome kicking in, alas, here it is.

Comment: Re:"Emergency" laws. (Score 3, Insightful) 123

by Xest (#47424261) Attached to: UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws

The Lib Dems seem to have finally completely and utterly removed any reason for their existence too. I really don't get it.

They'd already seen their support tank for ignoring students, but those that remained in support of them still largely supported them because despite that they were still the best option for civil liberties given that they blocked Cameron and co's previous plan to brink back the interception modernisation programme. For all their mistakes they had at least to date still stood in defend of civil liberties.

Now they've thrown that away, so there's literally no reason to vote for them anymore. We used to see regular jokes on TV, in the media and so forth about the Lib Dems being pointless but it's now no longer a joke, it's a simple statement of fact.

Personally I'd vote Pirate but they don't stand around here anyway so I guess my only choice is the greens whom unfortunately focus far too much on feminism issues for my taste (it's important to me, but not as important as they rate it- there are many other things that matter more than that because they effect everyone, not just half the population). This said I don't even think the greens stand around here now anyway, so I guess it's time to scribble the old "Fuck you" party onto my ballot from now on.

Comment: Re:What if he forgot it? (Score 1) 312

by Xest (#47422893) Attached to: UK Computing Student Jailed After Failing To Hand Over Crypto Keys

No not in the slightest, not even close:

Section 53.3 of RIPA is very explicit:

(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time ifâ"

(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Note point b), one of the two criteria required to prove someone has a key but will not turn it over in order to jail them is that there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person has the key. The default assumption as written in law is that a person does not have they key, unless sufficient evidence is raised to suggest otherwise, and that it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that the contrary to them not having it is true - i.e. that there's incredibly strong evidence (the same level of evidence required for rape and murder convictions for example) that that's the case.

So not only are you completely wrong to say if you can prove you don't have a key you can be jailed for it, you don't even have to prove you don't have a key, the onus is entirely on the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence that you have the key.

This guy was an idiot, rather than keeping quiet or claiming he didn't have it he admitted he did then spent ages taunting and screwing the police around with false keys. This guy only got jailed under this act because he was a complete fucking tool who opted to incriminate himself. You are completely misrepresenting, no, outright lying about what is possible under RIPA. Yes RIPA is still a massive problem for idiots who choose to incriminate themselves, no it's not a threat to people who are genuinely innocent which isn't to say it's a good law, but that it's not the extreme type of law people like you claim it is. To be convicted under this law the same standard of evidence is required as to be convicted of murder, if you believe it's not sufficient evidence then that means you believe our current evidence for murder and so forth is also too weak which is a fair argument, because people do still get wrongly convicted in fringe cases, but it's a broader problem as to what level of false positives under the reasonable doubt system are acceptable than that being discussed here.

Comment: Re:redundant aircraft (Score 1) 103

by Xest (#47414605) Attached to: Radical Dual Tilting Blade Helicopter Design Targets Speeds of Over 270mph

Because nothing says less crashes like creating something completely new and untested than something that has crashed in the past but had the causes for the crash ironed out?

Aircraft crash anyway, there was a US harrier crash a month or two back and that aircraft was fighting in the Falklands in 82. If a platform that mature still has the odd issue then what makes you think a brand new untested platform is magically not going to crash?

Comment: Re:GIGO (Score 2) 192

by Xest (#47398149) Attached to: IEEE Spectrum Ranks the Top Programming Languages

"I said data. An anecdote is not data."

Yes it is, but that's besides the point, because don't worry, I know what you meant, you meant that an anecdote isn't as important a piece of data in your view, as TIOBE.

But here's the problem, TIOBE's methodology is so less than useless that I'm not sure it is better than an anecdote. Go read how they figure out their rankings - they take results from pages where content is mostly user generated and weight the result based on the amount of traffic that site gets. This means that user generated content sites like Wikipedia, and Blogger are being used to determine language popularity such that you can massively boost the ranking of a low down language by spuriously creating blogs and Wikipedia entries so forth including mention of it. There are many problems with this alone including the fact that they're reliant on the quality of the search functionality of the site in question to help with the weightings and we all know how pointless even Google's search results rapidly decline to after only a couple of pages.

It then gets worse. They apply arbitrary exemptions, they for example preclude Objective-C from searches on C to ensure it doesn't pollute the results but they don't filter out things like C sharp, meaning there are many thousands, possibly millions of results about C# polluting the rankings for C. They try and also give arbitrary confidence ratings, but the methodology for determining these seems to be completely made up and unpublished.

"There's well over a million apps on the iOS app store. The overwhelming proportion of which use Obj-C."

Most apps seem to get written using things like C# (i.e. in Unity, or MonoGame) or Javascript and HTML5 in tools like PhoneGap. The amount of native development on both iOS and Android is an absolute minority of all development.

When someone points to TIOBE to try and back up a claim you might as well replace "TIOBE" with "The Daily Mail" or "Fox News" or "The Register" because they're all equally full of shit.

This index actually looks pretty decent and quite realistic. It's based on stats that, unlike TIOBE, don't lie (at least not quite so much) like job listings - i.e. what companies are actually hiring for, in other words, what business is really actually using, an actually useful metric because most people looking at such rankings want to know popularity for the purpose of employment. I wont say it mirrors exactly my experience and view of the job market, but also I recognise that my experience is always going to be much more localised than a global study. I know Python is popular but I find it odd to see it above C#, however I guess there's every possibility it's used more prominently in other countries and cities so I don't think the ranking's results are far outside the realm of possibility.

It's certainly a much more realistic index than TIOBE, there's absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever - it far better mirrors reality for those of us working in the field. TIOBE isn't really much better than just outright making it up.

Don't tell someone you've proved conclusively they don't know what they're talking about when you clearly have not the slightest idea as to what tools and technologies are used for the bulk of mobile development. Even with the popularity of iOS and the vast number of apps it's app store has, much of it is still not written in Objective C regardless.

Comment: Re:Science is not consensus (Score 1) 649

by Xest (#47313627) Attached to: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools

I'm just saying I'm not willing to debate with someone who stoops to the level of misrepresenting data. If you have to do that it's obvious you're not interested in an honest argument but are just a zealot with a one track mind who can't accept science, objectivity, and rationality. There's no logic to your arbitrary pre-1950/post-1950 divide, that's neither the start or the end of the industrial revolution, it's just an arbitrary point you've selected because you're attempting to take things out of context because that's the only way you can make the argument work in your favour. You can't argue based on the long term trends that aren't arbitrary because they do not fit your predetermined world view.

Trying to argue with a zealot like yourself who isn't interested in fact but merely their own twisted denialist fantasy is a waste of time.

Comment: Re:Haha, nobody will do this. (Score 3, Insightful) 208

by Xest (#47313603) Attached to: The Simultaneous Rise and Decline of <em>Battlefield</em>

I think the article misses the way modern economies work too. It doesn't matter if it's profitable, shareholders nowadays want to see increasing profits year on year.

You don't need millions of people to boycott it so that the production makes a loss, you only need thousands like yourself and I that mean it makes less money than it has in previous years.

If there's no profit growth, investors will start to notice and start asking questions and demanding a change in direction.

So yes, absolutely boycott, you can make a different, you don't need everyone to boycott, just enough to give up on it each year that it suffers declining sales.

Counting in octal is just like counting in decimal--if you don't use your thumbs. -- Tom Lehrer

Working...