Forgot your password?

Comment: News today: UK wants driverless buses (Score 1) 286

by hazeii (#48214959) Attached to: Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

Interestingly, there's a report in the Telegraph today suggesting that driverless buses could be on the roads in the UK pretty soon.

On the one hand, this makes sense - the complexity of the problem is reduced with a vehicle following a pre-programmed route.

On the other hand, I'm deeply sceptical - taking the assumption that such vehicles would have to be super-safe to be accepted, I can see a spate of teens having fun baiting autobuses into emergency stops. Oh, and cyclists will totally rule the roads - get in front of a bus and pedal as slow as you like.

+ - After Negative User Response, ChromeOS To Re-Introduce Support For Ext{2,3,4}

Submitted by NotInHere
NotInHere (3654617) writes "Only three days after the large public has known about ChromeOS to disable ext2fs support for external drives, and linux users voiced many protests on websites like reddit, slashdot, or the issue tracker, the ChromeOS team now plans to support it again. To quote Ben Goodger's comment:"

Thanks for all of your feedback on this bug. We’ve heard you loud and clear.

We plan to re-enable ext2/3/4 support in immediately. It will come back, just like it was before, and we’re working to get it into the next stable channel release.""

Comment: Re:"Emergency" laws. (Score 1) 147

by hazeii (#47427105) Attached to: UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws

And the reason this was *scheduled* for news release today?

Because there was a public sector strike too (they knew which would get the TV headlines).

Plus the lame nods about "sunset" clause (yeah right) and reviews of RIPA (yeah, heard that one before).

What do the people of this fine land think?

Well, you only need to start reading the comments to see.

+ - UK government to rush in emergency surveillance laws-> 2

Submitted by beaker_72
beaker_72 (1845996) writes "The Guardian reports that the UK government has unveiled plans to introduce emergency surveillance laws into the UK parliament at the beginning of next week. These are aimed at reinforcing the powers of security services in the UK to force service providers to retain records of their customers phone calls and emails. The laws, which have been introduced after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that existing laws invaded individual privacy, will receive cross-party support and so will not be subjected to scrutiny or challenged in Parliament before entering the statute books. But as Tom Watson (Labour backbench MP and one of few dissenting voices) has pointed out, the ECJ ruling was six weeks ago, so why has the government waited until now to railroad something through. Unless of course they don't want it scrutinised too closely."
Link to Original Source

+ - UK media now allowed to report secret trials.

Submitted by hazeii
hazeii (5702) writes "Following some pretty heroic efforts here in the UK, we are now allowed to know a secret trial is taking place. We aren't allowed to know who is being tried, or for what (except it's "terrorism related"). And the media are still barred from reporting the outcome (even if the unnamed defendants "AB" and "CD" are found innocent).

More from the BBC, the Guardian, and plenty of other sources."

Comment: Re: Eric "you shouldn't be doing that" Schmidt (Score 2) 155

I thought the point was clear, but to attempt to make it more so:

Eric Schmidt stated if there was stuff we didn't want people to know, we shouldn't be doing it. (this was way before the Snowden leaks).

He made it a clear position - don't do anything you don't want to be made public (search back for the old discussion on here about it, as I recall he didn't come out of it well).

So now he's saying the opposite - that we can trust him with stuff we don't people to know (i.e. everything Google knows about us).

Our opinions in how much trust to him are clearly divergent.

Comment: Eric "you shouldn't be doing that" Schmidt (Score 2) 155

This would be the same Eric Schmidt who said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."?

And now we're expected to believe him, when he says he's keeping us safe from letting anyone know what we're doing?

He killed a lot of trust with the original comment.

He just killed a whole lot more.

Comment: Hit us, lost 2 trees (Score 1) 95

by hazeii (#46084399) Attached to: Surrey Hit With Catnado

It was more a band of very strong wind (for the UK) - the damage track is several miles wide, nothing like a tornado. Not too severe, about one tree down every 2 miles (rough calculation from seeing about a dozen trees down on a 25 mile local trip). We lost 2, both ripped off about 10 feet from the ground (in from the edge of a small wood - apparently others have seen a similar pattern).

Comment: A curb on *use* (not on *collection*) (Score 3, Insightful) 359

by hazeii (#45988679) Attached to: Obama Announces Surveillance Reforms

Notice how this is a curb on the *use* of the collected data - not on collecting it in the first place.

In other words, politicians have realised how much power this level of information can give them - and that is why control of it is far too important to be left in the hands of the NSA.

So what we have is just a power struggle over the strings of control - and not over the real issue of overbearing intrusion into the private lives of the people of this planet.

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics