Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Mistaken Western-centric thinking about China (Score 1) 110

I was in China last month, our hotel had CNN. As soon as it reached the segment about Hong Kong, the channel just blacked out. About 10 minutes later it came back on as if nothing happened.

Why be scared of external opinions? You do not see that as censorship? Suppressing history is censorship.

You are basically calling the Chinese populace a bunch of idiots who would not know how to make decisions for themselves.

This is why

the rioters in other cities also got the idea from news media.

News media and social networking blackout on the riots when they started would likely have stopped the riots happening in the other cities. Because the democratic UK had little taste for such media control the situation got very out of hand. Thats part and parcel of being a democracy eh.

Comment: Re:Wait what? (Score 1) 164

Couple thoughts... first that people need to quit blaming police for asset forfeiture, and start blaming the people who elect politicians that passed the stupid laws - and the only ones that can revoke them.

Not really. Its not as if a cop who looks in your car and sees a wad of cash is faced with an obvious crime which he, as a cop, is obliged to act on. The cops are totally able to say "oh look, obvious drug money! *yoink*" or to ignore it.

They, the cops, choose to steal from you. In the USA.

Comment: Re:Wait what? (Score 1) 164

So, because he is exercising his rights as a foreign citizen living in another country and going through the legally established international process for determining extradition, he is a 'fugitive' and thus his assets are fair game?

This is theft, plain and simple, just like "civil" asset forfeiture.

The USA has no problem stealing from their own citizens in their own country, its hardly a surprise that they have no problem stealing from citizens of other countrys who are also overseas.

Comment: Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score 1) 316

I love how the Democratic Party invention of free speech zones somehow became a "Dubya" thing. They may have only become widely covered starting in 2000, but they were originally an invention of the DNC to keep pro-life protestors away from their 1988 convention.

Both parties have been using them since the 2004 elections, so it's not like you can lay the blame solely on the Republicans either. Both parties do it.

The UK has had 'free speech zones' for decades, its called 'Hyde Park Speaker's Corner'.

Comment: Re:About time for a Free baseband processor (Score 1) 201

by myowntrueself (#48386909) Attached to: Department of Justice Harvests Cell Phone Data Using Planes

a well regulated militia was the PEOPLE. That means the people have a right to bear arms....
And well regulated means registering with the government so it knows who has a gun so they can be called upon it times of invasion or insurrection.

No, it does not. It means "well trained".

No, it didn't. It meant that the guns had been properly tested.

Comment: Re:3 billion on a fan company? (Score 1) 208

by myowntrueself (#48325885) Attached to: PC Cooling Specialist Zalman Goes Bankrupt Due To Fraud

don't get me wrong, i love their fans... but come on, it's a fan.
those exec and investors are dreaming if you think that market is that large.

Its not just fans, they also make pretty good heatsinks. A lot of those heatsinks are pure copper. So Zalman must get through quite a lot of the stuff and it isn't cheap.

For example, I used to have a dual CPU machine with two large Zalman pure copper heatsinks, the sort that are really big and have fins in a fan-out arrangement. In total there was about half a kilo of copper hanging off of that motherboard. They didn't even need fans on them, just the case fan was enough.

Manufacturing this shit must involve having a lot of copper stock.

Comment: Re:Uncool (Score 2) 208

by myowntrueself (#48325825) Attached to: PC Cooling Specialist Zalman Goes Bankrupt Due To Fraud

I am familiar with US / western bankruptcy law. This is Korea so your mileage will vary.

Well its Korea so it'll involve having a big meeting with everyone; the people at the top can't make a decision without consulting with everyone all the way down to the janitors.

Then they will all get very very VERY drunk.

Comment: Re:Not a win (Score 1) 228

by myowntrueself (#48311495) Attached to: New GCHQ Chief Says Social Media Aids Terrorists

First off, being a Muslim has nothing to do with screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like.

Muslim is a religious choice, and just like Christians or any other religion, there are those who are fanatical about it. They are dangerous, remember the holy crusades?

There are people who are fanatical who have nothing to do with religion at all, what group do you insult for them?
There's plenty of Muslims who live in Canada who are perfectly reasonable respectable people who are not violent who appreciate that you have your own way you live your life, and aren't coming to you to force you to change it, and just want to be respected for their way of life like any other religion.

For many many people being Muslim is NOT a choice; they are born into it. When they reach an age where they are rational enough to be able to decide whether they really want to be Muslim or not they are faced with the option of leaving Islam and being an apostate. The Koran specifies the death sentence for this 'crime'.

So no, unless you are a convert theres no real choice there.

Comment: Re:don't use biometrics (Score 2) 328

The Judge isn't the trier of fact in our legal system, that's the role of the Petit Jury, but why bother to actually learn how it works when you can just spread FUD?

Judges can also issue rulings notwithstanding the jury's recommendation, as they do when they feel the jury SHOULD have reached a particular verdict, but didn't, when it seems likely the jury is performing nullification of a law. (I believe it's called non obstante verdicto.)

For example, a person is tried for possession of a pound of marijuana with intent to distribute, and the defense claims it was his own personal supply. The prosecution has a slam-dunk, has the defendant dead-to-rights, and the defense argues that marijuana shouldn't be illegal.

The jury returns a verdict of not-guilty, even after the judge instructed the defense counsel that they COULD NOT LEGALLY USE THAT DEFENSE, and the defense replied that the defense rests. The judge has the power to disregard the jury's incorrect, (even if morally right,) decision because it's legally wrong. I can't say how often that happens off the top of my head, as IINAL, but the guy who told me this IAL,... so for whatever it's worth...

They used to have a saying: it's not enough to hire an attorney; for best results, also spring for a jury.

Jury nullification might not be illegal but it'll get you into a lot of trouble in the USA.

In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.