It's not a british thing, its apparently how android and maybe iphones work. Even though you were not actually connecting to the wifi access point as it came into range your phone does a little hello to get a signal back and determine range and stuff that included its MAC address. They then logged the MAC and monitored whether the signal was getting stronger or weaker in order to figure out your rough direction of movement. Apparently all this was done even when you just walked past the bloody things even though you never actually associated the device with the access point.

I have been walking past these things for months so they must have a nice track showing my walk to work every day as I am fairly sure I walk past a few of them between Bank and Shoreditch.

I am sure that at some point he must have said "I am better than the other guy".

I actually think that at least he kinds of wants to do the right thing and juts makes a screw up of it, whereas generally republicans just seem to be about fucking over everyone who is not incredibly rich. I suppose that does make them more honest though.

Exactly.

Most of the discussion of this on slashdot just shows how little people bother to actually read what they are commenting on or how clueless they are about what leading a project actually entails. Managers in my experience very rarely lead projects. They assign teams to projects under a team leader who is responsible for getting the stuff done.

Some people need very little direction given to them and some people refuse to take direction completely, but most technical teams of 5 or so people will have a mix. The job of the technical lead is to help the people who need it when they need it. Either through advice or actually doing the job for them in the rare occasion when someone is totally out of their depth. If you are technical lead of an amazing team the job is easy, if you are a technical team of a bunch of people like me it is hard. (I'm joking, I work as a lead developer)

Generally though being a technical lead is a far more technical role than being a manager. It does involve knowing how to manage people effectively though as it involves far more people skills then just being a member of a technical team.

The reason companies always like people with leadership skills though is simply because as you work for a company you accrue more and more technical skills. Companies want you to have the potential to impart those technical skills into other people through leadership. This is what the interviewer is probably referring to, the linked article the guy posted is just a red herring where he misunderstood what was being asked of him in my opinion.

Because in civil enforcement you can only go after people who have money with the idea of being awarded some it as a settlement if you are going after them after the fact. If the person you are going after is a student or teenager with no assets you can't really get awarded much. In criminal law you can hand them jail time and criminal record which actually a meaningful punishment.

If petty shoplifting was a civil offence rather than a criminal one far more people would do it. This is not saying that shoplifting and streaming are the same thing because obviously they are different but this is another example of something that has to be covered by criminal law in order to be effective as the loss from a single incident is very small but someone who simply went to every shop stealing everything then only having to give items back when they were caught could make huge gains from many different victims.

I was saying the swiss prosecutor could ask the ecuadorian embassy to enter to have a private chat with Assange after he had entered. The thing is it would be at Assange's discretion, he may say yes but he would hold all the power in that interview so the prosecutors office would not be interested.

As to the rest of your rant it seems you are just have some sort of anger issues judging by the profanity (this seems a regular occurrence in your posts judging by your history). Never mind, one day you might start getting laid and that should help calm you down a bit, otherwise try a valium or dope or something.

Maybe, but the real question should always come down to whether a jury will convict you.

You mention the UK, that make me think you are actually a UK citizen like me (sorry if I am wrong). In our case we are pretty lucky in terms of still having some semblance of a legal aid system that allows us to actually go to court if we think we broke the law but they jury would agree with our reasons for doing so and getting the state to pay for our defence. The problem with copyright law though is that most of the population eligible for jury duty (that includes me) actually supports it. Without copyright law you would be able to take other peoples digital works and then sell them as your own, that is simply not right.

There are a million problems with copyright law as it stands but throwing it all in the bin and having nothing in its place would be no better apart from for people who just want free access to everything and have no money to pay for it. The only time I think we can get rid of copyright law completely is when we also do away with the concept of money.

The problem with keeping things like this as civil torts is that they become unenforceable so the infringer effectively wins. Maybe that is your aim by saying this but then why not simply roll out the usual "there should be no such thing as copyright" argument instead.

If we made this covered as a civil tort then what do you give back if you stream the superbowl or something to 50,000 people over the internet when it eventually reaches court? You had a licence that enabled you to watch it over cable TV or whatever that you breached by sharing it with loads of other people, do you have to pay a subscription for each person who watched your stream equivalent to what you paid (hello bankruptcy). Do you pay some arbitrary value that the content owner chooses?

If your real aim is the complete abolition of copyright law you need to start making coherent decent arguments toward this aim if you want to be taken seriously not suggesting systems that are just unworkable in the real world. I know the studios / content owners are just as adept at this but stooping to their level does not help anyone.

If they want to talk to him, they only need to ask and I have no doubt it would be granted.

The problem is that this would be an utter waste of time as anyone who had ever been through a police interview would tell you since the Assange would be free to terminate the interview at will by simply walking out of the room where the prosecutors could not follow.

Also, anything they mention in the interview would not help their cause one bit. Either they would make it obvious that the charges against him are utter drivel that will not stand up in court by having no worthwhile evidence to put on the table in which case he can be fairly sure that the idea of him being sent onwards to the US to be thrown in a supermax next to Mr Manning is really on the cards or they would have a tons of evidence that they put to him that makes him realise he really does stand a chance of being convicted of some sort of statutory rape charge and thrown in jail in Sweden then deported as an undesirable upon his release.

Obviously the flight back to Oz would have to stop in the US to refuel along the way :)

PS - I know he has lost his Oz citizenship but if Sweden were deporting him as a convicted criminal I reckon they would send him there anyway then just let the US intercept him enroute.

What happens if the police kick shit out of you in your own home for 8 hours with the FBI who shoot you while you are being interviewed?

What the constitution states seems to be pretty irrelevant in light of the shooting of Ibragim Todashev. It seems plausible that the officers in question just decided to execute him as they could not prove anything or because they were waterboarding him in his kitchen sink and he accidentally drowned.

If they can get away with murder, they can probably get away with the odd illegal search.

Do you trust anyone else not to share your data with the NSA? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.

No, its not. If you could edit the hosts file programmatically without jumping through this many hoops then you could force entries into the hosts file that redirected traffic to your bank to a different server.

Just the administrator account should be enough, but too many people use administrator accounts for day to day stuff just so they can install software. On linux you end up needing to put in the root password or use sudo for tons of stuff, windows have tried to avoid this but some things like editing the hosts file are such dangerous edge cases compared to what most users do that they need to be protected differently.

To be honest, there is a strong argument that you should NEVER edit your hosts file on a windows machine (ok, I admit I do not always follow this advice). If you want to do crap like that maybe you should run a local DNS server just so you know what you are doing, especially if you run a linux server on your network since DNSMasq is so easy to use. It might still involve editing a hosts file, but at least it is a hosts file on a separate server and becomes the central point for all local DNS changes you make. Using DNSmasq also lets you test anything you are testing on a number of devices on your private network without having to keep track of hosts file entries on each device.

Seriously, DNSMasq is a much better shout for most stuff like this if you need to do it regularly.

Why should the company have to regain any trust anyway? The fact is the US government is currently mandating that they do all of this crap and issuing them with gag orders so Google can't tell anyone.

The only way Google can get out of this is relocate their HQ to russia, exactly where the Brin family escaped from. Even if they did this it would probably be no better as Putin is not exactly Mr Privacy.

The truth is that companies cannot do a damn thing providing congress and the supreme court keeps saying this stuff is all fine and dandy. The US Military and spy agencies calls the shots since 9 - 11. Sometimes I often wonder if they just sat back and watched it happen knowing it would strengthen their hand for decades.

I am not sure you have any clue what your talking about here.

The UK government can dictate policy to BT because they can pass laws that BT (like any other company doing business within our shores) has to follow and we do not have a list of constitutional rights quite like you do in the US. There are cases when UK laws are shot down by higher powers like the EU or due to us signing treaties on human rights but nobody has yet taken this to our supreme court to decide whether the right to watch violent rape porn is actually included in our basic human rights. I say violent rape porn because that is all the UK government is currently looking to ban and it is currently a long way from being law.

They are also looking at making all ISP's (including ones that are not BT like Virgin) also provide an opt in / opt out to other porn though at the same time but then will just be a case of you telling your ISP you want to watch porn on the net and then them letting you. I am not saying this is not a crap idea or doomed to failure, but I do not think it is quite the same as a ban on all porn. I actually think it is doomed to failure as the filter will have so many false positives that most people have to opt in just so they can browse wikipedia even if it does become law a few years down the line.

Currently though we are still at the point of an unpopular prime minister in a weak coalition government that barely holds a majority moaning about something that he knows will be popular with his own parties supporters in order to distract from the shit storm he is currently trying to keep quiet about as a result of his party being openly bought by various lobbyists from the cigarette and alcohol industries. He knew that his recent climb down on cigarette packets having to be plain was going to be unpopular with parents, so tried to come up with something else that would win him a few votes back or at least distract them.

Finland could ignore these treaties. America would go to the WTO crying foul, the dispute settlement body would probably agree, then finland would have to either repeal the relevant law or suffer the consequences. In this case the most likely consequence would be the US getting to take retaliatory measures of some kind against Finland, either an import tariff on Finnish goods or maybe even getting to crap all over finnish copyright.

This might be just what we need to get rid of Linus as he loses the copyright on linux to some huge american corporation (obviously this bit is a joke).