You seem to automatically associate government owning the telco with it being crap whereas the truth is exactly the opposite. When these are government owned they throw money at stuff since nobody is looking for a profit.

Screw that, I am entering a tank. Lets see how many laps you manage before you get crushed.

Ok, first up when you fertilise an egg you have no real control over what bits of genetic material comes from which parent in many cases. Sometimes it is predetermined by dominant / recessive genes but for other stuff there is a huge element of chance in there. Cloning completely removes this from the equation which is actually the whole point.

Secondly, if you start allowing clones you really need to keep a sample of genetic material from the donor as well to ensure it was not altered as part of the cloning process. Like maybe you want a horse to run faster and can find someway to tweak it's genetic makeup to make this possible.

Don't get me wrong, I am not personally against cloning, genetic modification or any other amazing new technology like this. I do think you have to be a little careful though at how it is applied when money is involved and horse racing is certainly in that category. It seems that if a bunch of a majority of trainers do not want to pit their animals that have been bred in a similar way for hundred of years against a horse that is grown in a lab that should be their prerogative just like most athletes don't want to compete against someone drugged up to eyeballs.

It's very simple:

The US has a great many companies involved in genetically modifying or cloning stuff. These companies donate substantial sums to the political parties that judges are appointed by. Any judge who allowed these companies to be put at any sort of commercial inconvenience would find themselves very unpopular with the people who ultimately have a large say in them getting a promotion.

Some judges might hold firm on matters of principle safe in the knowledge that they cannot be easily removed from office but that may well remove any chance of them making it to the supreme court.

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.