DropbearRob

9 年前議論

my first though as to how you would do this, is that you would implement some kind of key bag. You don't ever own your own private keys, theres a copy of them held in a central repository. they are all centrally stored and can be requested by a warrant.

The problem with this of course is that its a truly horrible idea which defeats the whole concept of a private key. Another massive problem here is that you've just created the biggest target for hackers. once the keys are out... everyone is screwed.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

ok ok, perhaps this was a bad example of being in a situation which is legal but illegal adjacent, because it seems in some cases it is illegal to sleep in your car while drunk, or even being near your car while drunk. but the crux of my argument remains valid. in those cases you've broken the law (past tense) because in this case those scenarios are considered a breach of the law.

My point remains that the role of government is to pass laws, and the role of law enforcement is to enforce those laws by capturing people who break the law. NOT to arrest people who "might" break the law, because that group contains everyone.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

OK, so I have decided that my example of not having the intention to commit the crime is a bad one as it has been flagged up by everyone regarding how in the UK you can indeed be arrested for this.

heres my solution to the situation in the UK. If you are EVER planning on sleeping it off in the car, get a breathalyzer locking cabinet for your keys.

http://www.alcolockgb.com/

this way you can prove unambiguously that you are unable to operate the vehicle even if you wake up and are over the limit... there.. problem solved. Now lets get back on track about the right to read all communications.

even if they backdoor all chat messages, you can still use your own encryption within that channel. Everyone can do this using free open source software and even custom keyboards in android (I don't use iPhone so I don't know about them).

What happened to good old fashioned spycraft following people around and occasionally plutonium pelleting someone in the leg with an umbrella.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

as I mentioned in an above reply.. what about campervans?

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

well I'll be damned...

What is the legal definition of being in charge?

There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.

Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".

This opens a WHOLE can of worms for me as I do live in the UK.. and I regularly get drunk and sleep in my campervan. According to this particular interpretation, all campervan owners who get drunk and sleep in the van can be arrested. Im thinking that due to there is no legal definition of "in charge" that this could definitely be argued in court.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

from the article. "Hand was parked in a near-campus parking lot, sitting in the driver’s seat with the headlights on and the vehicle cranked, but was asleep with the car in park."

"The vehicle cranked" is the key there.. he is shown to be operating the vehicle while under the influence.. If he was asleep in the car without it being on, I doubt they would have a case.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe".

Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest someone for being drunk and having their car keys in their pocket, or even being asleep in the car while drunk.

This is the problem with the government demanding to read all communications... the idea that they have the right in order to prevent you committing a crime. Its not only impossible to prevent someone committing a crime (anyone can snap and do truly horrible things without prior communique), its insane to think that you can arrest someone for pre-crime.

The role of the government is to pass laws. The role of the police and the justice system is to enforce these laws. It is not their job to spy on all their citizens for events which historically kill fractions of a percent compared to something as trivial as car accidents.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

Australia has ad free tv too, and radio stations and all the same kinds of initiatives as the BBC (admittedly the tv is terrible by comparison to the BBC so) called the ABC.

there are no TV licenses in Australia though.. its just included in your tax which is how it should be here in the UK. Paying people to police the TV license is absolutely retarded

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

Won't someone please think of the children!!

How about this for how to enforce parental controls... Encourage parents to supervise their childrens internet usage and educate the parents how to set up pfsense to control their own home.

I know its not for everyone, however we also have to ask the question, just how big is the problem of internet porn for society when viewed by minors? I don't have kids and haven't seen any studies, so honestly I just don't know.

Surely there are ways that you can educate, inform your kids, and maybe prepare them for what access to an unregulated stream of all of humanities information could contain.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

wow... slavery? really? strawman much?

There is a HUGE difference between forcing someone to work for no money, and expecting an equality of pay and sick leave based on a persons sex.

My whole argument was that in small business where the financial bottom line is tight and every saving makes the difference between success and failure, by introducing discrimination such as this initiative, it actually dis-incentivises the hiring of women. HENCE, in order to establish a balanced workplace it is in your best interests to NOT introduce factors which make hiring men more cost effective. If you believe in equality, then the only solution is "whats good for one is good for all". otherwise you create a situation where you end up incentivising the opposite objective to what you were trying to achieve.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

I feel very sorry for you and others in your position to hear that.

the UK has some very forgiving policies on sick leave (https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave). in fact you don't even have to provide a doctors note if you take just a couple of days off.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

Im not saying its humane, or just, or right. Its business. The reason you point out is exactly what has happened in the past. In fact my mum used to work for a company that straight up fired any female staff in the secretary pool which got married to protect themselves from exactly the losses you speak of.

Luckily we don't live in that world anymore (40 years ago). And we are working to reduce the dis-incentives of hiring women over men. Im living in the UK where recently paternity and maternity leave are inter-changable and can be split between parents. entitling men to equal leave to women to reduce the incentives of hiring men over women.

There are all kinds of times when people become less productive. Im never advocating never hiring a woman, only that whatever benefits you apply to one act as a hiring dis-incentive unless applied by law to both. Its economics, not ethics.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

Oh, sorry to double reply, but I just thought of something devious. What if any of the following apply to the female employee:

Is on birth control to supress having a period.

Has an IUD and is one of the 1 in 5 for whom this stops Having periods for a year.

Has had a hysterectomy.

Has gone through menopause.

Has another condition which causes them to not have periods.

do they have their 12 days ripped from them unceremoniously?

It seems like there are a lot of edge cases here which may provide additional areas to cry "sexism" because for the cases listed above they wont require the 12 extra days, yet without having intimate medical knowledge of your staff, you cannot differentite between one type of non-period having staff member and another (in the "other" case a male).

in any case I'm glad they've done it as a case study on what happens next.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

I totally get your point, and from a capitalist perspective the solution of the media company in the article dis-incentivises hiring women as a dollar per hour of work metric instantly makes hiring a woman less cost effective.

I've seen comments like men don't have the day of pain, so don't "need the holiday" but these people obviously don't own a business or pay other peoples wages. When you are a small business you ensure that you hire people based on the maximum return on investment based on skillset and deliverables. If you have 2 identically skilled and equally hard working employees but one works 12 days less per year and gets the same money, you would hire the one who delivers 12 extra days. If you ignore the sex of the applicants and it was down to a purely financial decision (as it always should be in business, especially publicly traded businesses) then you would be neglecting your responsibilities if you hire someone who costs more and delivers less.

The solution may be simply allow flexi-time. Each member of staff must fulfil X number of hours per week, month, year or whatever slice you decide, and when its performed is up to them. This wouldn't work with List-X or restricted sites, where work must be performed on site, but for something like a media company I'm sure you could work from many suitable locations.

DropbearRob

9 年前議論

I really enjoyed this read. I still look at code I write every year and cringe.

Everything becomes influenced by the flavour of the week.

Don't be so hard on yourself, We all suck in hindsight, but its all about recognising it an constant improvement.

DropbearRob

10 年前議論

I think you need to caveat this only slightly.

1) At the moment when the sea ice breaks off there is no rising in overall level due to fact that the ice displaces the same volume of water as is in it.

2) during the melting phase if the sea water around the ice is greater than 4 degrees, the melting will cause a temporary drop in the local temperature of water causing the water level to in fact drop slightly.

3) in the LONG term, the additional volume of liquid water added by the ice will be warmed and expand causing a slight increase in water level due to thermal expansion (assisted by the change in albedo of the whole system as you mentioned)

DropbearRob

10 年前議論

I save a solid 10.5 hours a week.. that grooming nonsense is for public facing human resources and not a cave dwelling engineer like me.. just put me in front of a computer in a dark room or in the lab with a bunch of hardware leave that grooming shit to the sales force.

DropbearRob

10 年前議論

You're fundamentally wrong on this.

What you are talking about is true only for inductive coupling caused by fluctuating EM waves.

As someone who works in Embedded Electronics and Software for Aerosopace let me drop a little knowledge bomb.

The problem isn't with induction, all the units can be easily shielded from this and they are in EMC chambers every day. A simply faraday cage, some bypass and reservoir capacitors a choke here and there an opto-isolator on box boundaries and bobs your uncle.

The real problem with High Energy Particles (Neutrons, Gamma particles, Protons, etc) is that they displace atoms in your semiconductor lattice and change the doping densities and behaviours of your junctions. Causing your semiconductor to fail... HARD.

When we buy in components, we tend to buy rad-hard devices which have special considerations taken into account when designing the semiconductors because when you're in space, you're bombarded with LOADS of high energy particles all the time, and its not just enough to have memory TMR, you need RAD-HARDENED semiconductors.

DropbearRob

10 年前議論

I think its cool that they at least gave it a shot, but in the process it used up their stocks of unicorn blood.

DropbearRob

10 年前議論

Im so excited by this in particular

"Switch statements with patterns

We’re generalizing the switch statement so that:

•You can switch on any type (not just primitive types)

•Patterns can be used in case clauses

•Case clauses can have additional conditions on them

Here’s a simple example:

switch(shape)

{

    case Circle c:

        WriteLine($"circle with radius {c.Radius}");

        break;

    case Rectangle s when (s.Length == s.Height):

        WriteLine($"{s.Length} x {s.Height} square");

        break;

    case Rectangle r:

        WriteLine($"{r.Length} x {r.Height} rectangle");

        break;

    default:

        WriteLine("<unknown shape>");

        break;

    case null:

        throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(shape));

}

There are several things to note about this newly extended switch statement:

•The order of case clauses now matters: Just like catch

clauses, the case clauses are no longer necessarily disjoint, and the first one that matches gets picked. It’s therefore important that the square case comes before the rectangle case above. Also, just like with catch clauses, the compiler will help you by flagging obvious cases that can never be reached. Before this you couldn’t ever tell the order of evaluation, so this is not a breaking change of behavior.

•The default clause is always evaluated last: Even though the null case above comes last, it will be checked before the default clause is picked. This is for compatibility with existing switch semantics. However, good practice would usually have you put the default clause at the end.

•The null clause at the end is not unreachable: This is because type patterns follow the example of the current is expression and do not match null. This ensures that null values aren’t accidentally snapped up by whichever type pattern happens to come first; you have to be more explicit about how to handle them (or leave them for the default clause).

Pattern variables introduced by a case ...: label are in scope only in the corresponding switch section."

コメント