pascalmemories

Part of the reason I love watching Scandinavian TV is to listen for snippets that sound just like Scottish-variant English (Scots is something else and neither are to be confused with Scotch).

To my ear the snippets even sound like they're said in a Scottish accent and emphasizes that there's no such thing as a 'pure' language as they all have elements of others which have migrated in.

I would be interested to see if there was a correlation between the linguistic mix and the DNA origins of these populations - perhaps a cool hypothesis/experiment for someone.

Yes, that's why Marks & Spencer in the UK operate the scheme and share the system with other major retailers in the UK. They are able to use the UK prevention and detection of crime exception to avoid data protection laws.

I presume that's who Store-Mart are, but there are others doing similar stuff.

e.g. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/advice/t-455695.html http://www.urban75.com/Action/cctv.html

My guess is the 'new owner' was involved in trafficking people for sex exploitation (the overnight journey to the shelter in France - somewhere vulnerable people could be easily tricked with a work offer and easily moved within the EU due to the lack of internal borders).

Meeting the 'Russian' woman and going along with her irrational story and the suggestion of drugs being supplied and her 'loving' him all sounds like an exploitative relationship. Consistent with a sex trafficker.

Swapping SIMs (to change phone identity - albeit poorly) and only using for a few weeks indicates someone used to taking steps to avoiding tracking/identification. Not someone new to criminal activity nor evading detection.

Being overnight at homeless shelters suggests he was more likely exploiting women at these shelters rather than him being homeless and sleeping there (I'm astonished the filmmaker started for feel sorry for him at the idea he was homeless - that's just naive; this was someone already demonstrated to be heavily involved in criminality).

Trying to confront him at the property and finding an aggressive person with a strong smell of drugs at least gave a reality check. This is a dangerous criminal and it was reckless to go near him.

Every time I hear it, it is offensive. Let me explain why.

It's often quoted in the context of a relatively young person who has died and people discussing the young and sudden death as 'well, they were diabetic, so they died because they just kept eating donuts and didn't stop when they were told'. That brings no comfort to the family and it is often completely untrue. Most diabetics do try very hard to deal with their condition responsibly but simply stopping eating carbohydrate is not really a 'cure' or answer to the condition. Some may chose to deal with it, in part, by doing this because they feel that helps them specifically. But that is not the case for everyone.

Anyone who said a cancer patient died because they brought it upon themselves would rightfully expect to be ostracized (or worse) but, for some bizarre reason, people are happy to unquestioningly accept the point for diabetes, but not cancer (another disease with complex reasons behind it).

Addressing some other comments, insulin resistance can be a natural condition due to genetic factors and occur in the absence of excessive carbohydrate consumption. It can also develop in type 1 diabetes as a reaction to the artificial insulin introduced to control the condition (GM 'human' insulins can help but sometimes switching to Bovine/Pork insulins helps - again, it's complex and not well understood). Low carbohydrate consumption may mask the condition, but the person is still insulin resistant/diabetic regardless of whether they eat carbohydrate or not. Diabetes is not cure-able (yet - there are pioneering attempts).

I know diabetics devastated with guilt that they've somehow caused their diabetes and are responsible because someone told them it is because - based on no evidence at all - they eat too much sugar.

Perpetrating this myth and forcing guilt upon diabetics is potentially psychologically damaging, especially to a group know to have a higher propensity to depression because of the condition.

My final point on the matter, some diabetics have a form which is virtually impossible to manage manually and the only avenue for treatment is to use the new insulin pump technology which can combine continuous glucose monitoring with ultra-fine insulin control (complex time slot/insulin sensitivity/carbohydrate dosage calculations) in order to control the condition. This is showing excellent results but does come with considerable costs - although these are a small fraction of the cost of amputations, blindness or organ failure which can otherwise result.

Diabetics generally have lost the ability to process carbs (usually by eating too many)

That's an outrageous misrepresentation of diabetes (all types).

Diabetics process carbs exactly like everyone else. The body breaks them down and throws the sugars into the bloodstream in the perfectly normal way.

The lack of insulin (generally Type 1) or the resistance to insulin present (generally Type 2), means the cells struggle to process the glucose, leading to uncontrolled rise in glucose levels to dangerous levels.

The body has a poor 'over-limit' response to glucose and tries rather inefficiently to dump the excess in urine which has limited success. As a consequence lots of short-term and long-term damage to the body results - some of which is still being discovered.

Causes of diabetes have multiple possible elements, including none, one or more of : genetics, environmental [e.g. infection] and lifestyle.

"eating too many [carbs]" is a myth and intended to be derisive and offensively stereotype diabetics as being wholly responsible for their condition - just dressed up as a more socially acceptable victim-blame than saying they're receiving God's punishment for having sugar in their coffee.

Science has conclusively proven diabetes is not some simple response to over-indulgence in carbohydrate.

Stop making offensive and untrue claims.

Looks exactly like driving competency. Over 93% of US drivers self-rate their driving as above average (even significantly above average). It's very frightening to see that 36% rate themselves as above average drivers whilst sending text messages.

There's even a name for it, Illusory Superiority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

edit: added some of the latest figures from the Wikipedia article.

A quick Google search suggests the flight [in 1980, the word "cockpit" was used as people weren't vocal about being offended by it] voice recorder would be analog (just like an old fashioned cassette recorder?) so would be readable very easily but probably need some processing to overcome damaged sections. Exposure to UV for extended periods of time could cause serious deterioration, so reading it ASAP is probably sensible.

The flight data recorder could be more difficult but if there is a model number, more technical data would be available, again via friendly Google.

The issue with a non-official person reading is that any results are not "official" findings, so don't get official flight crash investigation status. However, since none of the official authorities in either country are interested, that's probably not important.

The only thing people should be concerned with would be if there are any criminal sanctions available if authorities get pissed off at being shown up for their lack of interest/incompetence/failing of some sort. It's standard in the US for authorities to strike back and shoot the messenger (sadly, literally in some cases).

Perhaps a low profile recovery and gentle leak of the information would be safer for those involved (e.g. tell the family members who are interested, like Judith Kelly). The internet will take care of the subsequent publication.

Don't forget Arkell v Pressdram too.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html

Mayer was probably too new and too scared to deal with this, especially when she had to think about her new baby.

OK, I normally think misogyny claims are over-blown and people are way too sensitive.

But your comment positively reeks of misogyny.

Rather than go for a down-vote, because you're able to edit your comment, I think you should reconsider the phrasing and delete the misogyny. If your comment doesn't stand without it, I believe deleting it would add to rather than subtract from, the discussion.

Personally I really like the new Draytek models (like the 2925 and 2860 series). Lots of nice features like central access point management (Draytek APs only) and central VPN management to configure remote Draytek routers are great features on top of fail-over/load balanced multi- WAN and even a model with built-in LTE modem as a WAN link. They're intended for always-on/highly reliable situations. You can even pair 2 units into an HA cluster.

They're very popular in Europe but oddly never seem to have had the same impact in North America, although you can find them if you look around a bit.

They did do a linux based variant at one point but switched back to their custom rolled OS a couple of years back. Not sure of the story there or if it's possible to do a custom firmware. There was something on google code at one point.

My comments are far from an attack; an attack would have been more than summarizing his comments in 2 lines and then pointing out there was a discrepancy.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting anyone should 'just drill anywhere' from ?

As an old person or a disabled person, looking on AirBnB, I can see what the apartment has and how it is laid out (provided good pictures and description are provided).

Being old or disabled does not stop me being mentally competent to decide for myself whether I'm capable of climbing stairs or negotiating the apartment. It is actually a very offensive and discriminatory thing to suggest either of these personal attributes make me mentally incompetent and this is the core of what makes such discrimination offensive - and illegal - in many jurisdictions around the world.

If there is a legal requirement to have safety rails on stairs (or any other regulation), saying the building is X years old is not an excuse for failure to comply. If you're worried about damage being caused in trying to fit them yourself, you hire a professional to do it instead and then it's their job to ensure the building is still sound after the installation. You're operating what is essentially a business, so costs like that are reasonable business expenses to offset against your profits and the result is you get an improved, safer, house for you and guests and essentially get the guests to pay for it, making you ahead.

I don't understand why you're so upset.

If I understand correctly, you're happy to be the one discriminating against disabled people, old people and people with children.

But you're not happy if you're on the receiving end of any discrimination.

Don't you see the contradiction there ?

Anti-discrimination policies are about ensuring people have equal access to services and facilities (whether it's contentious toilets or hotels or whatever).

You seem to indicate in your jurisdiction that renting an apartment without safety rails is OK, but in many others it's not OK and you'd be in violation of safety laws (and also discrimination laws). It doesn't matter that you live there sometime - you're renting it as a facility and should be expected to comply with safety and whatever other laws apply. And if you do it via AirBnB, you also need to comply with their rules regardless of legal requirements. And AirBnB get to change the rules when they want and you either agree or stop using them.

Looks like BT back to their old patent troll tricks :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Telecommunications_Plc...

Sure looks like it : http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-08-29/scientists-on-nasa...

I was browsing in Chrome with a brand new phone which thankfully did not have anything on it. Despite clearing all the app data (which normally cleans out browse-by if it's just annoying page javascript in my experience) the damn vibrate, play noises and throw multiple pop-ups just kept on coming and would not let me close them.

I had to resort to a factory wipe to clean it; it was not a great deal since it was a phone I'd literally today just taken out the box, but if it had been something I had data on and used for a while, it would have been a serious PITA.

I suspect the ad network malware pumper saw the visit spike and decided the traffic volume warranted an exploit delivery instead of their usual junk ad content.

CAREFUL! That link has a boobytrapped payload that roots Android devices and installs malware (latest Android 6.0 device). Probably a dodgy ad network injecting it.

Best visit with noscript enabled.

Look, this is the internet generation - who are people going to believe, Facebook or the actual real inventor? Of course it will be Facebook !

(Hint: https://www.google.ca/search?q=sarcasm)

The submission page forced omission of the rather damning "fictitious security trustmark was ‘deceptive’" from the title.

Intentionally making up fake security trust logo to deceive people takes this from being simply bad at security right into the arena of knowing you're bad at security and setting out to deceive people instead of doing anything to improve security.

On a side note, I just saw AM advertising on TV the other night - they'll not be so happy this joint government report has come out just at the time they believed the heat had died down and were back to business.

One solution could be to get rid of insurance scam (yes I call it a scam) and then lets hospitals/doctors compete with transparent pricing in a free market.

I don't understand the American (and it is American) obsession with having a free market in healthcare.

Why do Americans not look at public provision, paid for via your tax system? Canada does it, so it demonstrably does work in North America, Europe does it, with varying degrees of efficiency, but it basically works.

No-one in Europe or Canada lives "in fear having an accident or getting sick" because they know healthcare is provided by the state in the same way as education, fire services and police service are all provided as a public service, for the general good of society, via taxation.

Americans are happy to send their children to school, to be able to call the fire department or the police (we'll set aside the clear problems of US policing - you generally still call the police when you see a bank robbery, so there is a degree of confidence in them still).

So why is healthcare the exception? What sort of mentality says I am to blame for getting sick and told if I cannot afford medical treatment, I should not have become ill?

No, vandalism requires actual physical damage of some sort.

The article is essentially the legal reasoning from the Nevada Court of Appeal - some fairly experienced legal minds examining the situation (in this case, via an appeal).

They're fairly clear in how they examine the situation and that no accepted definition of trespass applies and suggest some recourse to 'victims' who could, rather than incur huge legal fees, simply set their own competing projector to overcome the undesired images. An example of appeal judges being fairly pragmatic and laying a foundation for lawyers handling future cases to suggest better resolutions than expensive litigation - if only they'd read appeal court decisions /and remember them/.

However, they do also suggest there is a case to consider the situation a nuisance (s.4) and take action that way.

Given they make no mention of vandalism as an avenue, it seems quite evident the experienced legal experts suggest the situation is one of nuisance and should be handled as that if resorting to law.

Why should anyone on HN argue with a qualified legal opinion by suggesting alternative legal strategies?

The US/EU has a stronger freedom of the press tradition

It's not that clear cut. The UK routinely serves 'D' notices and the press defer (leading to much abuse) - here's a nice primer https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/31/d-notice-syste...

Anyone stumbling across their own state's payload and attempting to publish details is likely to rapidly receive a visit and be put in the picture that they've to drop it.

The UK even uses the Wassenaar arrangement to stifle general discussion of virus and threats : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/03/northumbria_universi...

Admittedly there's no actual murders or suspected ones (that I've ever heard of) but the polonium tea example was not about computer virus revelations either.

What's Danger Mouse?

Is it a translated version of Donnie Murdo? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-5hII715_s

No Google did not. I just looked.

Not only does 'Palestine' appear on the map, there are multiple border lines drawn, representing the various assorted claims, counter-claims and disputes in the area.

And the cherry on the icing is that the first picture shown in the map is of the Al-Aqusa mosque in Jerusalem, which is still technically administered by Jordan who historically held the territory, so is arguably Jordanian (through historic domain), Israeli (current domain), Palestinian (through their current claim) and international by the UN intention in 1948.

I don't understand the obsession by some to bring HN into disputes like Israel/Palestine through citing some tangential technology connection.

I think articles like this should have to be moderated before they are allowed on and then only when they show a strong technology basis and are relevant. HN is not your facebook wall - use your facebook account for this sort of nonsense.

I'm not sure if you're being ironic ? The Wassenaar Arrangement already applies to both conventional arms and computer exploit technologies. That's what you're referring to, correct?

And tomorrows reddit posting:

"Help, I've just been forced into an orange jumpsuit, blindfolded and put on a plane to Gitmo. Should I be worried?"

Israel does it, but only for Arabic or Muslim tourists

Arabic is a language and speaking it is absolutely no guarantee that you are a muslim. Lots of non-muslims speak Arabic both inside and outside Israel, including a significant number of Israeli Jews who routinely engage in good mannered and friendly commerce and friendship with fellow Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Druze or Bedouin. Being bi-lingual Arabic & Hebrew is quite common in Israel. I visited a school in Tel Aviv where Muslim and Jewish children were taught together in Arabic and Hebrew; they were all fluently bi-lingual and completely integrated. They are part of a long term plan for the future Israel by removing barriers and segregation and building an integrated country together.

Having visited Israel multiple times, I know for a fact that speaking Arabic does not get you refused entry nor does it single you out for prejudiced treatment.

However, a track record of making anti-Israel statements - not the language you speak nor your religion - will get you questioned and may lead to refused entry. Most people refused entry this way are not Muslim, they are white westerners from left-leaning Christian or secular groups who are active in BDS. That's exactly the same as a track record of making anti-America statements will get you questioned at US borders and quite probably refused entry (see other comments in this thread for examples of that). Israel are doing nothing different from what America or Canada or the UK or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or any other country does.

I see what you did there. You're suggesting a moral high ground by insinuating you are against prejudice but are really being prejudiced against Israel for doing something that every country does. I just don't know if its through ignorance or if it's an intentional slur.

I've always been reasonably confident that if I'm out of the country, the American embassy will help me.

You and many Americans. Helpfully aided in that belief by TV programs like Beyond Borders where US authorities act as the World Police jumping into other countries and taking over investigations and rescuing US citizens from any and every scrape they get themselves into.

Outside your own country, your local authorities have very little ability to do much and certainly won't help you in any relatively minor scrapes (nor in most major ones either). Although the US exerts more external influence than it really should, that's limited to guarding US interests (like copyright protection or drug related things).

Unless you happen to be key to US national interest, you'll be on your own, apart from a visit in prison from the embassy staff to let you know that they know you're there - just like the citizens of every other country, as Andrew Nõmm found out.

all he has to do is wait for the statute of limitations to expire.

The Swedish investigation may well expire (parts have already). This has never really been about the Swedish charges.

The English charges (relating to failing to comply with bail) do not expire. Very few offences in English law expire - something I'm sure will surprise Americans who are used to relatively short statute of limitations on even some serious crimes (e.g. the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations). England routinely prosecutes and jails people for alleged offences 50 & 60 years ago; many are elderly men in their 80's & 90's with little chance of mounting any sort of defence due to their age, but that's another issue.

Arrange cannot wait out the English charges and England is well documented as an enthusiastic participant in torture and rendition of both it's own citizens and foreign nationals. The UK-US extradition treaty is a shocking travesty of justice and is routinely used to send people from the UK to the US for activity carried out in the UK and considered lawful in the UK but which has upset US authorities. [1]

He has good reason to remain in the Embassy. Unfortunately he's likely to be there for many years to come and either be grabbed when he requires hospital treatment at some point in the future, or, the UK will decide it can live with some diplomatic protests and expulsion of UK diplomats after sending the SAS in to grab him from the embassy and hand him over to the US.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14339901

[edit: I see a comment attributes creation to Ken Dakin instead of Dr. Robert Mais. I've made some adjustments as a result.]

Sometimes I cannot fathom the logic of Wikipedia, especially wanting to delete this article. From my understanding of the discussion, this is because the entry was made by one of the development team of WRS.

That's the same logic that would have articles created by Albert Einstein deleted because he was documenting his own work and that alone is sufficient reason to discard it, regardless of the actual content or how noteworthy it is/was.

I find the logic perverse as it actively discriminates against potentially valuable information being documented and detailed by original creators; the WRS gives good prior art on some uses of spreadsheet concepts (especially across time dimensions). You don't need to think too much to understand the value in documenting such a concept, especially by the creator/first implementor (which in normal mortal circles would be considered a coup).

While the intention is to stop any random person filling wikipedia with their random nonsense thoughts, it seems quite evident from a quick review of the article that it has merit on a number of levels.

I wonder what Ken Dakin did to upset the Wiki-Overlords?

As the article mentions, UK agencies have always conducted intense snooping under the 1984 Telecommunications act (spying suggests some target or objective in mind when what's happening is really just hoovering up data on people, 'just in case it's needed'). The 1984 act was a useful fig leaf to cover what had been a long-standing activity (as witnessed by the preposterous Wilson Doctrine to supposedly protect MPs from the snooping that everyone else was subject to).

The UK Government loves making supposed legal rules for what is essentially a no-holds-barred snoop-fest. Any legislation which would limit what are, in effect, unrestrained powers, are neutered. e.g. The Data Protection Act has blanket exclusions for "prevention and detection of crime" (handy for snooping employers too!) and the Protection From Harassment Act specifically permits law enforcement bodies to harass people without the ability of people to seek redress [that bill itself was initially a device created for Huntingdon Life Sciences to have a way to deal with animal rights protesters (which was a real problem - no matter where you sit on that issue); it's since been usefully pivoted by those being harassed by debt collectors to turn the tables and gain compensation, so it's not all bad.[1]).

This new law will do nothing to protect UK residents, nor anyone unfortunate enough to have any data transiting UK routing nodes, where their data is recorded by bulk surveillance.

The pretense that something is being improved or balances and safeguards of peoples liberty are somehow being created, is insulting.

[1] http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/torts/49567.fullarticle