cornyNetHandle

No, they are a digital ledger.

A true digital cash transaction would only need communication between the two parties involved, rather than a working connection to a third entity.

Was trying more for reducto ad absurdum. I didn't come up with the idea of having laws to separate runners from walkers, you did. I was just exploring the enforcement mechanism for such a suggestion.

I hope I haven't ruined the mundanity. Is what Wednesdays are for.

Ok, so licences for runners then, as you may need to have a test to see that people know the rules and presumably ban people from running if they break them.

In a world where there were only pedestrians, would you want them to start having licences? Per mile, walking is exceedingly dangerous compared to other modes of transport.

Roads in the UK have generally had some work done on them since the automobile was invented.

Saying that they are designed for bike traffic, when they are continuously rebuilt to the needs of motorised vehicles, is a bit like complaining that it is problematic marching a centuria down the middle of the A59 out of York, given that is what the Romans designed it for.

And we do have a solution to this problem, it is that of creating dedicated bike routes, like the Bristol to Bath cycle path, or where they have to run alongside roads with cars doing 60mph and above, keeping them separated by more than just paint.

It clearly does provide some advertisement for you, even if you do not want or require it. The general public are being informed about an item on your CV.

I am sure that there is a lot more to this story than I know. I only just encountered it and newspapers are notoriously bad at accurately portraying anything remotely technical.

I refuse to talk about only things I know. Nobody else does, and it would make finding out about new things difficult.

I am sorry to hear that you had a bad experience here, I have had numerous shitty clients over the years, however if your client does have a case to answer, the wise thing to do is go down the legal route and do not air any dirty laundry until after the dust settles.

You are not going to like this, but if you get enraged by someone throwing around the word unprofessional, then you are unprofessional. You might be the best coder on earth, but the professional response to being called unprofessional is to ask for written examples and a followup meeting, not rage.

As far as the plan to save up in order to go off and sue people whose fathers are famous and well connected lawyers, I do not know the details, however on the surface it doesn't sound all that good a route to happiness, but at least you will find it easier to accomplish now that you have had your work promoted in the national press.

If I am then I am unable to.

There isn't a provable way to know if other animals even exist, including yourself for anyone else, let alone if they experience pain. Positive proofs are tricky things and we don't have very many of them outside mathematics.

You shouldn't be suing them, you should be thanking them.

Whatever your perceived status was before having a New Yorker article about the success of a commercial project that you helped create, after the article is published, it is definitely that of 'professional', even if the text of the article describes you as an 'amateur'.

Unless you manage to act exceedingly unprofessionally about the whole thing, say for instance, threatening to sue them after essentially being given free advertising.

Perhaps it needs a mow and some weeding.

Am trying out the brave browser at the moment, it does that pretty well, though for any site that doesn't just work in brave by turning on scripts for a page, I still tend to use firefox or opera, rather than enabling more things on brave.

You may have a point there, but Disney and the Trump administration are, at least publicly, on very different sides in the culture wars currently dominating political discourse.

Only two of them are tabloid. The rest are broadsheet and telly.

In the UK, regulation is a serious discussion point when discussing journalism, both from the perspective of things like the tabloid phone hacking and also from the perspective of restrictions placed on broadsheet reporting, e.g. the Trafigura super-injunction.

Also, what role were you taking in the newspaper projects you were involved with?

Perhaps I hang around with very different journalists than you do.

I don't know, in the UK the discussions about the future of journalism centre more around press regulation and what are the acceptable limits of tabloid excess.

How any new legislation on this issue may play out over the next year, brings to mind the old theological saw regarding an irresistible force meeting an immovable object, given the large political incompatibility of the current players.

Well, there are many kinds of regulation, as not all things are alike.

I hardly think that you have identified journalism's biggest achilles heel.

Journalism as a business and the journalists who work within it, by and large, do not insist on the concept of quality journalism, or think that most people care, let alone that they care enough to pay for it.

If they did then they would mainly be producing meticulously researched and in depth content with no advertising and paywalls as default.

While this does exist, it is the periphery of journalism. The mainstream within the industry being the concept of presenting news as team sports to capture market segments for advertisers.

Also, context and perspective do not define truth. Logically, the whole truth regarding an event must contain the perspectives and contexts relating to it, rather than being defined by them.

I started playing 3d games with Elite on the BBC Micro.

Edit - and am currently wallowing in nostalgia after downloading Oolite.

"Homicide is the killing of a human being due to the act or failure to act of another. Criminal homicides include murder and manslaughter. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but is rarely prosecuted."

from definitions.uslegal.com

Agents, jet, Quantico? No.

Collect some evidence? Absolutely.

In the very real sense that laws are regulations. Calls to SWAT are regulated through the law and backed by the force of the state. The mechanism is regulated by punitive measures after the fact, rather than some sort of regulatory filter, due to the nature of emergency telephone services.

Of the many and varied lies that could be told to cause incredible inconvenience through the medium of misinformed police, only a few will trigger a SWAT team.

SWAT teams are not deployed by the police when they think that it is likely that they will need to behave inconveniently to someone, they are deployed when the police think that it is likely that there will be a need for overwhelming deadly force.

The point of falsely triggering a SWAT team is not to cause inconvenience through police.

The point of triggering a SWAT team is to deliberately risk someone's life.

Great white sharks rarely eat people.

However, if I admit to having deliberately pushed someone into the water with a great white shark to see what would happen and then they get eaten, quoting the probabilities is not going to impress a court very much.