k-mcgrady

180g + color isn't the standard though, it's the premium version. At the moment it seems like most new stuff is released at that weight but older stuff is much thinner. Hopefully they'll start producing more of that again because £20-25 (which seems to be the standard price here) is pretty pricey.

Thought that was totally made up. Apparently it was coined in 1975 to describe remote sex where sensations are sent over a datalink.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledildonics

My guess is they're referring to the impact the porn industry has had on the direction of technology (e.g. VHS/Betamax). If this kind of tech finds success in porn it won't be long until you're sitting in a special seat to watch regular movies and experiencing the sensations of a character as he gets in a fight (or something like that).

Amount of money collected != scale of attack. Number of machines + importance of companies/systems = scale of attack.

>> so there's not even the excuse that some Linux or BSD distribution wasn't production-ready

Possible there's a lot of custom software used across the navy which is only support on Windows XP. Maybe too costly to rewrite than for another system and have it interoperate with other ships etc. on the old (current) system.

Might as well jump in here with another approach (not suggesting yours doesn't work of coursE). Like you it sounds, I've been plagued by hayfever all my life (to the point where it's completely debilitating for a week or two each year and not as bad but still really bad for about 6-8 weeks total). Got fexofenadine this year for the first time (prescription in the UK, not OTC) and a couple of those per day has literally changed my life. I've went from having to take time off work to 99% normal. If the standard OTC stuff just isn't working give it a try. Worked instantly for me.

Maybe that's how the pianissimo sections are supposed to work. They're quiet so that you have to pay close attention and strain slightly to hear them so that when the forte part returns you are giving it your full attention :)

I'm a huge electronic music fan (and of much less commercial stuff than my example) so it's not a slight on it at all. The problem isn't the style of music. The problem is that DJ's play recorded music and all recorded music (regardless of genre) is heavily compressed so has much less dynamic range. A live band will be much less compressed so there will be much greater and more frequent variety in volume. If a metal band were to get up and play their CD instead of playing live the same issue would occur.

It had been a couple of years since I last submitted an app until this week. I was amazed. Within 24 hours I'd been rejected (app is UK only so they had some questions as they're testing in the US), had a few back and forth's on the resolution centre (all answered in 1 hour) and I was on the store. I think it was less than 36 hours. Crazy how much better it is. I remember being thrilled when it was 4-5 days (down from 10-14 days) a couple of years ago.

Electronic music itself is the problem too. If you go and see a live band there's some dynamic range but when you see a DJ the music is at it's peak level for 95% of the time.

There was a music festival about 2 miles from my home a few years ago. On the night the Foo Fighters played we could hear some noise occasionally but never for more than a few seconds. It went up and down. The second night Avicii played. I could hear it clear all night. It wasn't louder (as it was in a residential area so volume was limited) but it was at the peak level for most of the night.

>> It sure will cost some of the profit

All profits are re-invested with TFL so I don't think cost (within reason) would be a major concern.

I'm pretty sure they do this. I go to gigs often and most sound tech's now walk around with iPad's/iPhone's during the soundcheck using them to measure levels. I think the problem is more than most venues will have a lot of speakers setup up around the stage (sides, above sometimes too) and that's it. So if it's a big venue the volume is necessary to make sure the people at the back are experiencing it properly too. Sound desks are often centre back of the room so that's where things tend to sound best. If your nearer the speakers you'll often miss things (for example you'll see someone playing a guitar solo and won't be able to hear it, if you go back towards the sound desk it'll be much more balanced).

Again, I agree with everything in your post - however that has nothing to do with access I don't believe. None of those things are good obviously but the only way they would effect access would be if people considered the long term issues you've mentioned and decided university wasn't worth those costs.

Oh I know my point was, although US universities may be more expensive maybe that doesn't impact on access if loans (even if they aren't interest free) are easy to get.

Are loans maybe very easy to access? So although you'll come out debt-ridden is the point that anyone can get the money for higher education?

You can get some money together, go and buy a laptop, connect to free public wifi. The government cannot ban you from using it if you complete those steps. i.e. they cannot be the only thing preventing you from accessing the internet. If you have no money or no way of buying a computer or no way of accessing a connection that's on you, the government isn't required to give you those things for free. Huge difference between the two concepts and very much not word games.

My thinking was same as the parent. Preventing access would involve telling someone who owns a computer and could, for example, connect to public wifi, that they are not allowed to do that and will be punished for doing so.

I think this would be relevant to someone who has committed a crime using a computer and remains banned from using the internet even after finishing a prison sentence (like the kid in the movie Hackers). It doesn't sound like that can happen now.

Being Swiss is it subject to the same EU privacy protections?

Thanks for the link to EDRi. I hadn't heard of them (although it looks like there is some affiliation with the UK Open Rights Group who I am aware of). Besides Privacy International, whom I'm also familiar with, are there any other non-profit's working in the privacy sphere within Europe that you know of? It's an area I'm interested in getting involved in in the future.

I wish we had more European based alternative services that I could switch to. With email the standard response to dumping Gmail seems to be FastMail (non-EU) and I haven't seen anything high-quality within the EU. Same goes for lots of other services.

If anyone reading has some suggestions for EU based alternatives to popular websites/apps I'd love to hear.

Maybe the EU/US Privacy Shield will help handle situations like the above.

With the exception of this news the other things OP mentioned have been being worked on for several years. It's just that anytime this stuff is passed member states are given a couple of years to implement it. Completely unrelated to Brexit.

>> They can, but thankfully most people seeking to do us harm (and most people in general) are incompetent. Even the most seasoned computer criminals get careless and make mistakes.

People wishing to do us harm don't need computers at all. Just look at the 3 attacks in London in the last few months (Westminster, London Bridge, Finsbury Park). All that is required is a driving license to rent a van and the want to drive it at people at speed. Any person willing to do harm can go out and do it this afternoon without any planning. If we give up our freedoms so that the government can spy more effectively the terrorists will just do more of the above style of attacks.

>> we would be pretty much back to where we were a couple of decades ago. I suppose the government would need to employee more real people to monitor other real people.

My view is - why is that a bad thing? We didn't live in some crazy unsafe time then and I don't think it'll be any different now.

However what if I was wrong and the world did become less safe? We need to start looking at 'safety' thorough the bigger picture. If this regulation really did make it harder to catch e.g. terrorists and there were 1-3 more attacks a year with 50 deaths total should we give up our privacy to prevent that given the consequences of giving up privacy to save those 50 lives? That loss of life would obviously be tragic but in the grand scheme of things it's a tiny number. I've seen governments take away people's freedoms to stop violence and keep people safe. It generally doesn't make much difference. And if we let the government take away this freedom how long until they take away another? How long until we start letting them take away freedoms that only serve to frustrate the bad guys and fuel further violence (again this has happened in the past).

Criminal age of responsibility for federal crimes is 11 years.

Thanks for explaining further. I see your points but I'd add one which I'd argue is an important (though obviously not the only) goal of the law - punishment/deterrence. If the girl committed the acts while also experiencing metal health problems that needs to be taken into consideration (maybe mandatory mental health treatment or something rather than prison) but at the end of the day she contributed significantly to a vulnerable person losing their life so she will have to lose her own freedom for a period of time in some way.

I think that would satisfy the victims relatives to some degree. As for the 'true causes that led the the death' that seems pretty obvious to me from the facts - she was the cause. He had stepped off the ledge so to speak and if she hadn't intervened and told him to get back in the car it's likely he wouldn't have died that day. When considering her guilt that's all that matters. Why the victim was suicidal in the first place is irrelevant to establishing her part in the incident.

Why differentiate between intoxication and mental illness? Surely someone with severe enough mental illness that they're on the brink of suicide is much more suggestible than someone who is drunk.

Agreed.

Going by the definition in the linked page what do you think isn't satisfied?

>> Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.

The victim got out of the car and only got back in because the defendant told him to.

>> The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.

She may not have intended to kill him but given she knew of the poor mental state he was in, plus the fact he had just backed out of killing himself, it seems reckless to then tell him to get back into the car.

>> The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

As above really.

I guess that's the precedent set here. That there is no difference between saying it in person/phone/text.