991–1000 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PAYG plans do.
Don't they almost all work on a "goodybag" model now where you top-up £x for the next month of tens of GB of data, hundreds or unlimited minutes, and unlimited texts? Using "real" balance is uncommon in my experience
My father doesn't and so pays PAYG rates when he uses his. Which probably makes sense for him, given his infrequent use pattern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a pet theory when there's proof they have engaged in it through five eyes. We're not saying it respects the constitution or its intent. We're saying it's what happens. Black CIA sites weren't legal either, nor was torture.
> It's not a pet theory when there's proof they have engaged in it through five eyes What proof? You would think after all the leaks there have been, some proof would exist. Instead, you cling to a conspiracy theory based on a misunderstanding of an agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please see this response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42973646
Thanks for confirming that they're indeed extremist, right in point#1 of that link. "Nothing extreme about disavowing a human rights convention" my ass, lol
It is disingenous at best to claim that leaving the ECHR means that the UK will abandon or downgrade human rights, unless you have detailed insider information on the proposed British Bill of Rights, and if you're in a position to analyse the relative strength of the ECHR vs the BBR.
I am confident that a new-found ability to send rapists and murderers out of the UK and back to their home country will IMPROVE the human rights of UK citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that use of the phrase, sovereign citizens try really hard to stay within the law.
But this is true, right? The whole movement is based on their legal theory giving them rights to behave in a certian way, and the idea that everyone else wastes that 'right' through ignorance and state manipulation. It's dumb, but not dishonest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite right. The Poles built a simpler machine that they called a "Bomba", a pre-cursor to the Bombes. Named for a dessert in a cafe near the Polish intelligence service offices where those early codebreakers worked, and because the French also received the intelligence from Poland, they transposed the name. :-) In July 1939 the Poles had to hand everything over to the British because they knew it was all about t…
So in short: Poles did all the important parts, like actually breaking the code, Brits just throwed some money at the problem, helping to scale the Bombs.
Nobody - even the Polish - can quantify the value of the each part of the process, but your rendering of what happened is clearly inaccurate by any and all reasonable measures.
Democracies around the world are increasingly looking to surveil and expose private data of their citizens, and introducing laws where simple act of defiance will become criminal. I believe we should increasingly turn to steganography as a way to ensure our privacy (obviously, combined with encryption). Something that provides simple plausible deniability but lots of data to use as a carrying medium should become the…
> Something that provides simple plausible deniability but lots of data to use as a carrying medium should become the default selection (like "personal videos" — a great use for our phone cameras to build an extensive collection) [...] No. I want all of my data end-to-end encrypted. In transit, at rest, everywhere and at all times. Privacy is a human right. Security of their citizens is what these governments vowed t…
This protects you even if we — as citizens — fail to stop governments from going rogue and forbidding encryption (some of us remember US export controls on strong encryption that was only lifted 2 decades or so ago).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to think that we've reached the point now that there will be mass resistance to threats to privacy and freedom of speech in the UK, but Britons are such a docile, accepting, and pliant people when it comes to standing up to Big Brother.
Why now? I gave up on this at least 10 years ago. If you can't even get techy people to think about the ethical ramifications of encryption etc then it's a lost cause. What makes you think now it's different? They said it couldn't get much worse 10 years ago, as did they 20. Do you really think the UK population has a breaking point where they will suddenly understand privacy and why it's important? The UK population…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a... unique take. You might want to check out the Century of Humiliation. [1] The one thing you do have right is that "good relations" in contemporary times seem to translate into "completely subservient, even to point of a willingness to engaging in self detrimental behavior if demanded." What happened around the second Bush administration was that China no longer had to be subservient, because their economy…
> about joining NATO in the Clinton era Same way the Soviets wanted to “join” NATO in the 50s. To effectively castrate it and make it ineffective. It would have been easier for them to politically and economically dominate Eastern European countries from “within”. > Hegemony in a nutshell From Chinese and Russian perspective sure. Especially Russian politicians have seen the entire world through an exceptionally impe…