GG news of the World

[Bongo]

I wouldn't say it was a defence of RB and the NOTW but it's good to take notes of the caveats they have added as it essentially means that the headline that the story has in quite a few tabloids might well be bollocks, or at least part of it might be.

That was the point I was making really.

[Manuel]

How do they know that her voicemail wasn't activated until the last 18 months?

[boldie]

How do they know that her voicemail wasn't activated until the last 18 months?

They tried listening in before then, ldo.

[Manuel]

How do they know that her voicemail wasn't activated until the last 18 months?

They tried listening in before then, ldo.

If that was the reason NOTW sure are gonna come out with that statement in their defence ldo

[Bongo]

How do they know that her voicemail wasn't activated until the last 18 months?

Maybe they rang and it didn't go to voice mail. Maybe 18 months ago she rang up RB and said "How do I turn voice mail on?". Maybe she's talking rubbish. I'm sure we'll all have moved on to the next outrage by the time the truth comes out!

[kinboshi]

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

[Rod Paradise]

Define hacked phone? None of it was really hacking, just accessing the voicemail using the default pin.

Well it's a phone, that has been hacked

It's a phone, it wasn't hacked, none of the others were, they accessed the voice mails illegally by using the default pin. Unless the accusation is the pin on the voice mail was specifically changed to allow them access before it was given (and I haven't heard that mentioned) then the only way the giving of the phone helped is that it created the voice mail for them to access.

It's not like they planted a listening device in the phone is it? (unless they did of course, I guess you can't rule it out).

If you leave your front door unlocked & someone waltzes in and steals all your stuff - they still get done for breaking and entering. It might not be hacking in a computer-geek subverting security kind of way - but trying the default password is the same as trying all combinations.

[Manuel]

Define hacked phone? None of it was really hacking, just accessing the voicemail using the default pin.

Well it's a phone, that has been hacked

It's a phone, it wasn't hacked, none of the others were, they accessed the voice mails illegally by using the default pin. Unless the accusation is the pin on the voice mail was specifically changed to allow them access before it was given (and I haven't heard that mentioned) then the only way the giving of the phone helped is that it created the voice mail for them to access.

It's not like they planted a listening device in the phone is it? (unless they did of course, I guess you can't rule it out).

If you leave your front door unlocked & someone waltzes in and steals all your stuff - they still get done for breaking and entering. It might not be hacking in a computer-geek subverting security kind of way - but trying the default password is the same as trying all combinations.

Pretty sure they knew the voicemail code when they gave the phone to her, so not hacking.
If you don't know the passcode and you try the default, you are certainly hacking, yes. It was just an easy hack.
But if you know the code then use this to listen to messages illegally, it's not hacking, and not a 'hacked phone'. Didn't stop all the mainstream news from calling it hacking/hacked phone though.

[redarmi]

I can't see how morally the giving of the phone as a gift is anyone near as bad as the hacking of the voicemails and deleting them to give false hope as they did with Milly Dowler.

Isn't the implication that they gave her the phone so that they had the number in order to be able to hack it?

[Manuel]

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

[Rod Paradise]

Define hacked phone? None of it was really hacking, just accessing the voicemail using the default pin.

Well it's a phone, that has been hacked

It's a phone, it wasn't hacked, none of the others were, they accessed the voice mails illegally by using the default pin. Unless the accusation is the pin on the voice mail was specifically changed to allow them access before it was given (and I haven't heard that mentioned) then the only way the giving of the phone helped is that it created the voice mail for them to access.

It's not like they planted a listening device in the phone is it? (unless they did of course, I guess you can't rule it out).

If you leave your front door unlocked & someone waltzes in and steals all your stuff - they still get done for breaking and entering. It might not be hacking in a computer-geek subverting security kind of way - but trying the default password is the same as trying all combinations.

Pretty sure they knew the voicemail code when they gave the phone to her, so not hacking.
If you don't know the passcode and you try the default, you are certainly hacking, yes. It was just an easy hack.
But if you know the code then use this to listen to messages illegally, it's not hacking, and not a 'hacked phone'. Didn't stop all the mainstream news from calling it hacking/hacked phone though.

Meh - That I'd still call another level of hacking - if you can't break the code ensure they use something you've already got the code to.

BUT the post I was answering specifically referred to using the default codes, so original post stands.

[boldie]

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

Are you seriously comparing the validity of quantum mechanics and homeopathy?

[Manuel]

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

Are you seriously comparing the validity of quantum mechanics and homeopathy?

Pls read my post again slowly and you'll see that I'm obviously not. Quantum mechanics is the science of the very small. Something you should know plenty about

[Rod Paradise]

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

I'm calling FOUL here as well, I've yet to see a proper Homoeopathy study where they have passed a peer review on their methods - so I sincerely doubt the *very*  (especially when the studies AVOID trying the placebo to check for placebo effect when proper studies do include it).

[Rod Paradise]

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

Are you seriously comparing the validity of quantum mechanics and homeopathy?

Pls read my post again slowly and you'll see that I'm obviously not. Quantum mechanics is the science of the very small. Something you should know plenty about

Having read it at half speed I need to ask if you are comparing empirical evidence with 'somebody felt a bit better'?