Fun fact: The UK has the Magna Carta, the original bill of rights signed in 1215. Did you know that's 561 years before the US declared its independence from the UK? To put it another way, 561 years is more than double the length of time the US has been a country.

Second fun fact: UK Prime Ministers aren't elected. Their party is elected, and tends to command a majority in the House of Commons, but if they don't, they get to trade horses with other parties to see which coalition can command a majority, and thus win a confidence vote. The party selects a leader through their own internal processes. Doesn't even have to be an elected MP. Then they tell the king, who rubberstamps the decision. They can do this at any time, not just after an election. Provided the leader can command a majority in Parliament, they get to continue. If enough of your own party dislikes you as leader, they will vote against a confidence motion and drop themselves and you out of power; your job is to not let it get to that.

The House of Lords is a secondary chamber, which scrutinises what the House of Commons passes and suggests rewordings and rewrites. (There's a whole other layer of scrutiny at the committee stage, for costing, etc.) They can send back bad bills, but can't send them back indefinitely, if the government had that in its election manifesto, so appointed or not, they can't defy the "will of the people".

The king doesn't rock the boat, not because he fears for his life, but because he'd trigger a constitutional crisis which will inevitably resolve in the form of a republican UK.

Anyone still using an Amiga should try EgoMouse; it makes your mouse pointer rotate to face to the direction of movement; yes, this makes it ridiculously difficult to "drive", but it's fun

    eval(unescape(escape`<<97 wide characters>>`.replace(/u../g,'')))

I suppose you could make the same argument about size-based competitions at demo parties; the limit is strictly 4096 bytes but everyone + their dog is using Crinkler to compress a 12-20KB executable down to that size. In fact, part of the effort is in aligning data and tweaking constants with Crinkler's algorithm in mind, to make the raw data more amenable to compression! But at least then, it's not a constant compression (turning any 194 ASCII characters into 97 Unicode characters which with embedded decoder makes exactly 140 characters)

I am assuming c is set to a canvas element and x is set to the context, but I can't find actual information on this.

You should be less flippant.

The accused's name is Samuel Corner. He and his friends are still on trial for their actions.

Here's the bodycam footage where you see Samuel Corner attack police seargent Kate Evans with a sledgehammer while she was on the ground, fracturing her spine. Watch from 3m05s to 3m10s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P7p_5D4hw

The police seargent is now disabled:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo

> It's not terrorism.

The group's stated aim is to stop the UK or any UK companies giving Israel any military support. They target companies who they think supply Israel. They break in and smash them, and as you've hopefully just seen with your own eyes, they are not afraid to attack people with sledgehammers. They use violence to achieve their political aim. They are terrorists and belong in prison.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dzq41n4l9o

> Samuel Corner, 23, [...] Oxford University graduate from Devon [...] when asked why he struck Sgt Evans with the sledgehammer, he replied: "It was me not really knowing what I was doing

Thanks Samuel. That Oxford degree really shows, doesn't it?

Obviously "on one occasion, a person in group X did Y" is evidence for "group X does Y". If Samuel Corner attacked a police sergeant with a sledgehammer during one Palestine Action, er, action, then that's the sort of thing we expect to see more often if PA is generally in favour of attacking police with sledgehammers. (Either as a matter of explicit open policy, or as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink thing where everyone in PA knows that if they start smashing up police as well as property then their PA comrades will think better of them rather than worse.)

But it falls way short of proof. Maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because Palestine Action is a terrorist organization after all; but maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because Samuel Corner is a thug or an idiot or was drunk or whatever. Or maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because the cops were already being violent with the Palestine Action folks and he was doing his (ill-advised) best to protect the others from the police. (This, as I understand it, is his account of things.)

(An Oxford University graduate attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer. I take it you would not say that that makes the University of Oxford a terrorist organization, and you wouldn't say that even if he'd done it while attending, say, a university social function rather than while smashing up alleged military hardware. It matters how typical the action is of the organization, what the group's leadership thinks of the action, etc.)

I took a look at the video. It's not easy to tell what's going on, but it looks to me as follows. One of the PA people is on the ground, being forcibly restrained and tasered by a police officer, complaining loudly about what the police officer is doing. (It isn't obvious to me whether or not her complaints are justified[1].) There is another police officer, whom I take to be Kate Evans, nearby, kneeling on the ground and helping to restrain this PA person. Samuel Corner approaches with his sledgehammer and attacks that second police officer. I can't tell from the video exactly what he's trying to do (e.g., whether he's being as violent as possible and hoping to kill or maim, or whether he's trying to get the police officer off the other person with minimal force but all he's got is a sledgehammer).

[1] I get the impression that she feels she has the right not to suffer any pain while being forcibly restrained by police, which seems like a rather naive view of things. But I also get the impression that the police were being pretty free with their tasering. But it's hard to tell exactly what's going on, and I imagine it was even harder in real time, and I am inclined to cut both her and the police some slack on those grounds.

It's highly misleading, even though not technically false, to say that Corner attacked Kate Evans "while she was on the ground"; she certainly was on the ground in the sense that she was supported by the floor, and even in the sense that she wasn't standing up -- I think she was crouching -- but it's not like she was lying on the ground injured or inactive; she was fighting one of the other PA people, and she was "on the ground" because that PA person was (in a stronger sense) "on the ground" too.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not approve of attacking police officers with sledgehammers just because they are restraining someone you would prefer them not to be restraining, even if you think they're doing it more violently than necessary. And I have a lot of sympathy with police officers not being super-gentle when the people they're dealing with are armed with sledgehammers.

But the story here looks to me more like "there were a bunch of PA people, who had sledgehammers because they were planning to smash up military hardware; the cops arrived and wrestled and tasered them, and one of the PA people lost his temper and went for one of the cops to try to defend his friend whom he thought was being mistreated, and unfortunately he was wielding a sledgehammer at the time" than like "PA is in the business of attacking cops with sledgehammers".

None of that makes Kate Evans any less injured. But I think those two possibilities say very different things about Palestine Action. Carrying sledgehammers because you want to smash equipment is different from carrying sledgehammers because you want to smash people. Attacking police because they are a symbol of the state is different from attacking police because they are attacking your friend. One person doing something bad in the heat of the moment because he thinks his friend is being mistreated is different from an organization setting out to do that bad thing.

There are plenty of documented cases of police being violent (sometimes with deadly effect) with members of the public. Sometimes they have good justification for it, sometimes not so much. Most of us don't on those grounds call the police a terrorist organization. Those who do say things along those lines do so because they think that actually the police are systematically violent and brutal.

I think the same applies to organizations like Palestine Action. So far as I can tell, they aren't systematically violent and brutal. Mostly they smash up hardware that they think would otherwise be used to oppress Palestinians. (I am making no judgement as to whether they're right about that, which is relevant to whether they're a Good Thing or a Bad Thing but not to whether they're terrorists.) Sometimes that leads to skirmishes with the police. On one occasion so far, one of them badly injured a police officer. It's very bad that that happened, but this all seems well short of what it would take to justify calling the organization a terrorist one.

Yet none of them are being prosecuted under the terrorism act, or on any charge related to terrorism.

I think they meet the definition of "terrorists" by their stated goals and acts. But it seems there's reticence by the CPS to break out the Terrorism Act.

Palestine Action is already a proscribed group because of spraypainting RAF planes. I would say this raid seems more terroristic than base invasion, but what do I know? I'm not the Home Secretary.

It raises questions, because while the Terrorism Act is heavily criticised for being overbroad and making a number of otherwise innocuous things crimes, the CPS haven't used it against this group of people, who'd face prison just for being a member, or claiming to be a member of Palestine Action. Maybe the CPS can't reliably prove they are?

"It was me not really knowing what I was doing, I was trying to protect Leona, or Zoe. I couldn't tell who was screaming."

"My friends were in danger and they [the police] were getting quite hands-on.

"I remember just feeling like I had to help somehow. I would never think to do that to someone, I was just trying to help," he said.

I don't have any opinion on this but I think its important to have the full quote

They were petulantly resisting arrest (it looks on camera to scream instead of just complying calmly) while committing destructive/violent crimes. The police were very restrained here. There was no danger from the police, at all.

Now a police officer doing their job has a spinal injury. Palestine Action says they will not stop doing 'direct action' (sabotage, property destruction, violence). They deserve the proscription.

I quoted three separate snippets from the article that I wanted to draw attention to, and gave you the URL to read the rest yourself.

I'm of the opinion that, someone who sledgehammers an unaware opponent and claims in their defense "I was just trying to help", they are being disingenuous. Especially as one of Britain's most elite and privileged youngsters.

If you'd like to quote more of the article:

> When asked by his barrister Tom Wainwright whether he was willing to injure a person or use violence during the break-in, he replied: "No, not at all".

Read that back to yourself while watching the attack footage again. Is this credible testimony?

There are lots of violent criminals who harm businesses and injure, or even kill people. They should be prosecuted and imprisoned. It's not illegal to say "I support <name of criminal or criminal gang>", even if people strongly disagree with you.

However, by showing they could break into an RAF base and spraypaint the planes - that says to me that the RAF are completely shit at their job, how can they protect their base from Russians if they can't even keep out local criminals - embarrassed the Government, and the government retaliated by making it illegal to say you support them.

Say it out loud? Criminal. Wear a t-shirt? Criminal. Hold a placard? Criminal.

Might as well just hold up blank sheets of paper and wait for the police to arrest you because they know what you want to write on them, like they do in Russia.

To me, that's a free speech issue. What an affront to free speech it is. Saying you support criminal scumbags should not be a crime. You should be able to say you support a bunch of violent yahoos, to whoever will listen to you, and I should be able to laugh at you and call you a simpleton for your idiot beliefs.

Broadly speaking though, I agree. What they did was criminal damage, undoubtedly, I have no problem arresting and prosecuting people for that. But I don't believe that it's terrorism, nor that it would have been so unpopular had it not been bloody embarrassing for the armed forces. Honestly, bolt cutters and some paint should not be grounding some of your air defence.

> Giving evidence earlier, he said the group's only intention was to "break in, cause as much damage to the factory as possible, destroy weapons and prevent the factory from reopening".

I count "causing as much damage as possible" to be violent.

While I think graffiti taggers "damage property" but are non-violent. But in many places, rival gangs blow up/set alight/demolish their rivals' homes/businesses/vehicles, etc. That counts as pretty strong violence to me, even if no people are injured.

Anyway, talking of people being injured, watch a member of Palestine Action (Samuel Corner, 23, Oxford University graduate) drive a sledgehammer into a police seargent while she's trying to arrest his comrade:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo

Full video, sledgehammer attack at 3m05s to 3m10s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P7p_5D4hw

I'd designate them as a terrorist group for destroying factories, not so much for spraypainting planes. But I'd still support your right to say you support them, even though I'd disagree.

That is just not what the word violent means (unless used figuratively but I don't think that's what you mean). It means hurting, or attempting to hurt, a person (or maybe an animal). Setting fire or blowing up a home which might have people still in it is certainly violent, but destroying property for the sake or property destruction is not.

Of course, deliberately attacking someone with a sledgehammer certainly is.

If I intentionally wreck your home, like I properly ransack the place, smash it all up, I'd say I had been violent to you. Wouldn't you? You wouldn't walk in to find your home and your life ruined and say "oh it's just property damage", would you?

If my nation was at war with yours, and we dropped a bomb on your weapons factory, would you count that as violent, or non-violent?

(I would say you'd been violent to me if you'd slapped me in the face. I would rather be slapped in the face than have my house ransacked and smashed up. Some not-violent things are worse than some violent things.)

If you dropped a bomb on a weapons factory that had, or plausibly could have had, people in it then that would unquestionably be an act of violence. If you somehow knew that there was nothing there but hardware then I wouldn't call it an act of violence.

(In practice, I'm pretty sure that when you drop a bomb you scarcely ever know that you're not going to injure or kill anyone.)

I'm not claiming that this is the only way, or the only proper way, to use the word "violence". But, so far as I can tell from introspection, it is how I would use it.

There are contexts in which I would use the word "violence" to include destruction that only affects things and not people. But they'd be contexts that already make it clear that it's things and not people being affected. E.g., "We smashed up that misbehaving printer with great violence, and very satisfying it was too".

There's certainly implied violence. Like, if you done that once, maybe you'll be back tomorrow when I happen to be in, and actually be violent to me. And even if that weren't the case, I'd still obviously be very distressed about the situation.

But, having said all that, no I wouldn't say you had been violent, if you hadn't actually tried to hurt anyone.

If you dropped a bomb on an abandoned or fully automated factory, that you could be 100% sure doesn't have any people in it - then I still wouldn't count that as "violent" (except maybe figuratively), no matter how destructive.

Sure I destroyed their car and they weren't able to go to work and got fired, but I didn't physically attack them so no harm done.

> A police sergeant was left unable to drive, shower or dress herself after a Palestine Action activist allegedly hit her with a sledgehammer during a break-in at an Israeli defence firm's UK site, a trial has heard.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo

Of course, one violent member does not make an organisation into a terrorist organisation. But, just as a matter of fact, there has been some actual violence against a person.

VAMOS writes as few 68000 instructions into the emulator's memory as possible; as soon as the program calls an AmigaOS API, the emulator traps it and handles the implementation in Python.

What you're looking for is a ROM with a full implementation of AmigaOS, that can manage real Amiga hardware: that is only possible with the official ROMs or projects like AROS

What's interesting is not so much the 68K emulator (though that is interesting for Python), but rather that it's using VAMOS - the most amazing thing about the amitools project.

VAMOS is a full-on pretend version of AmigaOS in Python, that hooks everything up so that e.g. dos.library's Open() actually calls Python's open(), and so on.

https://github.com/cnvogelg/amitools

Here is, for example, its fake implementation of dos.library: https://github.com/cnvogelg/amitools/blob/main/amitools/vamo...

The "libcore" code reads a .fd file (which on the Amiga is a parseable description of the API calls in a library, for generating include files and stubs), then it creates a fake library base in memory with fake jumptable entries... which jump to two instructions, an "ALINE" trap (any two bytes from 0xA000 to 0xAFFF, which trigger the 68000's ALINE trap handler, one is allocated for each library call), then RTS... That's enough to let Python take back control from the emulator when the trap arrives, and emulate the API call.

It does make me wonder how scalable VAMOS if there are no more than 4096 library calls possible.

Anyway, what concerns me about amifuse is that VAMOS has no BCPL internals. pr_GlobVec isn't filled out. AmigaDOS 1.x was written in BCPL (it's an Amiga port of TRIPOS), and AmigaDOS 2.x/3.x went to great pains to pretend BCPL internals were still there, even though they weren't. I'm sure I've seen a number of filesystem handlers that relied on BCPL internals... these just won't work in VAMOS as it stands, and therefore won't work in amifuse.

It's a little bit odd that amifuse only demonstrates working with PFS. Does it work with AFS (AmiFileSafe), SFS (SmartFileSystem)? What about FastFileSystem, CacheCDFS, CrossDOSFileSystem, MultiUserFS and so on?

For that matter, the native filesystem handler in AmigaOS 2.x/3.x was ROM resident. How would one extract it and patch it up to run outside the ROM, so that it could then be use with amifuse?

>CrossDOS was a combination of mfm.device (asking the disk hardware to do funky things) as well as CrossDOSFileSystem (FAT12 filesystem handler).

The "disk hardware" is a pretty dull DAC/ADC. The track format is different in Amiga and IBM PC floppies, but from the perspective of the Amiga hardware it is identical, as it does not deal with that.

The encoding/decoding is always done in software, and mfm.device just implements the IBM PC track format.

0. https://www.datagubbe.se/wbshots/

mfm.device is naturally not needed or used if you aren't using floppy disk. The filesystem handler uses whatever storage driver your mass storage is connected to if the mass storage is not accessed at a low level.

That's a lot of PRs from him: https://github.com/cnvogelg/amitools/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%...

There's a lot more AmigaOS API calls and infrastructure that filesystem handlers rely on than just BCPL, e.g. I see here he added a fake input.device to make FFS happy: https://github.com/cnvogelg/amitools/pull/231/files#diff-938...

And to answer my earlier question, how does one get the filesystem handler out of ROM, the answer is amitools's "romtool" based on data taken from the Amiga ROMSplit tool.

So I guess he's working hard on beefing up VAMOS's AmigaOS emulation to get filesystem handlers working. Great stuff!

The handler file is shipped on the OS install disk and it is automatically added to the RDB by HDToolBox when you initialize a new drive.

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/controlling-the-elizabeth-lin...

> The signalling is essentially hands off and is timetable driven. The latter includes GoA3 reversing moves at Paddington and Abbey Wood which are fully automatic as are all entries into and out of a depot. The line uses axle counters for secondary train positioning information other than where neutral sections for the overhead power exist, where track circuits are deployed, these being seen as less vulnerable to any spark interference from the overhead catenaries.