108 posts • joined 11 Jul 2009
Re: right - 'what's wrong with white middle aged males?'
You're right. I knew that then but I didn't have any idea about the unwritten policy until I was at the interview. It was questions like "How would you feel working in a female only environment?" and when I pointed out that I had worked in predominantly female environments before they went to great pains to point out that it wasn't predominance, they don't have any other men working for them, at all. That was where I got the sinking feeling. It isn't illegal to employ only women (or men) it is only illegal to set out to only employ one or the other. I guess that is why I was there being interviewed, to make it seem fair. I could have complained, but I really didn't want to be 'that guy' that complained about discrimination, would you?
Re: right - 'what's wrong with white middle aged males?'
5th Century BC, Sparta. 96% of custody battles in the last century.
Re: right - 'what's wrong with white middle aged males?'
That's a load of racist, sexist and ageist claptrap. So none of the above applies if they happen to be gay, or non-white or younger? The fact is birds of a feather flock together and it doesn't have to be race, sex or sexual orientation but can be anything and is common in all sorts of environments, and this has been backed up by countless, and I do mean countless psychological studies. A few years ago I applied for a tech job in a company that was 100% young, female and good looking. They even warned me during the interview that they only tend to employ women. I didn't get the job. I believe the term is 'multi-ethnic feminist matriarchy' and I was too different. I don't know when white middle aged straight men became the whipping boys for modern society but I don't think it is funny or acceptable.
Re: Shakes Head
"People aren't allowed to be prejudiced against one group of people but then expect to be able to claim prejudice when that group takes action against them."
But that is precisely what this gay couple is doing, you can be just as prejudiced against someone who has a different opinion to you as you can to those who lead a different life to you. As an impartial observer I see no difference. If it is not acceptable one way around, how can it be the other way around? I recently also read about a call to make it illegal to donate to any causes that support climate change denial, it seems that these days you either agree with what you are told to agree with or face strict censure, loss of livelihood or liberty.
Worse to come...
Even if they gain access to the device, just wait until they try and access her e-books and music. She's dead and the licence to access those materials was for her only and expires when she does. The whole digital world is a false economy, you don't own anything, even the tangible objects.
Re: Kettle, met pot, pot meet kettle
As vagabondo said there are several suites that support ODF: LibreOffice, OpenOffice, IBM Lotus Symphony, WordPerfect Office, Caliigra Suite, AbiWord, NeoOffice Suite, Adobe Buzzword, StarOffice and Zoho Office Suite. That is pretty much all the major office suites online and offline bar the three from the big players Microsoft (who does offer some support for ODF), Apple (TextEdit apparently allows some editing of ODF) and Google (Google Docs doesn't support ODF). There are enough implementations of ODF to ensure that everyone on almost any major OS can use ODF. The same cannot be said for Microsoft's format. I am pretty sure that when Governments start using ODF the big three will support it right away.
Re: That's not actually possible...
Does any country have that? Even the US has many, many amendments to their original document and it is just 200 years old, the Magna Carta is 800 years old, the Bill of Rights 300 years old.
I'm guessing only nations recently ruled by facist dictators have such a document.
Re: Not quite the same @Richard Tyler
The Official Secrets Act is a LAW (hence the act part at the end) not a contract. It applies to everyone, just like every other law. Ignorance is no excuse, nor is being born in another country, nor being the boyfriend of a journalist.
Signing of the act is just to make people aware of what they will be dealing with and what consequences they face.
Re: Not quite the same
You don't have to sign the official secrets act to be bound by it. We all are. Besides, your justification could be equally applicable to a spy who didn't steal the information himself, is not British, and just happens to be carrying some secret files.
You knowingly bring stolen British Intelligence files into the UK, you're going to be arrested. He's lucky he wasn't charged with spying in my book.
I also don't understand Greenwalds whining about the British Empire. The British Empire is famous for many things, but holding journalists and restricting the press aren't things that spring to my mind. America on the other hand....
If you've been breathalysed and presumably blood tested it is open and shut anyway. They are hardly alleged. Whatever the law says, I don't believe the police are wrong. The law as it stands makes a mockery of crime and victims anyway. I am sure it won't be long before all criminals are anonymous throughout the whole court process. Save millions in new identities and reporting restrictions when scum are released.
Re: At last
What about slavery? What about those hanged for poaching? Unable to pay debts? The serfs who abandoned their masters? Pickpockets? Those who fought for the wrong side during the civil war? Where will it end? You CANNOT go back and re-write historical wrongs, it is foolish, discriminatory and completely and utterly pointless. I cannot believe that people are so blind and so naive and easily led that they are celebrating this pointless act and allowing the politicians mileage from it.
I was in the Scouts many, many years ago and despite not being a believer in God I took the oath, after all what did it matter? I think atheists these days have found another pseudo-religion, despising religion in all its forms with an almost fanatical hate.
I think that the series should return more to its root personally, i.e. an older, wiser Doctor. I don't like the idea of the Doctors being so young, nor the flirting and kissing with the assistants. That wasn't what the show was about. I also don't like the idea that it should somehow be a black or female actor - just because it ticks equality boxes. Or the time is right, etc... We don't want to get into the habit of changing characters sex and ethnicity purely to reflect the vogue thinking of the time.
That said Don Warrington has more than earned the right, i.e. doesn't just happen to be black and been on TV recently, but also a great actor who has had some great roles in TV and comedy stretching back decades. He's always had Timelord written all over him anyway, at least for me. And whilst we are ticking equality boxes - Warwick Davies. He'd be awesome.
At the end of the day though, the best actor for me would be Hugh Laurie, he's really the only one on the list with the gravitas and charisma to breathe new life into this flagging series.
Re: Luxury product
The same could be said of anything from houses, cars and jewellery right through to clothes. How can I be allowed to buy clothes from a charity shop for a nominal sum when the 10 year old 'tailor' in Bangladesh won't get his cut? The whole world is a system for purchasing products second hand and always has been, it is only in recent times that 'content creators' are claiming that their products are so wonderful and so unique that they can only be purchased once, ever.
The whole concept is ludicrous and akin to a watchmaker claiming that once he has sold a watch, it can never be used by anyone other than the person he sold it to, moreover the buyer never actually owns the watch, only a non-transferable license to view the time on said watch, a license that can be revoked at any time, for any reason, at his discretion. When the buyer expires, so does the license and the watch must be returned to the watchmaker to enable him to 're-sell' it. But then, a nice watch is a luxury item.
Am I reading this right?
So if I buy a game on the Xbox One and play it, it is locked to my account. Therefore if my girlfriend, living in the same house and playing on the same Xbox wants to play it, she can't? Or is it like now where it is the console and not the account that is registered?
It sounds to me like games are going to be per account (like Steam) rather than per console?
Whilst that's true, Steam games are a lot cheaper and sometimes a hell of a lot cheaper (many games I've bought have been £5 or less) and the restrictions are known in advance and of course you can also buy the PC DVD version of the game, without Steam, without restrictions, but for more money. There's no such option on the Xbox.
I don't understand why people complain about the Amazon lens so much. If you don't need it, just ignore it, it appears at the bottom and so is easily ignored. But when you DO want to buy something from Amazon, it is a quick and easy Amazon search, the results appear in an easily viewable and navigable form with pictures and description making it much faster than viewing the Amazon site. Of course most importantly, every time you purchase something from Amazon, which most of us were doing anyway, Canonical gets a cut from Amazon's end. If you like your free OS, surely that is an easy, free, zero-effort and non-obtrusive way of helping pay for it?
It's also useful for discovering stuff, say searching Dash for your Greenday albums and then seeing that they have a new album out! What luck!
In all honesty the only problem (aside from the occasional slight delay in results) I have with the Amazon lens, is that it is just Amazon and that I have to open a browser and multiple tabs to check out the competitions prices.
Content for free?
Somehow I don't see them giving stuff away for free instead it will be added on top of everything else. We'll still have to pay for the content, we'll still have advert breaks, we'll still have product placements and also this new technology too. This is an additional source of revenue for the content providers and of no value to the consumer whatsoever.
Indeed as others have pointed out, why are content providers still relying on adverts when consumers WANT to pay? Take Game of Thrones for example. It cost $60 million to make the first series, yet it made $33 million back in DVD sales in the US alone in less than six months, despite the fact that barely anyone watched it on TV and it was also one of the most pirates TV shows ever. It seems that content providers have the whole dynamic wrong.
It isn't the first time that Google has shut down a 'free' service, and it won't be the last. I used to use Google Notebook, but when they announced they were closing that, I decided never to use Google's services again. After all these free services are really just a funnel to get you to use their core services and give away much, much more information about yourself than you'd really like. It is getting ridiculous, having to have an online account in order to use my computer and an online account in order to use my phone. What's next?
Autonomy and the BBC
This is the same company that spent six years and £8 million of license fee payers money to create software for the BBC Monitoring Service, which never actually materialised. They sound like a totally honest and top notch company.
"....and grew up in an age where women were supposed to be seen and not heard."
She grew up on the Mongolian Plains circa 1250AD? Otherwise I am struggling to find a time period where women were meant to be seen and not heard. The phrase you erroneously apply to women was in fact an expression aimed at Victorian era children, not women. Women in Victorian times were able marry, divorce and work, all at their own discretion. They could get served in bars, have an education, inherit, and all the things that men could do. Indeed as anyone who has ever read any 19th century literature can see, women were an important and functioning part of society and not the pseudo slaves that they are made out to be today. The only thing women couldn't do was vote in the UK until 1928, but then ALL men couldn't vote either until 1918, only the rich ones were able to vote prior to that.
All this discrimination, adversity rubbish is retrospectively applied to women. If you ask women from the era if they felt they were discriminated against back then, they invariably will say no and men and women were just different in those days and at no point did they feel objectified, controlled, discriminated against or held back. Such terms and thinking are all part of modern day brain washing and revisionism.
Grace Hopper was a computing great, but the article is somewhat ruined by your whole 'women were so mistreated, its a wonder any of them were able to accomplish anything..' rhetoric.
Re: Re:a patch that annihilated Unity
For every open source fork there is great fanfare and multiple pointing out this being one of the great things about FOSS, followed two years later by an appeal for someone else to take over. Mate and cinnamon et al are likely to be dead ends in a few years, do you really want to be using software that is no longer maintained? Unity and Gnome3 clearly aren't going anywhere, there will be no re-merging, no superseding Unity/Gnome3 so that means someone has to carry on these forks on permanently. I've seen enough open source projects to know that 'No longer maintained' is an inevitability for most projects.
The reality is, you either have to give in sooner (as I did) or later, and these forks are just delaying the inevitable.
Re: I still don't like it, but I can see where it is going @fatman
I used to feel the same. But you can make Unity auto hide and 32px too and believe me if you do that you can almost forget that it is there. Prior to Unity I used to use Docky and Synapse (and before that Gnome-Do) and so seldom used menus anyway, I just typed the name of a file and program and hit enter. Using Unity is pretty much the same, indeed it really is just a Dock with a text search box like Synapse with a few added extras. It is made for the desktop and when used with a keyboard it is super fast.
I found Unity on 12.04 so crash happy that I installed Synapse and used that most of the time anyway, just as I had before so the change wasn’t so pronounced as it could have been. 12.10 is much more stable and I use Unity now most of the time as I find it more useful, especially for things like iPlayer, (e.g. hitting Super + V and typing the name of the program to download a program is just much faster than browsing there). I also like HUD for the same reasons. There are problems however and it still does feel like beta software, forced on us with little or no configuration options. However such quick and fluid access to things is the future, regardless of platform.
As for Windows 8, I just use that in a similar way to Unity. If I want to open an app I hit the Super Key + Q and type the name, the same as Unity and again it is very fast, much, much faster than the old menu system, and that is pretty much all I use Metro for. The rest of the time I use the Desktop (just as in Windows 7). The tiles etc aren’t so bad although I don’t really see any reason to use them; Microsoft’s biggest mistake was making them the default, and forcing users to guess the shortcut keys (e.g. Super + Q). Metro should have been hidden by default and called as needed with the Windows key, with clear and accessible shortcuts. At least Canonical got that right.
Re: Guess that includes me then
I was the same, I've been an Ubuntu user since the start and I didn't like the way it was heading. I hated Unity and stuck with 10.04 (the last one without it) for two years to avoid Unity. I tried Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Mint and Elementary. Xfce and LXDE were like going back to the 90s, looked bad and lacked basic features but were fairly fast. KDE was also like a step backward. Mint and Elementary were OK, but they just didn't seem as rounded and polished as Ubuntu and did things their own weird way. In the end I always went to back Lucid (10.04).
Finally I decided that Unity was the lesser evil and installed 12.04 and hated it. After a few weeks I got used to it and haven't looked back. I still don't like it, but I can see where it is going and I can see its potential and I am slowly being converted. Computing moves on quickly and frankly after using Unity for a while, everything else from KDE to Xfce looks dated and old fashioned.
Re: Mark, you keep punching that straw man...
'I don't know of anybody who is saying Linux, or Ubuntu, should be "hard", or "leet".'
Then you should spend some time on the Ubuntu forums. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen people, usually new users, complain or ask about a feature, only to be told - "if you don't like it, learn to program and change it yourself or just use Windows"
The Linux elitist hardcore still exist.
Working for me...
Is it only Virgin Media that is having this problem then (if it is as they claim occurring further down the line you'd expect it to be more widespread) or is it a case that all coders use Virgin Media?
Re: ubuntu hmm
You can turn off the Amazon search you know, unlike any adware that I have ever used, like the internet.
You may be right, I've just been looking at the BBC website's obituaries and although they seem to use it for every death today, they were also using the phrase back in the 90s but perhaps not as much. Certainly not that I noticed.
The grammar aspect was that I had heard phrases before such as:
"She survived her husband by ten years."
"Mr Smith was survived by his wife."
Yet in a whole article written in the past tense, as is normally the case with obituaries, the word 'is' in reference to someone that has died appears out of place and seems to grate on me. But as I say, grammar is not my strong point.
"Cusick is survived by two daughters."seeing
So now El Reg is following the BBC and other British News outlets and using this annoying Americanism? I am not an expert on grammar, but as I had never seen this expression before a decade ago, and now I see it all the time, I am guessing it isn't grammatically correct? Whatever happened to leaves behind?
As others have noted, nothing was as scary as the Daleks, save perhaps those swamp men and the damned yeti, but only the Daleks still scare me today.
Re: Love it!!!!
That's not strictly true, millions of people are buying a computer every day, that just happens to come with Windows 8. It is getting harder and harder purchase a computer with Windows 7, let alone anything else.
So yes, millions of people are making the Hobson's choice of 'buying' Windows 8 and a relatively equal number are likely regretting it. That is not the same as it being popular, coveted or preferred.
Re: Windows 8 alternate desktop!
Ubuntu Tablet and Ubuntu Desktop are not the same thing. I use both Windows 8 as well as Ubuntu and whilst you may have a point about Windows 8, Ubuntu Desktop is slick, super fast, efficient, full of power options and looks great, and that is on my 6 year old Celeron laptop! On my i7 it is a dream to use and makes Windows 8 look slow, crash happy, outdated and unintuitive mess.
They didn't miss smartphones, they were right there leading at the beginning. I believe that the phone with the first full HMTL browser was a Windows smartphone and everything we think of now as being a smartphone is from the early Microsoft smartphones. Microsoft just did nothing with them. As they always do, they dominated and then stagnated.
From recent experience...
Dell do include an option to switch off Secure Boot in UEFI, as well as allowing a legacy mode for booting stuff that is non UEFI, like CDs. I also experienced Ubuntu's UEFI when installing alongside Windows 8 and it was quick and easy, no hassle at all. That should be the way forward.
Although I can see the intention with Secure Boot is itsn't without problems; when I did turn it back on, just for kicks, it wouldn't let me boot into either Windows or Ubuntu. So I think the OEMs should brace themselves for a raft of complaints and queries when the UEFI and/or Windows installations start becoming corrupted.
Re: "We adhere to the laws of the countries in which we operate."
"But that's how it should be IMHO. It's a US company and a US site, why should they be concerned with the laws of every which part of the word from where some punter may have connected to them? What if the aliens from Alpha Centauri would have an account with Tw@tter? Should the Centaurian law apply?"
But that isn't how it works is it? Remember the French porn site, circa 2001 that had its site pulled because a Texan court deemed the content illegal in that state? That case shook up, not only the porn industry, but the internet at large as it was clear that ALL websites have to comply with US laws (as you noted re online gambling). The converse isn't true. US sites only have to comply with US laws, and can ignore regional laws as they choose.
The question should be, why should every other website have to comply with US laws and regional ones, when US website only have to obey US laws?
I believe the term is double standards.
If you don't get a man on a drugs and firearms charges, the murder of a foreign national is the logical next step. I am not saying he is innocent, but I have seen and read one too many spy/thrillers to follow the most obvious conclusion.
Besides, any man that fails to hear a Luger go off in a house has got to be guilty of something.
I agree with pretty much all his rants....
It is great that despite his abilities and obvious genius, he still gets annoyed with the same general day-to-day stuff as the rest of us. I don't see it as ranting, but sticking up for the average end user who, when they complain, are invariably told they don't know what they are doing or 'If you don't like it, learn to program and fix it yourself...', no one ever says that to Mr. Torvalds. His complaints carry weight in an OS where the end user's complaints are generally ignored.
"You can make your desktop look almost as good as it did two years go." Classic line. The end users complained throughout Gnome 3/Unity development but only when Mr. Torvalds complains does something get done.
You never saw Gates, Jobs et al empathising with the users in the same way. Mr. Torvalds is the reason that I continue to use Linux despite the problems.
In his example everything works. Nothing ever works in WINE.
Incidentally 12.10 is not an LTS. That was 12.04 and the next one is 14.04 a year and a half away.
Re: Unprofessional but meh
"So? This was once Cromwell's country, should everyone living here be blamed for a nasty military dictator long in the past?"
Yes, but are they? To this day I am still amazed by the brilliant PR machine that the Germans employed post WWII. It wasn't the Germans that did all those nasty things during WWII, oh no, it was the Nazis, or better yet the SS or the Gestapo. The Germans were just as much victims as anyone, apparently, victims of the evil Nazis. Every film, TV series, book and video game calls the Germans from 1933-1945 - Nazis, as if they were entirely different race to the indigenous Germans. The Germans managed, somehow, to extricate their name and race from all those abominable acts, and offer up another patsy - a political party.
One wonders if, in another 100 years the history books will record Hitler as having been born in Naziland and annexing Germany first, completely removing the Germans of all culpability.
It's a shame for the Japanese that they didn't have a PR man of Germany's calibre post WWII. All the heinous acts of WWII committed in the East, were simply committed by the Japs. I find that disparity somewhat troubling.
An iPad2 would make me so much more efficient.
"...technology can play an important role in helping to improve efficiency, reduce costs and ultimately improve patient care,"
Really? I've been hearing that for 30 years, yet I seldom see any efficiency or cost reductions. It would be interesting to see a comparison. Say a hospital removing all IT for staff, and returning to the old method of pen and paper of the 1950s, which is invariably what I still see anyway on any visit. We'd then see whether the slight reduction in 'efficiency' and perhaps the addition of more staff to cope, would actually cost more than the 100s millions used by Government agencies each year in order for them to be able to play with the latest tech.
Re: Why oh why
Because, as far as I know, they are the only one who deliver the actual speed you pay for. My mother is on Talk Talk 24Mb, she gets 2-6Mb at best. My father has Sky and get's about 8mb on a good day. I've got 30Mb on Virgin and I always get 30Mb.
Virgin have their customer service problems, but so do everyone. When my modem was on the blink I expected a long wait, but they couriered a new one out and I got it first thing the next day. Then again I lost FTP when they upgraded the modem, took me two days to realise that the modem had been upgraded as I only log in when I want to change something.
To me, it seems that they are the best of a bad bunch when it comes to broadband.
Re: Not this again
Yeah I do, I am replying on one. The Dell 1525n was available in the UK too (where I got mine), but again, the same price as the Windows version. I naively thought that I'd buy all my subsequent laptops from Dell, but each time I ask about their Linux offerings I just get told - no, they don't do them and have no plans to do them. So I have just stuck with my 1525n and upgraded wherever possible.
I'm with the original commenter on this, I think that the short lived N series was merely a way of getting a better deal from MS, which is a shame.
Re: What About the Sea Level?
You wouldn't know this this, as clearly judging by your manners it is unlikely you're allowed out of your garden gate without a strong tether, bit and Hannibal Lecter-esque entourage but most harbours have water level meters so folks capable of being in charge of vehicles not made by matchbox, know how much water is under the keel. Presumably that is what the gentleman was talking about.
His observations are also backed up by the science, there has been no increase in sea levels.
Re: "the argument against AGW"
Sea levels are not rising, despite what people living in the Maldives would have you believe. The majority of the world is not going to drown. When someone paints a scary scenario for you, then asks you for money to 'solve' the problem (as the people of the Maldives have been doing for 20 years!) it should sound alarm bells for you. The problem is, once paid these shysters then have to come up with an even more compelling scare story for more money, and then more money and then more. That is why these scenarios have become more and more ridiculous and further and further away from any semblance of real science.
Frankly, if you believe any of it these days then you must be a salesman's dream.
Re: Hey I remember a time when we were told.....
Er..I don't think it was the condom's that saved us, it was little facts like 1 in every 100 people are actually immune to aids, and cannot catch it and that despite John Hurt's scary advert - AIDS isn't as contagious as made out, with only a 25% chance of passing it on. Five times more people die of flu every year as AIDS; it was never the epidemic we were led to believe it was or should i say, panicked into believing it was.
The vast majority of new cases in the UK come from African immigrants and even then it is in decline.
It is amazing that after a decade of absolutely nothing happening that these climatologists and 'climate change' experts are still managing to justify their existence - if only the Minister for Industrialisation had the same kind of mentality as these climate nuts during the 1800s, we'd still be in the age of steam.
Re: Death Penalty IS a deterrent
Then I say again, abolish prisons as it doesn't solve crime, abolish hospitals and medicine as people still die etc. There are few magic bullets to problems and there most certainly isn't one for crime or murder itself. The best we can do is hope for the best deterrents that will perhaps save some innocent lives, rather than burying our heads in the sand waiting for a catch all solution that will never materialise.
As for the harsh Vs human justice systems, again, look at Britain - we had a harsh system pre-abolition and there were less murders. We moved to a 'human justice system' and the murder rate went up. It really is that simple.
Besides, for your comparison - Texas which has one of the harshest penal systems and executes more prisoners than any other US state, has a re-offending rate of just 28% - The UK's 'human justice system' ensures a re-offending rate of 74%. It really could not be any clearer.
You see, I am old enough to remember this. The abolition of the death penalty was never popular, around three quarters of the population were against doing so, according to polls at the time. But the liberal MPs pushed it through anyway, knowing what was best for us. When the murder rate went up - we were told by our betters that it was too early for it to be a trend. When it continued to increase, it was called a blip. When it was clear to all that it was a trend and that it started at the abolition, we were told that the 60s were a long time ago and it is not possible to draw comparisons from such a long time ago and other factors were to blame. And the fools believed that.
You see there are those that are against the death penalty because they believe it to be wrong, regardless of whether it is a deterrent, regardless of whether it reduces murder, regardless of whether it is deemed a sufficient punishment by the majority; they see it as wrong, ergo it is, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. This is why we'll never see any kind of democratic debate of the subject, anywhere other than on the internet.
Re: Death Penalty IS a deterrent
Surely you could turn that around again, why bother with crime and punishment at all, it hasn't solved the problem of crime. You're logic is flawed however, it isn't about stopping crime or stopping murders, but about punishing those that do. Punishment is the deterrent. Few people want to die, so I am pretty sure that it makes even the most simple minded think of the possible consequences to their actions. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't use the best deterrent, as it may not work for everyone? As I said, flawed logic.
As for the oft used claim that murder is often committed in the heat of the moment, it is a fanciful claim with very little evidence to back it up. After all, everything is done in the heat of the moment, how can anyone really tell? Yet oddly, people seemed to do it less pre-abolition than post. Odd that. Maybe folks back then were just more considered?
It is also worth noting that about 1 in 20 released murderers on parole end up back in prison, so these 'heat of the moment' types tend to get caught up in it a lot. It is also worth nothing that the Government (no UK Government) purposely does not keep accurate records of how many released murderers go on to murder again.
Re: Death Penalty IS a deterrent
I don't keep a running total sadly, and as I said, the data is usually taken in either 5 year or 10 year blocks, so I was working on the last one I had read - 2005 data - when I last had this discussion. I hadn't realised that 2010 had shown a decline.
The fact remains, it was triple, now it has declined to double, we won't know until 2015 whether that was a blip, or a trend. Despite some amazing medical advances and 'advances' in policing, education etc our murder rate is still on a par with Indian Mutiny Britain and higher than it has been since Jack the Ripper and after a century of decline the rise started in 1965. The year that Sydney Silverman pushed his Murder Bill through Parliament.
Re: Death Penalty IS a deterrent
Those statistics are largely similar to what I have seen. Usually an average is taken every 5-10 years as it can obviously change quickly in a year due one event (bombing or murder spree).
As detailed on that page from 1860 to 1960 it declines every decade from 17 murders per million to 7. And then back up the same again to 14 in 1990 - 14.5 in 1995 and then to peak in 2002 at 18 or 19.
But there was a steep increase, it declined over a century but rose higher than before in less than half that time. Taken as a 5 or 10 year average the rise is very clear.
The murder rate was pretty high in Victorian times, as you'd expect, poor policing (if any) and no emergency services, poor medical treatments. If someone was attacked, they'd likely die of their injuries, or a resulting infection. Whereas today, a victim can be in a hospital within minutes - yet the rates are still comparable!
Re: Death Penalty IS a deterrent
True, there could be other reasons, but as I said, it didn't rise during the Great Depression one of the worst socio-economic disasters in history, nor continue to rise after the World Wars - which is surprising considering the violence involved in both and the old adage "violence breeds violence" and it rose precisely when the death penalty was abolished, not years later.
Immigration is a possibility, but unless nearly all the immigrants were would-be murderers (or even victims) it cannot account for such a large and continuous rise. Especially as the statistics show immigrants during that time made up a tiny minority of both murderers and victims.
You're right, the murder rate is about 12 now, but it did reach 18 or 19 in the early 2000s and when you take into account that the injuries that were fatal pre-1960 (stabbings, beatings, shootings, etc) are now much more survivable, then the rise is even more stark.
As for it being cyclic, possibly, but it is worth noting that there has never been such a continuous rise in recorded history, nor has the murder rate ever been so high as the recent peak (18 murders per million) in the modern era. Even the early Victorians could boast a lower murder rate than modern Britain, despite medical advances.
- Opportunity selfie: Martian winds have given the spunky ol' rover a spring cleaning
- Spanish village called 'Kill the Jews' mulls rebranding exercise
- Reddit users discover iOS malware threat
- Pics R.I.P. LADEE: Probe smashes into lunar surface at 3,600mph
- Ex–Apple CEO John Sculley: Ousting Steve Jobs 'was a mistake'