1785 posts • joined Friday 4th June 2010 10:31 GMT
Re: Throw the book at her.
"No, the law works on the basis that a criminal conviction must be evidenced _beyond reasonable doubt_."
And despite the barrack-room lawyering, the authorities -who are equipped with the full facts and actually know the law better than either of us- believe they have a case.
"You are talking about suspicion: your fellow with a balaclava might be arrested for suspicion of intent to commit burglary, but unless they can prove that beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law then he gets away scot free."
See the other poster's comment. In short: No they don't.
"...then she wins."
No she doesn't, because she's still paid for her defence. Y'know... assuming they win.
Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.
" Mini-roundabouts are accident generators."
No, they aren't. I can't remember ever seeing an accident at one in a nation where people know how to use them.
Four-way-stops by comparison are just slow.
Re: All I can say is this...
They won't hack my accounts: All my passwords are set to 1oD45f$tmk@@a%fd!
Totally secure, eh?
Bit of a myth, that. .22 rimfire has a habit of bouncing off skulls.
Why use one?
Re: Throw the book at her.
"What do you mean "what for"? How do we know you didn't do something illegal?
Prove you didn't, or we lock you up."
Reasonable doubt is grounds to ticket her in my mind. Google Glass is useless when switched off. They're not even sunglasses. So there is ZERO reason to wear a pair that are switched off in her car. Ergo, it seems reasonable that they were switched on.
It's like getting pulled over with a balaclava, shotgun and a crowbar on your back seat. By letter of the law you haven't been proven to be planning burglary, but reasonable doubt will probably get you done for it, because the law works on the basis of common sense, and is not cast in stone in such cases.
Of course: With an expensive lawyer they'd be able to bullshit enough to get you off under reasonable doubt, but that's why rich people don't go to jail much.
Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.
I'm of the opinion that anyone driving around with a pair on that is switched off needs to be fined just as much for being a sad poser as they would be if they were driving without due care and attention with a pair switched on!
Honestly, the defendant is either a lying butt-weasel or pretty pathetically in need of attention to be driving around with them switch off but still on her face.
Re: Harder to make a living?
I imagine that the major-label performers are doing fairly well, having had their label negotiate deals from a strong position. As usual, it's the guys who are already short of cash who will be getting hosed.
"designed to head up the exhaust of a gas turbine"
Modern ones will quite happily lock on to the front of one too, if that helps!
But that has me thinking that some form of unguided rocket with a continuous rod warhead may be the way to go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead
Re: What if...
"And finally: No one is dumb enough to fire a gun in a built up area anyway, the chance of hitting someone is FAR too high for even the most STUPID person to consider it. "
I admire your faith in humanity.
However, last week called to say that you're wrong:
Re: Oh deer!!
"These rounds are supposed to be almost as accurate as standard rifle rounds."
If your rifle is only as accurate as a smoothbore sabot round, I recommend straightening the barrel.
..22 rimfire != .223 NATO.
I love the way the bootnote telling us just how awesome Lewis is weighs in as being nearly as long as the article.
Frankly, the article and bootnote read as an ego-pumping exercise for Lewis. I can't wait for next week's article: "Why you can't satisfy your wife and I can".
"Whereas St Jules(™) made himself a w*nking man?"
He made himself a media celebrity and more than a little rapey.
"I am sure Assange knows this and stays away from windows lest he be assassinated by one of the snipers 500 meters from the embassy....just waiting patiently for him he forget as he admires the view from a window."
Tinfoil hat, sir?
Or are you seriously suggesting that the US of A is camped quarter of a mile away, happy to blow away an Australian, sat in an embassy, in the UK?
"Snowden has taken front place is stealing all the limelight."
Quite right, too.
Snowdon is an ex-NSA employee who got his own story, got it out and made himself a wanted man.
Assange just passed on what someone else is rotting in jail for getting and rolled around the world on the back of it, lapping up media attention.
Re: And of course....
"Nope he won't go to UK jail"
He possibly will, before being extradited. He broke his bail conditions. I don't give a toss about whatever else he did and what happens next, but the fucker stuck his fingers up at our entire legal system and cost us a fortune when he decided that he didn't agree with what the court said.
Money and fame gave him far more chances than any of the rest of us would have got, and I despise the little shit for it.
Re: this should be good
"This one clearly has a long way to run"
Unlike Assange, who only has about twelve feet to run before he hits a wall...
Re: Fucking snipers!
"but such language amongst friends is exactly how me and my mates unwind."
Yeah...between mates, face to face, where you are all consenting to that level of conversation and where you can communicate and understand that you actually didn't stick your willy into either of their parents.
That's fine, but I personally wouldn't want to throw such abuse over open airwaves to non-consenting people who may or may not be about 9 (because then they'll think it's socially acceptable, when it's really not).
Re: I am wondering...
You get lasered by your X-box.
Or you would, if the laser worked.
Re: No Such Thing as Profanity!
"YOU do not have the right to censor ME for ANY reason! That is the very basis of free speech!"
Yes I do.
No its not.
It's a service provided by Microsoft, and they can censor you over their airwaves just as much as they fucking like, and there is fuck all you can do about it, because you elected to use that service. So basically, you're talking rubbish.
You appear to be one of those people who whine about 'free speech' and 'rights' without actually understanding what is and is not covered, nor what level of responsibility such freedoms levy upon on you.
It's you who's the whining panty-waister.
Honestly, there should be a new 'Godwin's Law' for people who start to bleat on about 'free speech' inappropriately.
Re: No Such Thing as Profanity!
"in the company of consenting adults."
Ummm... you just hit the nail on the head: I think that the issue is that people who merely happen to be playing the same game as you *aren't* consenting to be swore at and many of them aren't adults.
Re: One other benefit...
"Actually it's more like an alcoholic pouring vodka down my throat. If you think all of the nicotine is removed by your lungs then you're obviously less bright than we all thought."
How about you bother to read up on them, instead of being perfectly ok with vandalising people' property and assaulting them for no rational reason and resorting to throwing insults at someone you've never met to back up your argument, instead of a few facts.
"Given you're a smoker, that's a pretty low bar..."
Given that you're trolling a load of rubbish anonymously on forums, yours is lower.
Re: One point that is often conveniently forgotten ...
"when they are used in my vicinity, I can feel the affects of the nicotine."
Re: @dogged (was: One point that is often conveniently forgotten ...)
"Do you really think sharing your addiction with all and sundry is a good idea?"
Do you go and hide in the cupboard when having your morning coffee or evening pint, then?
Re: One point that is often conveniently forgotten ...
"No matter how you you look at it, these narcotic drug delivery systems are evil."
I can look at it in plenty of ways that aren't evil.
What you are saying though is that your drugs of choice are fine, and everyone else's are evil. If you do happen to be tee-total and don't consume other mind-altering drugs like caffeine and chocolate then I might consider retracting my statement, but until then you're just being a massive hypocrite.
Re: One other benefit...
"your eCig might get snapped in half if you sit next to the wrong person...me for instance."
You might get punched in the face for doing that to the wrong person... me for instance.
There is no rational reason to lash out at someone smoking one of these things any more than there is for a tee-total person to lash out at someone drinking a pint near them.
Re: The usual blizzard of nothingness ...
I still like "Collateral damage was caused by non-target specific incendiaries", as used by a spokesman at a press conference during the Gulf War.
Or "We dropped napalm on the school by accident", in normal human language.
We'd die and not see it coming.
GRBs are my favourite extinction event.
Re: > so bright ... because it was so close to Earth
New Scientist reports 3.6 billion. Mainstream news 4 billion.
I love the way that mainstream media casually rounded up by 2,351,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles!
Re: Have you tried the ATKINS Kim?
Don't get jealous: His thumbs are clearly too fat to operate a controller.
"No they don't"
Your petrol tank disagrees!
"I'm actually writing a book now and thinking of the title. "
'Care in the community through my own eyes'
'Under the tin-foil hat'
Re: There WAS a female driver in the past...
It's actually perfectly legit for women to drive on private property, such as compounds, or within ARAMCO.
Re: Hope the Feds have better proof......
You mean apart from allegedly hiring someone to murder someone else?
Because if only *trying* to get kill someone doesn't count as 'hurting anyone' and isn't worth punishing, then you should be letting a lot of people out of jail real soon and I assume you'll be happy to live alongside them.
Re: Solitary Confinement?
"Maybe Obama will hound this guy to suicide, too."
Yeah, because he's personally responsible for every one of your laws that put the guy in jail in the first place. You should totally blame him for everything.
Re: A Call to action
"Have the Saudi authorities considered a policy of mass lobotomisation for their women folk?"
I believe Pakistan and Afghanistan are trying a trail scheme called "shoot girls who go to school", which is half-way to being the same thing.
"At the time your correspondent, then a young trainee telecoms engineer, spent five months on secondment to Bahrain in the late '80s, the Saudi driving test purportedly involved driving five metres forward and five metres in reverse – together with the payment of a modest bribe (baksheesh). It's unclear how far things have moved along in the 25+ years since."
It's now 100m forward, reverse into a parking bay and a bottle of Black Label.
Likewise the milk. If you'r not pouring it in steaming from the cow's teat, you're drinking nasty peasant-brew. The china needs to have been turned sometime within the prior 72 hours: Older cups are utterly inferior. Only if you do all of these things and sup your chosen brew after washing your mouth out with fresh ice from Antarctica - while sat outside next to at least 50 acres of park - will your tea be served properly. Otherwise you're a stinking peasant who I will look down upon with my superior tea-drinking ways.
Oh: Platinum teaspoon, too. Anything else makes the stuff vile and fit only for the tiny, pathetic minority of serfs who use teabags.
Re: AaRGHH - how standards have been perverted
"I can scarcely credit what my eyes saw."
The entire point of the survey was to find a decent work brew, made under work-brew conditions. Not to take high tea. Now you might drink from fine china and consume the finest loose leaf in the confines of your office, but the vast majority of us make it in bags and drink it by the half-pint.
"Brit tanks had them as standard fit."
HAD? Still have, you mean.
(Although it appears that the idea they were present in WW2 in any numbers appears to be a complete myth)
Re: Surely (...don't call me...)
"4 minutes in a mug is truly excessive (and the tea would be cold by then). Brew tea in a teapot (properly seasoned, of course) for 4 minutes..."
The point of the exercise was to evaluate the 'work brew', which is why the idea of using a pot was previously discussed and discarded during lengthy debate (Rightly too: Although a few have such things at work, most of us don't!). I don't remember signing off on a 4 minute brew time, though!
I tend to leave Yorkshire for a minute or two, because you get that lovely clay-red colour.
But 4 minutes is insanity. It only gets left that long if I go for a slash while it's brewing and decide to have a dump instead!
I can only assume that the testers don't really like tea!
That or the 4 minute brew time is making the decent stuff taste of too much tanin and is making the undrinkable dishwater into something nearly drinkable.
Re: I read this and I think
"I sure am glad I live in the free world where this doesn't happen."
No, we just invade other nations under the auspices of made-up stories by uncorroborated single-sources.
The 'story' doesn't really have much merit. A single defector inflating his own importance with tales of North Korean wrongdoings does not deserve to be reported with any degree of seriousness.
"As a reenactment archer - heavy war bow, 210lb - I can assure you that I can teach anyone to be reasonably competent with a crossbow in under ten minutes."
That's a proper big-a$$ bow. :)
Reasonably competent != someone you'd want on a battlefield in your retinue, though. That's a level of bare capability which would totally disintegrate into zero capability under battle-stress due to lack of muscle memory and drilling. They're not 'a crossbowman' so much as a liability grasping a very expensive and effectively useless weapon.
Additionally, we're not discussing a comparison between a reasonably competent crossbowman training in an afternoon and a skilled archer, but two equally skilled marksman. You can't be as skilled a marksman with a crossbow as a trained archer in an afternoon of training, despite what our modern mythology teaches us. I stand by my comment that crossbowmen were skilled and practised and not idiots with magically self-targeting weapons. Yes: The bowman requires more training and more muscle than the crossbowmen, but crossbowmen are much maligned as regards their skills in a completely fictitious manner, as the external source cited demonstrates.
I still dispute completely the concept of just rounding up some idiots and giving them crossbows, and that this strategy (or anything else prior to pike and shot, really) outmoded the longbow. The longbow was a great weapon, but the crossbow wasn't as bad as armchair historians think it is. It held its own against gunpowder weapons for quite a while and was good enough for most of Europe.
Re: An oldie, but a goodie
"The crossbow disarmed peasants, put skilled archers out of work and fixed powere even more firmly in the hands of feudal lords."
That's a bit of a simplistic over-reach tainted by modern mythology surrounding both weapon systems. I don't disagree that the author is an ass with a stupid view of history, but not strictly for the reasons you outline.
Firstly, the crossbow didn't kill off the longbow in the medieval period in Britain *at all* (there wasn't anything to kill off elsewhere, so I'm assuming we must be talking about Britain). The 100 year war came to the end and reduced the need for quite such a large dedicated corps of Yeoman, but they carried on in use as the primary ranged weapon of armies in Britain until gunpower took over, as evidenced by the findings on the Mary Rose and plenty of sources. So the author was flat-wrong there.
"As the author states, any bellend can be reasonably certain of hitting their target with a crossbow. This means you can round a bunch of brainless thugs and use them rather than pay money for soldiers who've spent years learning how to shoot properly with a longbow. Nice, right? Suddenly the people are free?"
The author is mistaken and playing to longbow vs. crossbow mythology. Crossbows are not magically immune to windage or trajectory or flight-time. Genoa was famous for its crossbowmen for a reason: It's a skilled job, still. So much so that it was worth paying guys to protect crossbowmen and even sometimes do the loading for them. Don't think that shooting with a crossbow is any less skilful than using a bow. Remember also that the longbow was the machine-gun of the era, used for firing indirectly at tight formations, not for robin-hood style antics as portrayed in film. Archers shot at flat targets on the ground, not nicely upright ones at close range, like we see today. Hitting a dense formation is not hard.
The reason why Yeoman were valuable isn't because of some uber-level of hand-eye coordination: It was physical strength and grunt-power. Firing a powerful longbow requires powerful shoulders. THAT'S where the training comes in: You need strong and practised men to bend a bow. Crossbows were an easier weapon system to use because you didn't need to be as strong to load them, and you could still load them while hungry and suffering from dysentery. You can pick up a crossbow and use it, but it takes skill to hit anything, especially given the kick they give.
“Compared to a longbow - which is, when all is said and done, a stick”
Not really. It required skill to make. It required specific materials to make, which were a major import to the UK. We purchased an awful lot of bowstaves from the continent to fill the need, and they also wear out and break pretty quickly so yeomen needed to carry spars on campaign. Then there’s the materiel: Arrows. Again, not just sticks. And the rate of fire of the bow (machine-gun, remember), required that a bow-equipped army needed to be supported with a staggering amount of ammunition. We made bows and arrows on an industrial scale, and with a great deal of effort.
“What a crossbow actually is, is "seriously fucking expensive".”
That is correct. They were not a peasant weapon. Even though Europe was nicely deforesting itself in order to make steel on an industrial scale, the crossbow was expensive, and most certainly NOT a peasant weapon, in the same way that mail was not peasant armour. (If you want ‘seriously expensive’ kit, consider how long it takes to make a mail shirt without access to spools of wire and having to rivet every single ling!)
“So you get rid of your skilled retainers, hire a bunch of thugs, issue them with crossbows for the duration of any time spent in missile combat and then collect them all up again afterwards.”
Except they didn’t do that. Again, your view of crossbows is tainted by modern, incorrect views.
“Or anyone who has a longbow because hey, outnumbered!”
If the Hundred Years War taught us nothing else, it’s that longbowmen don’t give a sh!t about being horribly outnumbered!
“The crossbow was not an instrument of anyone's freedom but an iron boot on the neck of the peasantry.”
It wasn’t anything like that. The Feudal system was the iron boot. The Church and Serfdom were iron boots. The crossbow did nothing at all to repress peasants. If you wanted to repress peasants, you just rode up and burned everything: It worked for William in Yorkshire, just as it worked on the French in the Hundred Years. You don’t need a crossbow.
Mind you, workers wages actually rocketed in late-medieval times due to the plague and lack of skilled workers. Far from it being a time of increased repression, workers suddenly had a power that they never had before.
Re: Pretty much as expected then
Not without it being intercepted, no.
"Have they released some dodgy photoshop work as "proof"yet?"
Well, if they've already got nukes and rockets, they just need to loft one above South Korea and they won't need to worry about any fancy EMP devices.
It's an obvious avenue to take and a frightening one. The Norks have obsolete kit, crap C3, no chance of getting air superiority, but lots of men, reasonable anti-air capabilities lots of arty and lots of old 50s era kit. An EMP blast followed by good old human wave tactics would probably be their most effective offensive measure, and one that shouldn't be discounted too casually.
Re: Hidden in a truck?
"These things don't fit in briefcases. They fit on the large back of a particular muscular marine."
SUITCASE != Briefcase.
You've just done the equivalent of turning a truck-mounted weapon into a Smartcar mounted one! And anyway, they're not that heavy. I'm pretty sure that you don't need to be a burly marine to carry 23kg:
"How do the NSA manage to hide the resources ( hardware + flesh) that are required to stock all of this information? This must take huge amounts of processing power, they must have their own seperate power grid."
Yes: It does. Why else do you think they've been buying massive supercomputers for thirty years? What else did you think they were doing with it? They are currently doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
This is nothing new and the information has been in the public domain for quite a while. It's just that seemingly nobody gave a sh!t beforehand.
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Beijing leans on Microsoft to maintain Windows XP support
- Storagebod Oh no, RBS has gone titsup again... but is it JUST BAD LUCK?