777 posts • joined Wednesday 30th May 2007 16:50 GMT
Re: It is all in the tilt.
"Winners and losers. People in the Maldives aren't so keen on it considering their country will be underwater in a century."
That's a bold prediction!! Based on.......?? Absolutely nothing. You could just as easily say that Britain could be underwater in the same timeframe. It could happen. Anyway. If you look at history, you'll notice that islands have regularly gone underwater and new ones been formed as well, all without human intervention. It's called change. It happens. If anyone thinks their particular area of the world is never going to change, they're living on another world. Ancient people knew this. They lived near the sea (say in India for instance) and when the sea level rose, simply moved inland. That's why there are towns and cities left under the sea, several miles out. It happens. Get used to it and simply moved with it.
Re: Scientific Theory
"Pretending there are "two camps", with evenly matched opinions worth consideration, would be laughable if it wasn't so desperately wrong."
Simply slagging off the people you disagree with is the worst form of debate. Many, many times in history, the opinion of experts (and indeed groups of experts) has been shown to be wholly wrong. Given that many of today's 'experts' have also been shown to be manipulating the data in a somewhat less than open way (for instance in East Anglia) and why should we believe them. I'm not saying that some on the denier side have no case or rational thinking, but there are also some 'experts' who release reports which are hideously skewed and as said above, doctor the data.
So, the reality is that both sides are guilty of misrepresentation and 'playing' the game. Even the figures you state are doing this. 97.1% say that humans are causing global warming? Well, if they did, they're all stupid. Of course humans are having an impact and therefore could be deemed to be 'causing global warming'. However, what they have so far failed to show is whether this impact is 1% or 99%. If it's at the lower end of this scale, we probably don't really care much. If it's at the top, we do.
As has been stated many times before, the 'experts' constantly banging on about CO2 is also very unscientific. Yes, it may be the gas changing most in the atmosphere, but there are far more potent greenhouse gases changing as well that would cause more potential damage with their small changes, than with CO2s large change. However, that doesn't buy headlines does it. So, they go on about CO2 almost exclusively because they can quote large changes and big percentages which sound all better. Things such as methane and water vapour are a much bigger issue as greenhouse gases.
Re: Would a 35 metre searise be the main problem with global warming?
"No we don't face disaster if we don't stop burning fossil fuels at the current rate - maybe just a billion dead in a hundred years due to reduced agricultural capacity - or more likely in wars over access to that capacity. No real problem then."
Compared to population expansion, CO2 levels are likely to be an insignificant problem. A billion dead in a 100 years will probably be quite a small number if total population keeps climbing as it has done. At a planetary level, we need to control population, otherwise over population will get us long before AGW. But the never ending rise in human numbers doesn't really get much airtime compared to AGW.
"Would a wise man choose to jump on a new and potentially damaging course of action based on the certainty of the above words? Or would a wise man be sure-footed before taking his next step?"
It just isn't that simple. If we waited for certainty all the time, the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened. Should we burn coal and produce steam? No, we aren't certain it's OK. Not taking chances would have left us in the caves of old. Would someone have ventured out of the cave? No. After all, it could be potentially damaging. Might be something dangerous out there.
You can't get certainty and sometimes you simply have to act. Given that many of the fundamental decisions were made in the past, we can't change them now. The question for us in Britain and Europe is whether we want to implement all these horrendously costly measures when nobody else in the world is really that interested and therefore only slow things a little? What's the cost to us? We potentially become completely non-competitive and our manufacturing declines to nothing at all. After all, we either don't have the energy to manufacture, or the energy is so expensive, manufacturing is financially not viable. Same for living here.
Sometimes, for practical reasons, you need to do something bad for a while before doing the good. Maybe, if we built some coal fired power stations etc. and kept the lights on, whilst investing the money from current renewables (and other 'subsidies') into truly long-term sustainable solutions, in 50 years, we really could turn the clock back? Instead, we're spending huge amounts in subsidies etc. supporting solutions that can never really work long-term and aren't the real solution. Anything who really thinks wind farms are a solution to energy generation are living on another planet. They simply generate too little, are uneconomic and require backup generation behind them in case the wind stops blowing!! Now, tidal and wave would be another matter, but for years they didn't get any investment as they were clearly going to be longer term, whereas wind farms could be done right now.
Re: Scientific Theory
Amazing. For a pretty balanced posting, why the 2 downvotes. The AGW followers are clearly downvoting anyone who even remotely claims or backs anything but AGW.
Personally, I believe mankind has a built-in superiority complex that makes us believe we must be responsible for everything. That's not to say it's often true, but that doesn't make us responsible for absolutely everything. I've always believed that nature is far more powerful than we'll ever be. Volcanoes, earthquakes, weather etc. prove this.
I don't really know what's happening with the climate at the moment, but I've not really seen anything credible (to the point of reasonably proven) from either side. Bearing in mind the state we're currently in, it seems rather stupid to be spending huge quantities of money on trying to stop something which is way too big for us to stop. It's also irrelevant as the majority of CO2 output in the future will come from countries with absolutely no intention of doing anything about it. So, why bankrupt outselves when we're going to have no or little effect?
Better to simply roll with it. If the sea levels rise a bit, move inland some. If weather gets hotter or cooler, we can change things to accommodate. Rather than trying to keep earth exactly the same all the time and ideal for us, why don't we realise that the earth actually changes naturally and accept this. People thousands of years ago used to live WITH nature and accepted it's changing moods and simply moved with it. Now, we expect to change nature to keep it the same, something we can never do. We're living AGAINST nature.
Now, none of this says that recycling or trying to save energy isn't the right way to go. We should, of course, try to conserve resources and live as sustainably as possible. However, we're burning money and bankrupting ourselves on things that will never really provide this or are too uneconomic. Wind turbines, smart meters etc. are all part of this. Without huge subsidies, they simply wouldn't fly. Let's do what we can in a sensible way and use the money left over to fund projects that will provide long term results and might actually make everyones lives better in the long run.
Re: Not wanting to cheer on Google, but .........
You may be quite right. I should not insult Paris by comparing her to a MP, let alone Margarent Hodge.
Not wanting to cheer on Google, but .........
I would never seek to defend Google and their tax avoidance scams, but when faced with Margaret Hodge, especially in the mood she was yesterday, I really was waiting for them to retort with something about MPs having no right to talk about morals etc.etc.
I thought they showed great restraint when attacked by Hodge and called 'evil' etc.etc. How can a MP really start throwing sticks at Google and try taking the moral high ground? It's a bit like Hitler and Goebels calling each other the worst!! After all, what's worse; being entirely legal, but arguably not paying a 'moral' amount of tax, or claiming (not necessarily Hodge herself, but MPs in general) expenses to which your are not entitled, normally tens of thousands (some might call this theft or fraud and therefore a crime).
Hodge showed such high handed contempt, I would have gladly cheered Google on if they'd made some smart put down as anyone behaving like she did deserves a good slap regardless of the rights and wrongs. Especially as she is a member of parliament who writes the rules!! If they manager to manipulate those rules, why don't they simply change the rules? The bare faced cheek of the woman was beyond contempt.
I was thinking of using the Paris icon as whilst they don't in any way look alike, they probably are mentally on a par.
"A global standard"
Yeah, right. One things for certain; you'll never get a global standard. That's why there are these tax havens now. No matter how hard you try, someone will leave the standard for some perceived benefit, normally financial. Anyone who thinks a global standard can ever be possible is really ignoring the whole of history.
The other thing that normally happens with global standards is that they are incapable of making a decision or changing. The UN is a good example. So hamstrung by politics, that it can't really do anything.
Re: Israel's naked selfishness is gross to behold
"Israel are in conflict of UN resolutions - The US (and UK) have attacked other countries with a much weaker mandate"
I think you'll find that both sides are in violation of various UN resolutions, international treaties and laws. As you say, Israel is in violation of various UN resolutions. However, Hamas and various other Palestinian factions are in violation of the Geneva convention as well. Using hospitals and schools as launch sites. Suicide bombing etc.etc.
Both sides are as bad as each other. Neither has the moral high or low ground. As people have stated before, some organisations find it useful to have a lot of civilian casualties, a tactic long used by various organisations to curry international public opinion.
As to the UK and USA; you are quite right. The reasons for Iraq were a joke. Afghanistan arguably has a better rationale, but I doubt the invasion and occupation will actually make any long term difference to terrorism.
Re: If the Arabs put down their weapons today...
Very true. Other Arab countries are simply using the Palestinians as a battering ram against Israel. It's the old saying 'Your enemies enemy is your friend'. If they really liked the Palestinians and cared about them, they could have taken them in, or at least would stop using them. Instead, they're a handy battering ram that enables them to be at arms length and therefore avoid a lot of the criticism. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have never really realised or cared that this is the case and therefore believe these people are actually their supporters and do care.
As soon as external parties get involved, it all gets very political and very opaque. The same will occur in Syria. Under the covers, there are external countries and entities influencing things. You've got various anti-Israeli groups in the south fighting for the government in exchange for weapons etc. You've got Iran backing the regime, as they've always been close. With the 'rebels'? Well, you've got various allied groups to Al-Quaeda and to some extent some western countries. It's long ago ceased to be about what the population want.
Re: Both as bad as each other.
Absolutely true AC.
Anyone seeing this as a one sided question is completely missing the point and does not understand history. Both sides are responsible and both sides have the key to the answer. They have to work together. Both sides have done good and bad. You can argue till the cows come home about who is 'most bad', but it's irrelevant to fixing the problem.
If the various groups stopped firing rockets at Israel and carrying out suicide bombings etc., Israel would leave them alone. If Israel left them alone and ignored the attacks, eventually the attacks would hopefully stop. However, neither side is willing to act without the other. Also, the Palestinians simply can't act as one. This causes an immense number of problems which results in loads of agreements failing.
Re: Mr Hawking, you should listen to “Palestinian academics”
"Hitler said similar things about Poland in 1939. It's rationalisation, and the global community (except USA) doesn't buy it at all."
Totally and utterly different. Did Poland have all its forces massed on the border? Had it called up reservists etc.etc. No.
"Look: International law is quite unequivocal about this kind of thing. No matter how 'clear' Israel imagined the threat to be, firing the first shot is an act of aggression, and can be regarded as a war crime (after nuremburg). So Israel was the aggressor in legal terms, and they still insist on playing the victim. This isn't about religion or race, it's about law and common decency."
I think we all know that international law is interpreted by the powerful countries and the winners and also should, like all laws, be guidelines, as there are always exceptions. This is precisely what a court is supposed to allow for. So, whilst technically Israel was the aggressor in that it fired the first shot, no sane person is going to hold them liable. It was quite clear the Arab countries were going to attack and Israel simply got in first to prevent it. Anyone blaming Israel or holding them liable for 'starting' that particular conflict is completely missing the point. Also, do bear in mind that the Falklands (for instance) was a conflict and not a war as we never technically declared war on Argentina. So, strict technicalities are pretty irrelevant as I would personally say the Falklands was a war.
"In fact Israel is the only country in the region that has invaded all its neighbours in recent times. The idea that they are a model of stability is ludicrous."
Israel has invaded Lebanon. You can argue about whether the constant bombardment from southern Lebanon gave them just cause. They have only invaded the other countries through attacking before being attacked during the various Arab Israeli wars. So, yes, technically you are correct, but the real intelligent reasoning is not really the same.
"Before the Israelites invaded, the Holy Land belonged to the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. But that's not important right now."
It's been settled by all manner of 'tribes' through the centuries, including the predecessors of the Palestinians and Jews. So, saying that the Holy Land belongs or one or other is irrelevant. You could argue it belongs to anyone who has ever settled there.
It's a bit like saying England belongs to the Saxons, Romans, Angles etc.etc. Land belongs to a country and anyone who wants to live there in peace and according to the countries laws should be allowed to, regardless of colour, creed, religion etc.etc.
Re: Mr Hawking, you should listen to “Palestinian academics”
""At the same time, how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?"
AND anyone who complained or resisted was shot in cold blood? (And then called a "terrorist" because, of course, the righteous Israeli forces would never harm anyone who wasn't a terrorist)."
This is a really pointless argument. Israel only has control of the West Bank, Golan Heights etc. because of an act of aggression by the countries that used to have that land. Yes, I know Israel fired the first shot, but they were going to invade, that much was clear. They lost, so lost land. It's always been that way, throughout history. And, Israel has handed land back; e.g. Sinai; when peace agreements were signed etc.
So, was it really 'their land'? They decided to attach, but simply lost, hence lost the land. Plenty of evidence throughout history that this is acceptable. If you attack someone, you have to take your chances in return. Also, don't forget that the West Bank was taken from Jordan, but the UN has given it to the Palestinians!! So, according to the above logic, the Palestinians don't own it either, Jordan does!!
I'm not saying what the Israelis are doing is right or proper. Far from it. But, the situation pointed out above is nowhere near as clear as made out and is a result of aggressive acts against israel to some extent. However, that's not to denigrate the bad things they're doing now.
However, taking sides will never resolve this conflict. It simply provide more cannon fodder. We need people to see the good and bad on BOTH sides and who can act in a calm and even manner, acknowledging that both are good and bad and that external parties are also having a big effect.
Re: Israel's naked selfishness is gross to behold
Yes, it is. Advancements are generally made by people, more often groups of people. Often these groups are not single religion or even single state, especially these days. So, listing an 'advance' as being from a single country or single religion is really very silly. A lot of the advancements made in the Arab world during their 'golden years' were actually a result of mixed groups. During the crusades, Christian lived in peace amongst Muslims for many decades and were only ever affected if they acted against their hosts. So, some of the advancements made during these 'golden years' were actually from Christians (working amongst Muslims) or even mixed groups!!
"That's how it works as I understand it."
To my knowledge, there has never been a case upheld in court (UK), where the owner of the connection has been held liable for what's been done over the line, unless it can be proven it was them. This is why they raid the house and seize computers etc. for analysis. If it was as simple as you suggest, once the connection is identified, you simply need to charge and it's job done. This isn't the case or what happens.
Both as bad as each other.
We need to look at history to see what's wrong here. The state of Israel is a modern concept and has no historical (as in before 1940s) context. Same for the 'state' of Palestine, which never actually existed. Palestine has never been more than a protectorate. In reality, looking back into history (hundreds of years), both these 'peoples' have lived on this land at various times, sometimes even side by side!! They are actually closer genetically in many ways than we are to them!!
This shouldn't really be about religion either, as there are Christian Palestinians and Muslim Israelis. So, whilst the majority may be Jewish to Muslim etc., both sides have significant populations of other religions. The vast majority of both populations simply want to live in peace and have meaningful lives. The majority want nothing to do with this conflict and given some time, could probably learn to live alongside each other.
So, what's causing it? Politics!! Pure and simple. The Palestinians are being used by a lot of Arab nations and Israel is being used by a lot of Western nations. Each side is being 'sponsored' by someone. In essence, multiple countries are vying for power in the area and are sponsoring one side or the other to try and get the upper hand. Both Israel and those surrounding it (in quite a wide area) have very dubious histories, including politicians who have controlled mass killings etc. The only reason why Israel currently has the Golan Heights, West Bank etc. is because Arab nations joined together and were going to attack it. Yes, I know Israel fired the first shot, but clearly the Arab nations were going to attack.
Israel has made settlements with Egypt (for instance) and handed back land (Sinai). So, Israel is willing to do deals sometimes. Equally, the various Palestinian organisations have done deals as well. One of the big issues there, is that the Palestinian side if pretty fragmented. At least with Israel you have a single entity to deal with (the government). Even if you get some of the Palestinian bodies to agree, there's always another that won't. So, there's an issue of who can negotiate, which has also happened in Northern Ireland.
Ultimately, the solution has to be political and the first step is for people to get real. Israel needs to stop some of its actions. Hamas etc. need to realise they will never destroy Israel (it will never be allowed) and therefore stop saying that's their aim. All sides need to moderate their language and 'demands' and realise that sometimes you can't have what you desire. Insisting on the destruction of Israel is just stupid, just as expecting the Palestinians to continue in the West Bank and Gaza is stupid. The 'people' need to get the extremists out and get people willing to compromise in place. On both sides. Otherwise, it will just continue and most lives will be destroyed and damaged.
As to the academic boycott. Well, someone as intelligent as SH should look back in history. Did Rhodesia and South Africa get resolved by this? No. Did NI? No. Boycotts (at a country level) have never worked. The reasons is simple. It makes the population feel like they're under attack and makes them more extreme and more determined to survive because of it. SH time and efforts would be much better spent on trying to bring the academics together and talking sensibly rather than spitting bile at each other. The more talking between the various parties, the more understanding of the others perspective and then hopefully, some compromise can occur. It's the only way. Just refusing to deal with someone or another doesn't work; just look at NI as an example. We spent decades fighting the IRA etc., but it was only when we sat down and talked with Sinn Fein that things starting progressing. May well not be perfect yet and god knows there are still issues. But, it's a hell of a lot better than it was.
A telephone call is slightly different if you deal in content as well. As you might be able to voice match the participants, you might be able to prove individuals. Using the content of an email, you might possible as well. However, telephone interception does allow for the contents to be used. They're explicitly stating that content cannot be used for internet intercepts.
Re: NAT, routers etc
I don't really see what IPv6 has to do with this. You can just as easily NAT an IPv6 address as any other. They would have to ban NATing, which is impossible to do from a practical point of view. I don't care what type of IP address you're using, there are plenty of ways of obscuring that. Even if your device is allocated a unique IPv6 address and you're not NATing, you could just change that to another address. Who's going to know. Even if they only allow some addresses on an internet connection (bugger for any sort of shared or public access point), all you have to do is set someone else's IP address. By their logic, everything you then do is the other persons responsibility!! Madness. MAC addresses are no use as they can be changed. Effectively, you would have to assign the IP address to the NIC and physically prevent changing it. Even then, you could borrow someone elses ethernet card and stick it in your desktop.
Bonkers. Absolutely bonkers. Anyone supporting this in parliament should be sacked on the grounds they're too dumb to be even MPs. On this basis, you should probably put them to sleep as that means they're too dumb for any job.....
I'm not so sure.
I have a strong suspicion this actually is politicians. With many high profile cases around the internet and criminals using it, they see it as an opportunity to show themselves as 'tough on crime' to the masses. Unfortunately, in this case, the masses probably know more about the technology than the politicians and therefore see right through the scam. Unfortunately, politicians aren't reknowned for having the intellect to know this.
Re: Worse Than Jason Voorhees
Do the security services really want it though? Surely, any tech savvy person in the security services knows the information is of very limited use as it would rarely identify an individual 'beyond reasonable doubt' and therefore would add little to any trial. So, what's the point? Either, they're not really asking for it, or they intend to target people (and maybe prosecute them) using information that does not meet the required court standards. Maybe that's why they're very keen on secret courts and trials?
Why not cut out the middle man and simply charge anyone they fancy whenever they like on the basis there's something we don't like about them. Would make about as much sense.
But, that's the whole point. The information is not stored by the ISP. They can identify which endpoint (from their perspective) was associated with that IP at that time. However, that doesn't give a person. At best it identifies a house or business etc. Many people could have been using the internet service from within those addresses. So, what are they going to do? Make the owner of the line responsible for everything done by everybody on the line? That would be madness. The truth is that attribution can only be achieved through credentials and not any physical entity, whether ISP connection or whatever.
On the one hand, politicians always go on about getting everyone connected and the great business benefits and opportunities the internet brings. On the other hand, they're constantly trying to bring in stupid legislation like this, which will simply impinge on it.
I'm not sure who is advising (if anyone) the government and more specifically the Home Office in this. They don't seem to realise that an IP can never be linked to a single human being, no matter what they do. At best, they'll be able to track it to an endpoint. However, who's using that endpoint? Unless they mandate userid/password logon (with logs retained) for every endpoint, unless they actively see the person using it, it could be anyone.
This also misses the fact that once the connection ends up in someones house or business, all bets are off. The best anyone (other than the owner) can say, is that it's somewhere within that house or business. No more. With NATing etc., routers, firewalls etc. in common use, anything more is practically impossible. At that point, you either make the owner of the internet connection liable for everything done over it, which is stupid, or you have no real proof of anything.
And what of hacking and viruses etc. If your computer is taken over by someone else as part of a botnet, are you still liable for what it does? Clearly, the government and their advisers need to speak to people with some reason and understanding of how the internet works, because they're not showing any. It may be a pain for the police and intelligence communities to actually have to do some real work, rather than just looking the answer up in some log somewhere, but that's the reality. I'm not sure what GCHQ are doing, but you would have thought a person or two from there could advise the government in some sense.
Re: How things have changed!
"Damn religious extremism and terrorism for making common sense a casualty of war."
To be fair, I think common sense has been disappearing long before 'the war on terror'. It's just that terrorism and extremism has enhanced the pace a bit and brought whole new areas, never thought of before, into play.
Re: What I'd Like.
"My personal unscientific vote goes to Commandant Steve Cochran - The reason will be obvious if you go to the site."
Now, I don't like to judge a book by it's cover, but...........damn. I see exactly what you mean. The others look relatively normal and sane. Now, I know the camera can do dreadful things, god knows I've had this happen enough to me, but he really isn't helping himself.
Personally, I also love the titles. An assistant principal of everything!! The titles lower down the chain are pretty funny as well. Give everyone a jumped up 'important' title and suddenly they all feel better about themselves and more important. Says something about the individuals really..........
"1) We didn't have the constant worry about home made bombs going off killing or seriously injuring people."
Completely irrelevant. You can't change your whole way of life based on a few nutters planting bombs. Britain was extensively bombed during the 70s and 80s, but we didn't suddenly start prosecuting kids for stupid trivia.
"2) Unlike the the girls, we took precautions to keep us safe."
Difficult to tell what precautions they took. There's not enough detail. However, nobody was hurt, so maybe they did take precautions. Who knows.
"Sorry, but lets be real. The school system has to protect itself and it has to re-enforce that its possible to do something stupid and someone can get hurt. They have to set an example so others think before doing something similar but even more dangerous..."
Yes, let's be real. You don't go around potentially ruining a girls life for a stupid prank. It's called proportionality. Nobody is suggesting she shouldn't get a right royal bollocking. But suspension? Yes, let's get into the real world. The world outside of the USA.
Re: @Mad Mike OOPS!
"First school age kids can't run around with weapons legally. Technically the .22 rifle they got for Xmas or their birthday is owned by their parents. Also you better believe that when a parent give a gun to a teen, they teach the teen about proper gun safety. (Or rather they should...) [Think of it as evolution in action]"
If I believed this was done to allow Darwin and his 'laws' to work, I would applaud the system. However, I'm pretty convinced, it's actually stupidity on the behalf of lawmakers. The other issue is that the kid could just have easily killed someone completely unconnected with the decision, so Darwin isn't working then. Many parents in the USA aren't teaching their kids about proper gun safety, keep their guns way too available etc. and that's why there are so many shootings. Whether the parent owns the gun or not is really quite irrelevant. I agree the 5 year old had no idea what he was doing and will have to live with the consequences for the rest of his life. Hopefully, this will make him treat his children and guns better than his parents treated him. There is no way on this earth that the parents should avoid significant legal penalties for such acts of crass stupidity that allowed this to happen. It is epic negligence at best.
"Also in an accidental shooting, no one is let off scot free. They may not face charges or jail time, but there are still repercussions."
Yes, if they have a conscience. However, if they had a conscience of any real mental powers, this wouldn't have happened in the first place, so the parents are probably busy off blaming someone else. I repeat what I said above. The parents should be facing serious legal action.
"Note that I'm not advocating any jail time, however because they did this on school property, I think that its fair that the school does something."
I don't think anyone is saying the school should do nothing. Just that sending in the stormtroopers is completely disproportionate. But then, people in the USA have never really understood proportionate response. Ample history of using B52s to take out individuals.
"Mad Mike, you sir are either a master of sarcasm or a fucktard. an "AK47" in a fully automatic variant would be a Class 3 NFA item and unable to be purchased unless the item was manufactured prior to 1986 without being a a "Special Occupation Taxpayer" - ie a dealer who is selling the device to a credentialed LEO/LEA"
At this point, I will take the master of sarcasm charge you've laid. I will prove this further by pointing out that I come from a relatively speaking sane country (not the USA) and therefore do not understand the exact ins and outs of American gun ownership law. However, this is the reason why I also understand that thinking there is really any perceivable difference (in damage inflicted terms) between a weapon being automatic or semi-automatic is madness, especially when they have a standard magazine capacity of 30 rounds. It simply means you can shoot 1 person every half second (total 30) rather than 30 in a couple of seconds shorter time by using automatic fire. I also understand that someone using a semi-automatic will probably aim each shot more and therefore will probably hit more people than someone simply spraying on full automatic and therefore the semi-automatic model would quite probably cause greater casualties.
But then, what would a country that thinks not having its population permanently armed to the hilt know about firearms?
For information, Mexico may well have more murders and tighter gun control, but then Britain has very tight gun control and very few murders with guns, so your correlation simply isn't supported by reality.
Don't get me wrong. I do think that Britain has gone a bit too far. But then, I wouldn't suggest that allowing just about anyone to own an AK47 (whether auto or semi) is a good idea either. Sensible compromise is the answer, but American gun laws and action against this law clearly show this is not a concept America understands.
Re: Did all that... but...
"The school wasn't too happy with it (but what really pissed them off was when we built an 18-ft snow phallus with a pair of 4-ft snowballs on the playing fields; after that they made a new rule, "no building of snowmen in sight of the public road")."
That would be a major crime these days. I mean it's wrong at all levels. I'm sure there must be some crime they could charge you under for playing with a snowman's c**k and ba**s.
"Yes its very easy to walk in to a grocery store or a pharmacy and buy household chemicals to make explosives. Heck, you don't even need to do that to make thermite."
Yes. In the USA, this is almost as easy as walking to the local shops and picking up an AK47 with a couple hundred rounds. Nip back home, shoot someone by accident and be let off scot free. Unfortunate accident; nothing more. I really can't imagine how a society that allows children to shoot pretty much anything they like then think it's reasonable to do anything about a coke bottle experiment.
They've got people in the Rocky mountains running around with automatic weapons and playing at 'survival' and don't seem to do much about it, but a child doing something pretty harmless gets the book thrown at her. Amazing lack of judgement at all levels. Yes, it could be dangerous and people could be harmed, but certainly not as much as having more weapons than people in the country.
Well, given the thumbs up and thumbs down on this site, there would appear to be at least one f**kwit American reading this forum as sensible postings about her not being a terrorist or other subversive are being downvoted, mostly once. If we'd found the only one in the USA, I could handle it, but I strongly suspect there are loads more lurking where this one came from.
It would seem that common sense, proportion, intelligence etc. are all words that don't translate from English into Americanish.
Hasn't the Department of Homeland Security (or whatever they're called) got involved. After all, this is a bombing at a school isn't it? Send in the SWAT teams, called in Delta Force, SEALs etc.etc. Next stop, Guantanamo in an orange jumpsuit and plenty of 'bracelets'. That'll teach these terrorists. Better be ready for the waterboarding..............
Sorry, for a second there, I thought I was an assistant principal at a school in Florida. Just realised I'm actually an IT guy in a sane country.
Given the comments of the principal, you have question a couple of things.
1) If he recruited this t**t, why did he not notice the tendency towards stupidity in the interview process? If I recruited someone like this, I would be too embarrassed to show my face.
2) How long has the bloke got before becoming unemployable and looking for work? (Assistant principal that is)
Re: Police State
The STASI? They're boy scouts compared to this mob of fascist idiots. I never heard of the STASI arresting anyone for a pop bottle experiment. Subversion, yes. Trying to cross the wall, yes. Spying for the west, yes. Mixing bleach and aluminium foil (or any variant of that), no.
You really know you've gone too far when one of the worst intelligence organisations in the world look sane compared to you.
Bearing in mind this is the USA, I would have thought they should be more concerned about the two dozen AK47s and other assorted automatic weapons available to her at home!! Yes, bleach can be dangerous to both her and other people nearby. However, that's how children learn. Whether it's climbing trees or riding bikes or whatever. They sometimes hurt themselves and maybe someone else. But, they learn and come out much better for it.
Bearing in mind what they've done to her, I imagine they're breeding a lot of people who hate them at home as well as Afghan and Iraq. And people wonder why there's a significant number of people in the USA who hate the government (state authorities etc.). Do you think there's a chance she could become one now?
Re: Missing the point.
Yes, of course. If you were old enough to understand it (and potentially be offended), you sought it out. If you weren't old enough, you wouldn't understand what you were seeing, so it did no harm. Either way, completely unnecessary.
Re: Why should they? @LPF
You're making several very fundamental errors here. Firstly, you're assuming that if Google paid more tax, this wait wouldn't happen? Evidence points otherwise. The NHS hasn't got any better the more money is spent on it. So, the reason you're baby girl is waiting 4 hours for treatment is far more likely to be poor organisation, spending money on the wrong things, poor priorities etc.
Anyone who still believes pouring more money into the NHS (after the huge increases under Labour) will somehow magically fix it is the dimwit. It's about organisation and spending the money right, not about the total. Asking for more money is the easy and ultimately wrong way of fixing it. Don't spend more, spend more cleverly.
Also, you might as well criticise all the people who get boob jobs, or weight reduction surgery or whatever. After all, they're lifestyle choices as well and therefore ultimately 'optional'.
Re: Remind me again what the MPs said about their expenses ..
Indeed so. How many MPs hid behind the 'we did nothing illegal' defense even thought their acts were immoral. And now, they're trying to have a go at others who have also done nothing illegal, but have arguably been immoral.
Anyway, it's in MPs power to change things. I wonder how long it will take MPs to realise that over complex tax laws is one of the prime causes of these loopholes existing (and therefore their use by companies). As they can change tax law, why don't they simplify the law massively and therefore remove most of these loopholes. They're complaining about something they created and they have the power to change.
Simpler tax laws would also be useful to us poor non-accountant types who have to deal with HMRC. Most of the time, I find myself 'educating' them on how the tax system works and what the rules are!!
Re: Re:Ongoing hypocrisy (not past) does render her arguments invalid
Your logic is a bit warped here. On the one hand, you say a valid argument is a valid argument regardless of who presents it. In the next sentence, you say you determine if it's valid partially by looking at the past record of the presenter. That's contrary to your first point, as you're taking the presenter into account to determine if it's valid!!
In reality, people rarely change their character. If someones been a hypocrit once in the past, maybe that's allowance, but when they've done it consistently, that's not. Unless they've had a religious conversion of course.
Unfortunately, the very characteristics that make someone want to be a MP and the methods you have to use to become one, especially if you rise into the cabinet etc., rather make you the kind of person who shouldn't comment.
Now, I'm not defending Google on this. Just that MPs in general, especially those of ministerial rank (or have been), generally speaking have a pretty poor history of acts and therefore are not the best people to point it out. It may be right or not, but having one bad person slag off another bad person (or company) is never as effective as having a good person do it.
It's been known for years. The busy bodies and interfering people at Brussels (and most other big 'political' centres) just make things worse. All these politicians just pander to their 'mates', who normally become their mates through supplying money in one form or another. Creating and funding pressure groups can never be part of any sensible political organisation, especially when they're pressuring the body that funds them. Subverts both the political body AND the pressure group itself.
I've got nothing against being environmentally responsible and doing what we can within the bounds of a) it must work and genuinely be environmentally friendly and b) it mustn't bankrupt people. This initiative, amongst many, seems to fail at both.
The stupid thing is, all these nonsense initiatives actually give environmental initiatives a bad name. They switch people off to anything done in the name of the environment. In energy, installing free insulation in houses is a good, cheap way of making a difference, both for the people and the environment through reducing energy loss and therefore usage. Paying people stupid subsidies to put solar PV and wind generation etc. on their houses is effectively just giving people money. It does bugger all for the environment and is so cost inefficient it defies belief.
We desperately need to get some sense into the environmental discussion, but there are now so many vested interests on all sides, this just isn't likely to happen.
Re: What's the point?
This is why we are moving away from Solaris. Had plenty installed, but for years and years, Sun couldn't come up with anything intelligent around roadmaps (at least ones that stuck!!). Now, Oracle are doing the same. The whole Sparc/Solaris marketplace has been going through a slow slide downwards and Oracle seem to be doing nothing to stop this. Really, really sad. Solaris is a great operating system and Sparc was as good a chip as any. But, over the years, both Sun and now Oracle seem to be throwing it away.
Re: What's the point?
Yes, indeed. Getting salesmen together from each group can be interesting. Pretty easy to get each to insult the other and start a fight. Entertaining, but beyond that, not really useful.
Any decent company would have realised you can't go no like this, but appears Oracle has not. The x86/Sparc (Solaris v Linux) debate is bad enough, but now we even have in-fighting within Sparc!!
Re: Billl HAHAHAHAA!
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong as such, and I acknowledge the performance gains. The problem arises in that the processor becomes a single function entity (rather than multi-function) and also you start loosing economies of scale, potentially increasing prices. Crypto accelerators are still pretty much multi-purpose in that encryption has enough standards to allow lots of different software etc. to use the same ones.
However, if you have an accelerator solely for Oracle DB, what about when you want to run an application tier, say Weblogic? Plenty of soon on that DB box (spare capacity), none on the application box. So, you either have to run sub-optimally on the DB box, wasting some potential there, or buy another application box. You're starting to divide your server base into smaller and smaller chunks, which leads to greater overheads.
Of course, a lot of this depends on exactly what accelerators they implement, how much die space they take up and what performance benefits they give. Then, people will have to run the TCO calculations and see if the multi-purpose servers, whilst having theoretically lower performance, actually have a lower TCO through lower cost and maybe higher utilisation rates etc. We'll wait and see.
Re: Billl HAHAHAHAA!
I think this is all horses for courses. The T5 chip should be good for heavily threaded workloads provided you don't try to LDOM it heavily. So, there's a market. Database workloads.......that might be a different matter. As you say, cache size is not the only difference between processors that handle big single threads and many smaller threads. The whole processor design is different. So, the M5 simply adding cache will help, to a point, but no more. The SPARC64 is designed much more for heavy single threads.
The question people need to ask themselves, is do they want two different types of servers? Do they want some kit specifically for DB (and the like) workloads and others for heavily threaded app layers? Isn't that a bit inflexible? Mind you, according to Oracles strategy of putting hardware accelerators into the chip, this would get even worse. Might you end up with a processor for Exadata, a different one for Exalogic, etc.etc.? Unless they waste a lot of space on the silicon, putting on accelerators that won't all be used together, won't that be a risk?
Interesting times, but I can't really follow Oracles strategy, if it has one. They seem to be suggesting we head back in time towards more and more speciality processors, dedicated to certain functions and that's a direction hardware has been moving away from for some time. Not saying it's wrong, but they're the only people doing it, which must make you wonder. Genius or mad. A fine line.
What's the point?
I'm not really sure what Oracles game is here, as they seem to change tack every week. They announce the T5 and M5s with loads of fanfare etc. as one would expect. They then, almost immediately, announce the Fujitsu servers.........Why? What is a customer supposed to think. It's like Sun all over again. No perceivable strategy and confusion everywhere. What's the point in Oracle selling the Fujitsu servers unless they have at least some benefits over the T5 and M5 line? Is Oracle likely to admit this though?
Also, as Oracle want to put hardware accelerators into the chips for their software, surely they need to own the processor design? In which case, once again, M5 and T5. Fujitsu might put the same accelerators into their chips, but presumably would have to pay Oracle? What's the status of Oracle Linux and Solaris at Oracle? As Sparc is where they can put the hardware accelerators, you would expect them to promote this architecture heavily and over x86. This would suggest a move towards Solaris. But, what's happening? Oracle consultants still promote Oracle Linux and x86.
It's all very reminiscent of Sun all over again. Left hand doesn't know what right hand is doing. No coherent strategy or direction etc.etc. Maybe Oracle did take over Sun, but maybe Sun 'infected' them with an ill?
Re: @Mad Mike - @Anon 12:10
"Not like today then, now that energy has become so cheap."
The price of energy today has more to do with subsidies and climate change levies than the actual cost of fuel. Also, it's the price of the coal against the price of imported coal. Interestingly, if you take out all the climate charges etc., coal is one of the cheapest means of generation!! However, coal from British pits was far more expensive than coal from foreign pits. So, you either paid the extra as an effective subsidy, or you purchased from abroad. And why was the coal so expensive? A variety of reasons, but being on strike more than working certainly didn't help.
Re: @Mad Mike
@Professor Clifton Shallot
"Absolutely. But Right To Buy also prevented local authorities from spending the money raised on building new housing stock for their residents so the bri.. incentive was large for the people who were in on the scheme early but limited in its longer term benefit."
Never said she or the policy were perfect. Just trying to balance the 'she screwed the working classes' comments with a few facts by showing she actually gave them quite a lot of money. Some people suggest she gave high earners massive tax breaks and money back etc. taken from the 'workers', but the reality is that both got benefits and both got hit.
Re: On the whole
It's a question of degree. People need to want to do better and need to gain the rewards of their efforts. That's greed to an extent. However, it went too far. Before she came to power, everyone just sat back taking it easy. Change my job.....go on strike. Try to be more efficient....go on strike etc.etc.
However, she went too far. A certain amount of greed is good in driving people to do better for themselves, but it has to be tempered by understanding and contributing to the greater good. This is the bit that was lost. She did good and bad, but didn't manage to get the balance right.
I certainly wouldn't want to turn her into a saint, but I wouldn't turn her into the devil either.
After all, many council house tenants made huge profits on the properties she sold them at next to nothing, but she screwed all the working class didn't she?
Everyone takes their position and then remembers only one side of the coin.
Re: Respect !!
"Thieving, lying, criminal bankers. Why are people still wittering on about unions when bankers have done so much more economic damage?"
Oh yes; the country was in a much better state in the 1970's!! Not saying there isn't some truth in your comment, but the unions were doing the same sort of job in the 70s.
"Rupert Murdoch in charge of policy. (Who voted for him?)"
I think you need to blame people after Thatcher for that. Do you really think Rupert Murdoch told Thatcher what to do?
"And worst of all is that she did the opposite of everything she preached. She 'cured' unemployment by causing more of it, she turned right-to-buy into you-can't-afford-a-house-on-£30kpa, and she killed what limited social mobility the UK had clawed out of the pre-war establishment by the 70s."
I think you'll find that social mobility is far higher these days than during the 70's. Not saying this was entirely her actions, but some of them helped.
"Today, thanks to her, most people will be in the same class as their parents, and almost certainly earning less in real terms with lower job security - no matter how hard they work."
Yes, if they have no ambition. Personally, I believe that people have far more ability to rise through their efforts these days than in the 70s etc. Not saying it's great or couldn't be better, but it's heading in the right direction. Not all her doing either, but she started it to a degree.
Re: @Anon 12:10
"were was her human sympathy when she cost the majority of miners their livelihood."
I think you'll find the miners were heading into oblivion one way or another. The unions had such a hold on many areas of manufacturing with closed shops etc., that the cost of what they made was way too high. Yes, she broke the miners and caused a lot of hardship, but the coal was stupidly expensive and being driven higher and higher by their constant strikes and attitudes.
The unions needed to become more sensible and the miners duly obliged as the first to try and fight. So, they were made an example of. Did it all go too far.....yes. Both sides were in the wrong. The miners were stuck in another time and Maggie went too far, but to blame her totally is completely wrong. The miners were also architects of their own demise.
If you look back on her financial policies, you'll also find that she didn't hit the 'kids and the working classes' any harder (or some would even say, as hard) as those better off. I remember when I used to get MIRAS at 40(ish)% through being a higher rate taxpayer.....That went. etc.etc. A lot of things like that went during her time. And don't forget that she gave a lot of council house tenants the right to buy their houses at a hugely subsidised price, which is equivalent to giving them money.............
But, some people take their stance, either pro or anti, and then concentrate only the one side that supports their argument, forgetting everything else on the other side.
Don't forget the poll tax riots. Strange that more recent surveys suggest the majority of people now support something like a 'poll tax' paid by each person rather than each property!!