1031 posts • joined 30 May 2007
A: Not in the concentrations found in a Fission reactor.
B: Certainly not enriched."
True, but the sea has one great advantage. Over time (but pretty swiftly really), it churns around the globe and distributes any concentrations. This doesn't happen on land, so a much bigger problem. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's a good thing to dump loads of radioactivity into the sea, just that the sea is actually better at dealing with it.
Re: I'm no MIT...
In reality, there's no shortage of nuclear power plants at the bottom of the sea (numerous have sunk in subs etc.) and there are even a few nuclear bombs (of various types) as well!! However, I do share your sentiments about 'unsinkable'. I guess it depends a lot on how deep the water would need to be to mitigate the Tsunami. As long as it isn't too deep, it could actually sit on the ocean floor.
You're making the mistake of bringing reason and thought into the process. Mumsnet is a place to self-obsessed, hypocritical tyrants. That's why they think they have the right to dictate to everyone else and being listened to, even though they know little about the topics on which they speak. They're hypocritical because they think it's acceptable to call men c**ts, but say that to a woman and the world ends!!
It's really the online equivalent of a hen do or womens trip to see men strippers. They all egg each other on and it all gets rather extreme and they all think they're so hard done by. After all, the government simply must control the internet, after all, I'm a mother and have enough to do already!!
God alone knows why some men join. Maybe they're just trolling, I don't know, but the name says it all. Another example of why women can be as sexist as they like, but men would get attacked for doing the same in reverse. If I tried creating a fathersnet, there would be uproar about sexism etc.etc. Same as how you get women only gym sessions, but I've yet to come across any men only sessions.
Oh, how terrible.
This is really terrible news.............my heart bleeds.
The only thing funnier would be if they found their way into the extremist list of websense and started getting blocked as such!! Given some of the clangers that have happened in the past in this area, it could just happen.
Re: Read between the lines
As has been said, 'Shareholder Value' can be interpreted in many different ways. In fact, so many that the directors may actually do pretty much whatever they like. After all, you can always argue some sort of shareholder value. So, directors are in reality given almost total freedom to do whatever they like. In return, the shareholder can vote (at AGMs etc.) at regular intervals to change directors etc. if they wish to. One such reason might be that the shareholder does not believe the director is giving shareholder value. That's the risk the director takes in his/her decisions.
So, IBM directors could quite happily not have done this and accepted lower EPS for a quarter and simply said they thought it was right. It is then up to the shareholders to do something about it. They can vote at elections etc. or do things like sell the shares, where if enough do so, the shareprice will fall heavily. Of course, this affects the value of the directors shareholding, which is a primary reason why they don't tend to do anything that could negatively affect the shareprice. Given good shareholder returns will always tend to raise the shareprice as ROI is good/improves.
It has become increasingly common for the employee to be considered a resource and dealt with in a pretty poor way in many companies. However, if you look at history, you soon realise that treating employees badly often results in the company doing rather badly, as has been said in earlier replies. So, now, some more enlightened companies are beginning to realise that treating employees reasonably and doing things like honouring contracts is actually good for the business in the long run, even if the short term is affected. Additionally, more shareholders are realising this as well.
After all IBM and HP (both companies that have treated their employees pretty poorly in the past) are doing so well now? Both seem to be heading downwards rapidly. Even if they can keep shareholder returns good for a few more years, it will come to an end at some point.
Re: It is the Linux manufacturers that lag behind... (Bollocks)
"MS Treats any non MS product like second class citizens."
To be fair, I'm not sure they're singling out non-MS products. They seem little better at supporting some of their own!! Maybe it's just general incompetence?
"No, the team writing the Hyper-V tools are up to date and are part of the Hyper-V team. It is the Linux manufacturers that lag behind in merging the updates to the Integration Tools into their releases. As it mentions in the Microsoft statement."
Unfortunately, you're making the mistakes of trusting what Microsoft says. Any virtualisation product that expects every client to always be at the highest level of integration tools is living on another planet. There are a huge number of reasons why this will never be the case. We have products that stipulate the exact version and patch levels that are supported as far as the O/S is concerned, so we can't necessarily just put higher versions of things like integration tools onto them. It breaks the application support model.
Also, why is this happening on Linux clients (or maybe non-MS) only? Surely, some people have run a Microsoft O/S without the highest/right level of integration tools? Wouldn't that get the same message? This all sounds very FUD like. Mind you, it's not really surprising. After all, if you buy a virtualisation product from a company that also sells O/Ss, what would you expect. A good reason to stay with anybody but MS if you ask me.
Re: @Mad Mike .... When I was at school
"Yes. And if that had been your daughter, so would you have done ... Especially if she didn't want to go to school for a while after .... Would that be so hard to understand ?
Sorry, but .... needed saying ...."
Sounds like you're the kind of parent we need to deal with. It's happened and I didn't do anything than sit down with my daughter and explain the situation. Yes, I asked the school to keep an eye on it, but certainly didn't go in shouting and screaming and making complaints etc.etc. And in return, the school did a good job and appreciated my calm manner and conversations with them. In fact, it was them who told me about the 'other parents'.
Re: And yet....
Another thumbs down!!
Presumably, we have at least one or two parents on here who don't want to exercise proper control over their children and to be held accountable for exercising that control.
Anyone who thinks they should be able to sit their child down on a computer on the internet and not control what they do in some way appropriate to their age has obviously abdicated parental responsibility and therefore should not have children!! Probably the same parents who abdicate parental responsibility onto teachers (and society in general) as well.
Re: Does not add up!
"Adults can (hopefully) be expected to differentiate between pornographic fantasy worlds and real life. Teenagers with little of the latter probably not so much!"
This rather suggests that people believe teenagers suddenly switch from pimply teenager who needs to be controlled and protected from such things, to full adult with all the knowledge etc. required to act responsibly overnight!! Where exactly is the cutoff point between adult and teenager? In reality, it is a gradual slope and teenagers need guiding down it. A job for parents and parenting, not something to be ignored or handed over to some sort content monitoring system.
Re: someone was spying on these kids ?!?!?!
So, they put something like monitoring software on various PCs in the home and monitor usage. This presumes the person logged on (if there's even a concept of logging on) is really using their own account. As the people being studied are children, I assume it's fair to assume the parents (and possibly others) have their passwords?
So, two questions come to mind. Firstly, what is the reaction of the parents when they're told little Johnny and little Alice are watching porn? (Father/mother looks embarrassingly to the heavens?). Secondly, when they look at the second tranche of data, is little Johnny no longer looking at porn as the parents are now aware? Even if they make the information anonymous, it makes clear suggestions as to peoples childrens usage, or does each parent assume it is other peoples children?
Re: When I was at school
Yes indeed. I really am at a loss to understand how these figures are obtained and the probable margin of error in them. We all know that teenage boys will tend to boast about their antics and teenage girls will often downplay them. I would have thought that most 6 years olds would wonder what you were on about and would probably wonder what porn was if they found it. Probably think it's two people fighting!!
This is really all about adults putting their sexual beliefs and attitudes on people who don't have those thoughts at the moment. I always remember when very young boys in the playground would go round lifting up girls skirts (I'm talking about 6-8 years old). All they knew was that the anatomy was different. There was nothing sexual about it, as they were nowhere near old enough to have that sort of thought. Yet, when the parents arrived, some would go ballistic, screaming about sexual assault etc.etc. No, it's just kids doing what they've done for years. Nothing sexual about it at all. And you thinking it is sexual just shows how poor a parent you are (unable to put yourself in your childs position) and more to the point, how your mind works around sex.
Re: And yet....
Not sure where the downvote comes from.
Surely, parents should monitor and control what their children do in a manner consistent with their age. Therefore, if they're very young, the control and monitoring is high and becomes less as they get older? Therefore, I would have thought a child of 6 would be heavily monitored and controlled, especially in areas such as the internet.
If you failed to control your child and they ran into the road and were injured, I imagine people would be appalled and maybe social services involved if it happened enough. So, what's the difference with them being injured (albeit in a different way) through looking at inappropriate website content?
Maybe if parents took more responsibility (in many areas, not just internet), a lot of problems in society at the moment would reduce. Some children get taken away for what some people consider relatively minor 'offences' and yet they can't get taken away because their parents are allowing them to watch hardcore porn at the age of 6? Something wrong there.......
Should apply to everything
By the logic of the court, an ISP (or other provider of services) should block access to/from anything that is illegal. Now, copyright is one such thing, but there are plenty of others as well. So, this judgement shouldn't really be about copyright at all, but the general concept of supplying services to known criminals. However, this case goes further in that it actually affects the supply of services to people who commit offences against CIVIL law (i.e. copyright), not just criminal law!! So, the ramifications are much, much wider.
We want action
They can say whatever they like, but until they actually do something, nothing will change. MPs are just full of hot air and say this sort of thing to get press headlines etc. and then do absolutely nothing. The various civil servants know this, so act a little contrite (sometimes) and then just continue on as before. Until significant numbers of them start loosing their jobs (without payoffs) over this sort of thing, nothing will ever change.
Margaret Hodge is one of the biggest windbags out there. Almost completely clueless about everything, she simply goes for headlines. She helped get the law into place and now complains about it. Talk about playing both sides.
Re: No news
Bearing in mind he won't be charged until he's in the USA, how does that help?
It was always convention (until recently) that the country seeking extradition had to show enough evidence etc. to convince the host country there was a reasonable case to answer. Exact wording changed from agreement to agreement, but the same basic principle. Now, extradition agreements often ask for no evidence. Just extradite because another country is asking.
Of course, European Warrants are just as bad. Greece says they want you, off you go. No real process, no real evidence, just a one way ticket. Once you're there....................
All these extradition agreements are going the same way as it helps the executive (of whatever country) and makes life easier. Justice? What's that?
Re: New Zealand is not a real country ..
They are states of a sort. Just states within a United States!!
That's what happens when you allow a country to get too big and powerful. No matter how good it starts out, greed and corruption soon turns them into the local bully boy.
"Explosive decompression, loss of comms due to condensation, attempt to alter course for triangle distress course and loss of consciousness."
Explosive decompression enough to kill or severely disable the crew, but not bad enough to affect the airworthiness of the aircraft? Loss of comms due to condensation, but at least several electrical systems still working? Attempt to after course for triangle distress and loss of consciousness. So, rather than get the oxygen supply on (which would have given them some tens of minutes), they instead reprogram the flight computer and pass out? The above is a series of million to one possibilities. In total, vanishingly improbable.
"Autopilot resumes altitude, possibly due to incorrect action on the part of hypoxic flight crew and the rest is history."
The first thing they would do is get their oxygen masks on. This would remove the immediate hypoxia risk. So, again, what we know seems to rule this out.
"The pilot suicide theory is a really big stretch, it involves seven hours of flying, that's pretty damned determined when the act could have been performed at any point in the flight and would've been easiest during takeoff."
Not really at all. Firstly, there have been several proven cases of this in the past. So, it's a known thing. Also, don't forget that suicide might invalidate insurance policies. Also, you have cultural shame etc. The biggest thing against this is probably the fact that the pilot would have to kill or disable the other aircrew and passengers to ensure no message gets out. Moving from suicide to murder is a big step. Also, if the plane were destroyed, trying to prove suicide would be very difficult without radio trraffic, so why not crash as soon as possible?
As you say, we will have to wait for the investigation and if the wreck is found. The strangest thing for me though is the actions of the Malay authorities and other nations involved. It's all really odd. The Malays have also been proven to have lied and look as shifty as anyone I've ever seen. Why? It's really odd behaviour.
"Off course, wearing oxygen masks, but still went down due to air crew oxygen starvation."
Agreed. It can always happen, but is vanishingly rare. Also, note the complete difference to this case. Everyone died (or was incapacitated) of hypoxia very rapidly, but the flight control computer didn't get programed afterwards as happened for the recent case. So, it doesn't explain what we know of this case.
"Personally, I'll await finding the aircraft and the subsequent investigation results. Anything else is simply guessing and uneducated guessing at that."
Absolutely. But, I was simply replying to your own suggestion and showing why it didn't really fit the facts as known. We know that the event which caused them to turn around did not knock out the crew as the flight control computer was programed afterwards. So, we know this can't be the case. As to what it actually was......who knows. So, you were actually posting a suggestion (to which I replied) and not waiting for the investigation.
Re: If it flew with the pilots disabled
"No need for a gas, only a lack of gas-air.
Gradual decompression would more than suffice. Though, there are alarms that should go off in the case of low cabin pressure."
Absolutely. However, there was clear manual intervention in the flight control computer after the incident which caused the turnaround. Plus, you have separate oxygen supplies for each pilot for at least a while. Yet, they didn't manage to get a message out? Clearly the electrical systems were still working to a point as the engines were still pinging a satellite. You'd need an insane chain of highly improbable acts to get anywhere close to something that could explain this.
Re: Mobile phones don't have remotely enough range
"There is a possibility that whatever incident also took out their radio or the pilots were overcome before they could take that sort of action."
I'm not sure if people are frequent fliers and trying to delude themselves or what. In an attempt to prove it wasn't deliberate action on someones part, people are chaining together events, which are improbable in their own rights, but together are fanciful.
The flash fire theory for instance. A sudden fire so intense it takes out both pilots almost instantly, yet leaves the plane in a condition to fly for 6-7 hours!! People are letting their desire for this to be an accident override basic logic and common sense. Especially as after the turnaround, there was clear manual input into the flight control computer at least. So, clearly a flash fire didn't kill the crew in one hit, otherwise there would be nobody to program the flight control.
Re: @Mad Mike
"That depends, as I've said already, on the way MH370 ended its flight: in a reasonably controlled manner, aka "water bird landing", or dropping uncontrollably from a high-altitude stall. AF447 did something inbetween. Of course that's just one factor in determining how damaging the crash would be; another would be the state of the sea surface. A pic of PanAm flight 6 ditching shows a Pacific that's pretty smooth, so it can happen, even out on the ocean. It would also be informative to know how large the largest floating pieces from ET961 were (no flaps, high-speed ditching in relatively calm water)"
PanAm Flight 6 was in 1956 and a totally different class of aircraft in every way and couldn't be used as any sort of comparative. If you've seen the Hudson River ditching, one of the biggest differences is obvious. Props are far better to ditch with than large turbofans hanging down under the wing. These cause all sorts of problems and can easily cause a plane to cartwheel unless the landing is perfect and in perfect conditions. One reason why the Hudson River incident ended well. A pretty damned perfect ditching in pretty perfect conditions.
I think it's also pretty safe to assume the sea surface would be anything but smooth. We're talking about the very south of the Indian Ocean and closer to Antarctica than Australia. The sea state is almost permanently poor around there and certainly has been poor whilst they've been searching. Just about anywhere on the planet would be better than there.
Also, note from the Hudson River incident the correct procedure to even stand a chance of coming out alive. You need to get the tail in and only lower the front at the last possible moment. This is because the engine will catch the water badly and cause the rear to lurch up suddenly, potentially causing a flip. The chances of getting a perfect landing without someone alive at the controls are almost zero and even with someone at the controls, they need to be very experienced and very lucky. Even the captain of that flight said luck had a large part in it.
All in all, it's pretty much clutching at straws. Everything is against it. They're taking a correlation (something in the water somewhere near where they might be looking) and extrapolating that to it being the plane. And as everyone knows, correlation does not equal causation or any form of connection at all. With something like 10,000 containers lost overboard each year, which is the most likely?
"AF447 hit the drink at about 280km/h, and still some parts remained kind of intact and floating"
Maybe. But, how big was the largest bit? Also, the photos show a lot of smaller flotsam around it. Single very large piece of wreckage and no flotsam visible? Not really credible.
"but is 'only' 60 feet in height"
No, the 77 tail is considerably shorter than this. The top is roughly 60ft off the ground when standing, but of course, the bottom part of this is air under the tail!! So, the actual tail itself is considerably smaller as an object. You can't count the air underneath!! So, if the debris is 24m in size, the tail is nowhere near big enough (even allowing for measuring error) to be it.
"for example, the NTSB tracks are somewhat detailed considering the paucity of data that's been released..."
Indeed so. We seem to have to extract the information from the various bodies rather than it being given. I get the distinct impression they know a lot more than they're saying. As I said earlier, the Malaysian minister etc. all look as shifty as you can get. They always seem to be saying as little as possible.
Then, you have the whole Malaysian peninsula crossing episode. The Malaysians were denying it, whilst the Americans were saying it happened (and were search to the west) only for it finally to be released that the Malaysians own radar provided the evidence!! At point, they were clearly lying or at best, hiding the knowledge. Why?
It all smells really bad.
Fire or other inflight accident is almost impossible here. From the flightpath, it is known that the autopilot was reprogrammed and it was following an autopilot course all the way over Malaysia and into the Indian Ocean. So, the autopilot course set was not to get them back to an airport, so it doesn't make sense.
Fumes disabling people is also not possible. The pilots are equipped with their own personal oxygen supplies, which may not have lasted 7 hours, but would have lasted long enough to get control and put out a mayday. We also know that the electrical systems of the aircraft were working at least to some extent (hence satellite 'pinging' etc.). Therefore, how did all the other electrical systems (such as transponder etc.) fail (and all backups) without being switched off?
For a considerable part of the early part of the flight post 'incident', mobile phones would have been in easy range of towers, yet no attempt was made to make any calls. Indeed, if I were flying in the plane, the severity of the initial turn back would have at least caused me concern and would have been obvious to those inside. So, again, why no mobile phone calls.
Also, bear in mind the debris spotted in the Indian Ocean is outside the 7hour flight time of the aircraft (it might have been carried by ocean currents) and is thought to be bobbing just under the surface. The largest part is also believed to be 24m long. If the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent (say due to fuel running out) and hit the ocean, there is almost no chance of a 24m piece of debris being left. It would hit at high speed (600mph?) and would be utterly destroyed. At that speed, it would be the same as flying into concrete. So, could they have tried to land on the Ocean? Maybe, but why fly there and then try to do that? All in all, this doesn't make any sense at all.
I'm sorry, but all in all, anything but deliberate act (by someone unknown) seems almost impossible. The known information (assuming what we're told is right) seems to rule it out. Whether it's the pilot(s) or someone else, who knows. The known movements of the aircraft seem to rule out accident, as does the inability to find the debris (so far) and the information that some of the known flightpath seems to include segments designed to avoid radar (flying low for instance, but whilst seemingly under control).
The other thing that is very odd, is the actions of the various authorities and entities involved in the investigation/search. The Malaysian officials look about as shifty as you can get. They constantly avoid questions, are now stopping relatives from talking to the press and just generally appear to be hiding things. They keep changing things and maintaining positions when everyone knows something else is true and then having to admit it later. For instance, they denied the flight turned back and went across Malaysia, but then had to admit their own radar had actually seen this!!
Some of the other countries involved also appear to be less than open or exhibiting strange behaviour. The Chinese are strangely silent in many ways considering the large number of nationals on the plane. Yes, there's the odd comment, but not as much as one would expect. Indeed, there is much less noise around it than one might expect. The known information is only gradually leaking out (such as the satellite contacts) and it's almost having to be pulled out of them.
All in all, a very strange situation.
Not sure you understand how the state pension works.
When it was setup, the government of the day took contributions and said they'd give the people something back. Interestingly, the contract keeps changing as the 'get something back' keeps changing.
Did they invest the money wisely to grow and become a pot to pay your pension later on? No, they did not. They spent the money immediately. They surmised that the contributions of workers when you're retired would be used to pay your pension. Similarly, when those workers retired, the workers at that time would pay their pensions. On and on to infinity.
So, the government got an effective income which gradually declined as people started claiming the pension. Then, it was self-sufficient. Current workers pay for retired workers pensions. Job done. Big pile of cash up front to fund things. Now, this was partly to pay for reconstruction work (and other things) after WWII.
However, as people live longer, the terms of the original pensions are looking rather generous. Workers can no longer fund the pensions of currently retired people due to the age they're living to etc.etc. Also, ratio of workers to pensioners etc. Hence, the pensions crisis we're (in a very poor way) trying to deal with at the moment. However, it did give them a big pool of money to start rebuilding after the war!!
So, no future workers, at least your state pension will be gone. Money purchase pots may be OK. Defined benefits schemes could also have problems if the number of workers declines a lot.
So, significant proportions of your pension are quite heavily (or totally) dependent on future workers and hence children being born and growing up. This will be true for many, many decades yet.
Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card
"Are you seriously suggesting that the smut industry may be less than reputable?"
I think it would be a close run thing between MPs and the smut industry on how reputable they are. I'd probably rather trust the smut industry with my finances than MPs. History shows the smut industry has been somewhat more successful in running their own businesses, than MPs are at running the economy.
In either event, both of them are engaged in f**king people, so not much difference really.
@Richard Taylor 2.
"But at some stage you would like some one to pay your pension?"
Not sure why you got downvoted for this. Until very recently, the current generation paid the pensions of the generation before. This is not now true for money purchase schemes, but is true for the state pension etc. You need people paying tax today to fund the state pensions of today. The money paid in NI (or tax) yesterday was not invested to allow you to get a state pension today. So, no workers today, no state pensions today.
In order to get workers for when you retire, people need to have kids today to become said workers. Alternatively, I guess we could import all the workers and have no kids, but that isn't economically viable. So, the comment is absolutely valid.
"I don't know, but would be be guilty of the same offence if he let his son into a news agent with porn on the lower shelves? (I suspect, the Newsagent would be guilty, not the farther.)"
I agree the newsagent would have liability. However, wouldn't the father also have liability if he didn't immediately seek to remove the child from such an environment? If the child started looking through the titles, would you not expect the father to stop him?
"Married persons allowance, family credit, £2K child care.
Any more of my money you want to give away?"
I never said it should be subsidised, I merely said it could be. Depends on what they think the benefits or not of subsidising would be and the social worth of doing so. Also, married persons allowance???? How old are you? That hasn't been around for years unless you're seriously old (born before 1945 I believe).
Indeed. If the police obtain evidence that parents are doing nothing to control their offsprings internet habits and unsuitable material (for the age group) is being accessed, is that a case for the courts for neglect? Should social services be involved? Now, I'm maybe more tech savvy than the average user, but I simply implemented a hardware firewall with content filtering on it. Not perfect, but it certainly stops the majority and as it keeps a list (long) of every URL they access, I think it was a reasonable response to the issue.
Perhaps they would be better off creating and selling such a hardware firewall (perhaps even subsidising it), so parents can have a plug and play option?
Another belch from the clueless
Whilst I totally agree that we need to ensure some level of protection for children, this is just another load of hot air from the clueless. Potentially anything on the internet could contain porn. Not just actual porn sites, but forums and all sorts, sometimes as a main theme and sometimes just single pieces. After all, people publish their own amateur home made porn now. So, just thinking about websites that do porn and nothing else is somewhat missing the point.
There may be some technical things that can be done both inside and outside the house to give some degree of protection, but ultimately, it is the responsibility of the parents. However, governments seem determined to take the role of parents and in some cases, parents simply don't care. You spend hundreds of pounds on technology, but won't spend tens of pounds on products to reduce this risk. Alternatively, you could always have the computer etc. in public places, rather than in their bedrooms etc. You know, actually take an interest in your kids.
But no, this committee seems to think they can legislate or technically get round the problem and seek to ignore the role of parents and good parenting in all this. They also don't seem to have realised that times have moved on since the 1950s, even though their own habits and that of others working in the Houses of Parliament suggest this (given the latest information on porn site access from said location). Of course, I'm sure this is all 'research' and has no gratification value at all!!
Not sure when they'll realise all these committees actually need members who actually have some clue of the subject matter they're trying to deal with.
Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?
Interesting that I get two downvotes for pointing out that the USA (and particularly CIA) were largely responsible for creating the Taliban through their actions during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It seems that some people have no idea of history or the actions of countries/organisations in the past. Also interesting that they haven't written a response to say why they downvoted.
The sooner the USA realises they caused a lot of the Islamic fundamentalism and are continuing to encourage it through their actions (killing lots of Muslims, invading countries etc.), the sooner they will become mature enough to understand that breasts are not obscene of themselves. As an additional byproduct, the world might become more peaceful as well. Win all round.
Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?
"What is child un-safe about a mother's breasts?"
Indeed. I would have seen some without hours of being born!! Maybe there's a link between being bottle fed and a fear of breasts?
Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?
"Rubbish. There's no moral judgement here. We are talking about one of companies at the forefront of the push to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships. Jobs was no Protestant and I can't see anything particularly Christian about Apple."
I never said the company made a moral judgement. The company is responding to the morals of one of its largest markets (or at least the section with the biggest voice!!). I was talking about the morals of the people in the USA (not necessarily employed by Apple) that make breasts a thing to be hidden and have this prudish approach, that requires major companies to pander to them.
"This is about keeping the image of the ibookstore (and thus iphone/tablet) a child-safe place. We don't put pictures of naked women in children's bookstores and if little Johnny asks mommy why the naked lady has no legs, little Johnny isn't going to see the ipad again. That isn't what Apple wants."
Nope. This is about pandering to bigots. Strangely enough, children below puberty don't see nakedness as anything other than normal. They don't see any sexual context to it at all. Even those in their teenage years don't spend hours ogling book covers, they can get much better content elsewhere. This all speaks volumes about the bigots who see sex everywhere because they do and can't see that it actually speaks more about them and their morals and beliefs than about other people. Nakedness does not equal sex, except to them. If mommy had intelligence, when a child asks about why the lady is naked, she answers his question rather than getting all embarrassed and assuming her little darling is automatically thinking about sex, because that's what she thinks about. Simple, factual answer is all that's required. No need for embarrassment.
"As for raging against those whose decisions don't conform to your own morality as "bigots", I'll leave the reading of the irony-scale as an exercise for the reader."
I did no such thing. I merely said that they were trying to force their morals on me, whereas I wasn't trying to force my morals on them. I said let people do what they want provided they don't hurt anyone and if you don't like it, look away. I don't particularly like horror films, but I wouldn't stop them being published (or books). I simply don't watch or look away when they're on. Bigots try to force their morals on others, which is what they're doing (not Apple as explained earlier). I'm doing the exact reverse, do no irony there.
"Live and let live indeed. Stop trying to make me run my business to suit your moral philosophy."
I haven't expressed any moral philosophy other than 'live and let live'. I have merely pointed out that Apple are being driven to this by the morally outraged of the USA, rather than by how they want to run their business. If it weren't for the puritanical people out there, I'm sure they would happily publish this, as it all helps turnover and profit.
Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?
"Yeah, right. In the US they refuse to sell your book. In Afghanistan they behead you."
Of course, the interesting thing about all this, is that the Taliban (and their predecessors) are largely a product of the USA (specifically the CIA) from the days of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The USA setup (or provided the funding) for many of the Madrasas in Pakistan that create the forebears of the Taliban and created a lot of the extremists Islamic views that now exist. At the time, they used it to radicalise people into fighting the Soviets etc. Somewhat backfired now.
There have always been a few extremists (of every faith) around. However, most of those around at the moment are the product of the USA in one way or another.
Re: Why do people fuss about Muslims?
Whilst I agree that the response is different (beheading/refuse to sell), the thought processes are the same and it's that we need to worry about. It's all about narrow minded bigotry and enforcing your views on others, rather than 'live and let live'. If someone wants to sell a book with t*ts on the cover, don't look and don't buy if that offends you. Have categories, so people can make an informed decision to look or not. As long as it's not hurting someone physically, leave well alone.
It always amazes me that the UK is seen is prudish (and it's true to a point), but compared to the USA....................
Given the recent protests in the UK about women breastfeeding in public, what the hell must happen in the USA?
Re: Backdoor fundraising?
You already do if it's in real time. iPlayer doesn't require it, but realtime streaming already does. How they monitor and control it is another matter however!!
Re: Oh so it's ok for GCHQ to spy on peoples webcams...
Ah yes, but when they do it, it's entirely professional and they get no gratification out of it other than knowing it's a job well done. When you do it.............well, no need to elaborate!!
Be interesting to know if the number of replacement keyboards at GCHQ due to liquid spillage has gone up since this started.
Re: Anonymous Cluetard Cue Matt Bryant's forceful explanation on how this is all necessary...
""....and how we would've been blown to shreds by them terrorists long ago...." In Iraq in 2010, when the CIA was hunting the local AQ leader al-Masri, rumours were that they had tried using hijacked email and chatroom accounts of other Egyptian militants to try and trick al-Masri out of hiding. They soon found out al-Masri did not trust 'blind' coms becuase he could not see the face of the people he was talking to. When he was traced to his hideout in Tikriit he was online using his webcam.... though I don't know if it was a YM session. Oh, sorry, did that info make your head hurt?"
So, in order to catch one or two people, spying on everyone is acceptable? It's the kind of logic that says it's OK to kill 1000 innocents, as long as you get the 1 you were looking for. It's completely out of proportion to the issue.
Also, there were far more effective ways of stopping what was going on in Iraq. Top of the list would have been to stop lying, stop killing thousands of innocents and get out of the country when your reason for invading was shown to be complete and utter made up rubbish!!
"You said it yourself, a cheap, easy laugh but at who's expense?"
Nobodies expense as it wasn't aimed at anybody!! You're looking to take offence and strangely enough finding things. If you spent less time looking for reasons to be offended and more time just getting on with things and being less sensitive on other people behalf, perhaps there would be less grief in the world.
It has something to do with the article in as much as the story was about Nancy and the person in question was a boy. The poster simply make a quick comment in a jovial way. It's called humour. Almost everyone (I say almost as you obviously didn't) reading it knew the context in which it was posted and knew the person was simply joking. Therefore, it wasn't interpreted as homophobic as it was certainly not posted in that manner and the intent was clear, which was in no way homophobic. It was simply a cheap, easy laugh to brighten peoples day.
People who read far too much into peoples off the cuff comments are actually doing some very worthwhile causes a lot of harm. Exactly the same can be seen in womens rights and other areas. It's the difference between being literal with words and interpreting them in a more intelligent way, taking context and obvious intent into account.
Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike
"Whilst it is always amusing to see how the sheeple simply fail to read any background info before bleating their baaah-liefs, it's not surprising the poor little woollies are confused when Greenwald and co keep changing their stories. First of all they claimed Miranda was just an e-mule, then they claimed he was working for The Guardian, and then they claimed he was not just a journo but actually deeply involved in the Snowdope work. I suggest you read the original Guardian report linked below, then the second link on how Greenwald's story has evolved."
I agree the situation is very confusing and there have been lots of different claims, even by the same person. Hence, you cannot possibly know which is true and which is false and therefore you can't possibly make factual statements based on them.
So, my comment on how exactly has he demonstrated his intent to be party to its disclosure is absolutely right. People have said he was going to be, people have said the exact reverse. Nobody, least of all you, know the truth, so you can state facts.
As the police failed to charge him with an offence under the OFA, it would appear they also don't know, as otherwise, it would be a clear breach of the OFA and should result in charging at least and probably prosecution. So, even the police seem to back my position and disagree with yours!!
Re: Psyx Not quite the same
"The coppers in the Miranda case used the anti-terror laws as it gave them a nine hour interrogation period and the powers to seize his electronic equipment. "
You have to stop and hold someone using legislation pertinent to the reason you're stopping them. You can't just pick any old reason you fancy and worry about the charge later, although the police don't seem to understand this. Of course, additional or different charges could result, unrelated to the original reason, but the original reason must stand scrutiny and be proportionate and correct for the offence or belief you are investigating. It would be like holding someone under suspicion of murder in a shop to allow you to search them and eventually charge them with shoplifting.
"They justified it on the grounds that the information Snowdope was releasing was already leading terror groups to change their coms, meaning that there was a reason to believe any material on GCHQ techniques being carried by Miranda could also be of use to terrorists."
An oft cited reason, which so far has no evidence to back it up. Terrorists have known for decades (and a great many other people as well) what the NSA, GCHQ etc. were up to and how deep their monitoring was. There are clues everywhere. Known terrorist makes a mobile phone call and a few hours later, the location is hit with a missile from a drone. How does that happen without mobile phone calls being intercepted on a pretty much global basis? Little of what Snowdon released was particularly knew, it simply gave credence to the rumours circulating for decades.
"The coppers had to let Miranda go after nine hours as they did not have enough to charge him by the end of that period, probably because they had not managed to decrypt and analyse his devices by then. Should Miranda be stupid enough to set foot on UK territory again he could very well be charged with both breach of the OSA and terror laws."
Nope. They had to let him go as he had committed no offence. Given that he had the password on him, they could have decrypted well within 9hours, would have seen some of the content and could easily have charged him had an offence been commited. My bet is he can come and go as he likes with no issues.
Re: @Mad Mike @That terrorist "Ian Michael Gumby"
@Ian Michael Gumby.
"The information which Greenwald and Snowden have released has damaged the security of the UK and US countries."
Another statement without foundation or grounding.
"You're never going to find an 'aha!' moment or the proverbial silver bullet and even when you do, many will not believe it."
Because nothings actually happened, I'm having to claim there never will be a moment!! Laughable. There has to be some event where the security services (or whoever) can say the terrorist attacked 'x' or 'y' because it said this or that in one of the released documents. They can't because it hasn't happened not because it couldn't.
"Saddam admitted he was claiming to have WMDs as a way to keep the Iranians at bay."
So, we now wage war and kills hundreds of thousands on the basis of what one man says? Let's not bother checking it's credible. Let's just take them at their word and go straight in. After all, why would you expect intelligence agencies to be able to work out that someones bluffing and get to the truth!! Might as well just watch the news and believe everything anybody says. (By the way, I'm insulting the British as well as the American intelligence agencies here).
"Saddam was amazed that the US fell for it, but that's another topic for discussion. Saddam's admittance was never widely publicized."
I suspect they probably knew he was lying, but it was a case of finishing told business. We all know General S was asked to go to Baghdad, but refused.
"It goes beyond harassing someone. They had credible intelligence that he was the mule aka courier."
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Maybe they just picked him up because he was the blokes boyfriend. That's not exactly intelligence or just cause though.
Re: @ Mad Mike ... @AC
@Ian Michael Gumby.
It's amazing just how far 'US' history varies from the rest of the world.
"Without the Americans, you had Dunkirk. What does that tell you."
Well, the Americans had Pearl Harbour!! What a great victory that was!! Everyone had successes and failures. So what.
"With out the Americans, you lacked the resources for the long haul. So too did Germany."
If we both lacked the resources, then it would have stopped at a stalemate!! Sounds like you're suggesting the Americans added resources and therefore extended it!!
"Germany could have taken Europe and held it, except that he couldn't also contain the Russians."
Maybe. Certainly opening up the eastern front was a mistake. However, whether Germany could have taken the UK is a question. Of course, once Europe was taken, he might have been able to then take on the Russians.
"1) You would need a 4 engine bomber from Europe to strike at the Eastern Seaboard of the US. Germany built 2 engine bombers to strike closer targets."
In general true. However, I'm sure 4 engined bombers wouldn't have been beyond their ability when they had a need. After all, they were well ahead of anyone else in many areas of science and technology....e.g. V2.
"2) US had all the raw materials needed to produce weapons as well as factories across the nation."
Due to the 'empire', the UK potentially had more raw materials and factories all over the world etc. We could also call on soldiers from other countries as well.
"3) Man power. Yes, we were fighting on two fronts. Bailing the British Empire out on both sides of the world. Didn't see the Brits bombing Tokyo. Did I miss something?"
Didn't see the Americans fighting in North Africa either. Did I miss something? Again, like everything else, it made sense for countries to do what they could, where they could. By saying 'Bailing the British Empire out', you are simply justifying my earlier comments about pompous, patronising Americans. Yes, America fought in both Europe and the Pacific, but so did the British. We had a huge number of troops in the Pacfic theatre as well. At least we didn't manage to loose a large amount of our fleet at Pearl!!
"If we want to look at British victories? El Alamein. That was the most strategic victories and the only one where you can give sole credit to the Brits. Note that I don't include the air battle over Britain, but I guess I should include it."
And I guess there are far more American victories where you can give sole credit to the Americans? Not really. It was a joint effort by many countries in almost all battles.
"In terms of the 'tank', Lancelot de Mole was an Australian. And of course the British Government shot him down repeatedly too. "
And? Most of your space programme was based on a certain German, but you'll still take credit for it!!
"Ooops! (I'd love to do this all day... but I have a day job.)"
You surprise me.
" I just started poking fun of the Brit who posted how thanks to them, they saved the scientists who were responsible for the bomb."
I don't think they said this. They said some of the scientists were British (and other nationalities). In other words, not all American. And how exactly were they saved? As far as I know (and you've said as much), they were mostly working in America at the time.
Re: @ I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects A stunning lack of history
@Ian Michael Gumby.
You really lack an understanding of the world history. What do they teach you in school these days?"
Well, I was taught to be able to read, write and talk in english, whereas it's quite clear from your first sentence that you weren't!!
"The Lend Lease act allowed the American Government to purchase munitions and arms and give them to the Brits and Allies so that they could hold off the Germans. If this didn't happen... Germany could have invaded the UK."
So, you mean the USA saw a money making opportunity and took it rather than actually coming over and helping to defend us. 'Gave them to the Brits'? Rubbish. As the name suggests, we actually paid for them and were doing so for many decades after the end of WWII.
"The jet engine was a 'simultaneous' discover between a Brit and an Italian. With the Brit's engine a better design. The British government shot down his idea..."
Strangely, the first patent for a gas turbine to power an aircraft was taken out by a Frenchman in 1921, a full 7 years before Whittle presented his ideas to his superiors.
"The real invention that helped save the day was the Turbocharged Rolls engine that they mated with the P-51 Mustang."
The Rolls Royce Merlin (and other derivatives) certainly did a lot as well. No question of that. If a film ever comes out of Hollywood on its creation and use, I'm sure it will have been renamed the Pratt and Whitney Merlin or some other US company. After all, can't pretend the US hasn't invented everything. You do seem to have bypassed the total lie presented by Hollywood in claiming an American got the first Enigma.
"The point was that if the UK surrendered to Germany, you wouldn't have rescued anyone... Also my point was that the bulk of the scientists who were involved in the bomb project were already in the US prior to the start of WWII."
And if the UK had surrendered to Germany, how long would it have been before the US did? Would the US have held out against both Germany and Japan? Anyway, if you'd actually read anything about WWII, you would know that the UK had no intention of ever surrendering. Germany would have had to invade and subdue and plans were in place to prevent a successful invasion and wage a covert war for years if it did happen. You only have to research the area between the south coast and London to see all the defences in place and how they would have been used to prevent an invasion.
Re: @ Mad Mike
Right, so George Zimmerman was prosecuted. Yep. Was he found guilty? Not that I'm aware of. So............ You can prosecute as many people as you like, but unless you start finding them guilty........
I was definitely a bit flip about saying 'anyone you like', but the law is considerably on the side of the person as you say, Standing Their Ground. The reality is that people have either not been charged, or charged and acquitted, for actions that in most other civilised countries around the world would have resulted in custodial sentences. Try doing anything even approaching what goes on in the US and you'll be charged and most likely found guilty.
The Stand Your Ground laws are rather stupid anyway. Anyone who does martial arts knows that a fight avoided is a fight won. After all, is it more sensible to get yourself out of the situation (maybe by simply running away), or to start a firefight with someone? One means you live, the other........well maybe not.
Re: @ Mad Mike
It's happened in Florida at least to my knowledge. There was a lot of trouble over it. The article I read also said it was legal in other states as well, although it didn't mention which ones to my knowledge. I believe you had to say you felt threatened and you believed the person was 'up to no good' and even feel your life might be at risk, but it didn't actually have to be true. There have been numerous cases in the press over this.