4080 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
"why we persist with voice"
I work from home. If I'm answering the phone I want to deal with whatever the person on the other end wants to talk about, not whether I need a shave or my hair needs combing or I've not bothered getting dressed today and I'm sitting around in a dressing gown.
Video calling is simply not something I need and I'm sure that goes for many other people too.
Ah, well you see it's only *bad* spyware if someone else developed it.
When it's ours, it's ok...
Pants on.... aaaaarrrgggghhh!!!
@Matthew 25 Re: @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake
The point is that the claims of "rape apology" are nonsense since it hasn't yet been determined, even under the extremely broad Swedish law, that it *was* rape.
Re: @Psyx - Can I get e-ink
"So, your idea of what a hazard is was hard-wired at 17, and can't be increased to encompass "Things that are going to put points on my license, such as bright yellow boxes"?"
Whoops, nice assumption, just totally *wrong*.
No, my idea of what a Hazard is was what I learned when I joined the Solent Advanced Motorcyclists a couple of years ago and based on "Motorcycle Roadcraft: The Police Rider's Handbook to Better Motorcycling" and "How to Be a Better Rider" by the IAM and seems to have been sufficient to allow me to pass my Advanced Motorcycle Test a while back.
And if you bothered to read my post (and especially had you ever taken any Advanced Training yourself) you'd have a) recognised the phraseology I used and b) noticed that I had *SAID* that if the van pulled out etc then it *would* become a hazard that I would have to incorporate into my Riding Plan.
The point I was making (which you also seem to have failed to understand) is that that van was doing *nothing* for "safety" on that piece of road. It was perfectly safe to Make Progress whilst observing other traffic and ensuring I could stop in the distance I could see clear on my side of the road. What was not safe (as I also mentioned) was on the journey back where in heavy rain with spray and standing water, vehicles were travelling at a speed which was *below* the posted limit but *too fast* for the conditions.
Re: @Psyx - Nevermind the gaps.
So let me sum up your position as far as I can see it from what you've written:
You like the idea of Rights, however you're happy to live in a world where they are fluid, variable things which can be removed from people you don't like when it's inconvenient, but as long as it doesn't affect you, you're not going to make a fuss and you don't think that I should either.
Well, I'm sorry, but despite your patronising "stop worrying your pretty little head about this" arguments, I *AM* going to make a fuss because I do *not* trust the state's ability to do anything fairly since history has so often shown those who have been elected to office (with all the best intentions in the world) start thinking as you do that "it would be helpful/ useful/ convenient if we just infringed this right a *little* bit to deal with the 'pikey wankers' out there" and then someone else moves that "little bit" on a fraction further and then it moves a bit more...
First they came...
@Ian Michael Gumby - Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake
FFS can you not understand that he has *NOT* yet even been charged with rape let alone *CONVICTED* of it?
To say that this is "rape apology" is to totally fail to comprehend the situation.
I think you'll find...
... that Rampant Rabbit has already been trade marked by Ann Summers Ltd...!
Yeah, but the lag is terrible...!
Re: @Psyx - Can I get e-ink
"you won't spot a kid on a bike either, so you shouldn't be speeding and deserve it"
I am looking for Hazards. Hell, the Driving Test now contains the Hazard Perception Test which requires you to spot a *developing* hazard, ie something that is going to cause you to have to change your speed or direction.
A stationary van in a layby on a straight piece of road is *NOT* a Hazard, a kid riding a bike is. I can look at the van, note it, then discount it from my Riding Plan because it's not going to have an effect on me. If it suddenly starts to pull away then I will spot it in my peripheral vision as I scan the road ahead and change my Riding Plan accordingly. A kid on a bike, however, *is* a potential Hazard, so I'll keep them in mind as I plan what I'm going to do and adjust my speed and direction appropriately if needed.
Additionally, had the traffic been of sufficient density that I was unable to stop in the distance I could see clear or it was pi$$ing down with rain (as it was on the return journey on Monday) and thus increasing stopping distances, I would, of course, have slowed down accordingly, unlike some drivers who would have kept (and did keep) going at their previous speed which might have been below the posted limit but *too fast* for the conditions.
Speed cameras, of course, won't notice them, they have no brains and no discretion, they deal in a simple binary choice of "below or above the limit", not "is the speed safe for the conditions"?
Re: @Psyx - Nevermind the gaps.
You don't really understand the concept of human rights and civil liberties, do you? They are not things that can simply be voted out by the wishes of the majority (or a loud voiced minority) when they are deemed to be inconvenient or undesirable. I will stand up for the rights of *everyone* and that includes alleged "pikey wankers". If they have committed a crime, fine, arrest them and punish them, but don't consider everyone to be a potential criminal and remove *my* liberties because you don't like *them*. To paraphrase Satayana: Learn from history because the consequences of considering some people to be less deserving of rights are too hideous to risk.
"Civil liberties are continuing to move in the RIGHT direction in this country."
WTF? We used to have the Right to demonstrate outside Parliament without Police permission. No more. We used to have the Right to be charged with a crime before being imprisoned. Not now.. We have seen numerous incidences of Police abusing their powers eg Kettling, hassling people for taking photographs of famous landmarks in case they were terrorists. We now have the government saying we need to ask for permission to be allowed to look at pornography. We have a law which states that if, in someone's subjective view, a picture shows something that is "life threatening" or "risks serious injury to someone's breasts, genitals or anus" simply *possessing* that image can get you up to three years in jail! We have seen Councils using powers designed to keep an eye on terrorist suspects being used to spy on families to make sure they're not illicitly trying to get their kid into a particular school...
If this is the "right direction" I hate to think what the WRONG direction is!
You ask "HOW does it affect you" as if I'm not allowed to object if I can't justify that. Well, sorry, but I am allowed (I have the Right!) to object even when it *doesn't* affect me directly, because it affects others. And since you don't like me quoting V for Vendetta, I'll remind you of the quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller instead. Just because I'm not in an affected group doesn't mean that I will say nothing.
"Are you opposed to a national fingerprint database and centralised criminal records, too?"
No, however I AM opposed to compulsory fingerprinting, national DNA databases and anything else that considers me to be a suspect even *before* I'm suspected of doing anything wrong and that includes cameras that track me wherever I go "just in case" I might do something bad on the way.
That is what Rights are for.
... more highbrow TV!
"The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human - sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait till he moved on you before I could zero him."
Right, because that has always worked *so* well in the past...!
@Psyx - Re: Can I get e-ink
"you are far more likely to be pulled over by a car than caught by a camera"
No, you're far more likely to get an NIP in the post a couple of weeks later from a "Safety Camera Partnership" who are more interested in raising money than promoting safety.
For example last Friday I was on the A34, on a straight section of road, good conditions, no side turnings, no Speed Camera warning signs, plenty of room to stop in the distance that I could see clear on my side of the road and parked in a layby was an unmarked van with a camera sticking out of the back.
It would serve *NO* safety purpose, there was nothing to make safer, it was simply there to generate revenue. Nobody was being stopped and warned or to "have a bit of a look around the car", no "pikey wankers" being done for driving without tax. Nope, just a bit of easy dosh. Kerching.
I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy with this, though.
@Ken Hagen - Re: You can't equate...
Ah, stooping to personal insults. Bravo, that gives your points so much more credibility.
Police states don't just happen, they come about because people believe their governments when they are told "we need to temporarily abridge some of your rights, but don't worry, it won't be long and it's for your own protection".
Then "temporary" becomes "permanent" because there's a new threat. Then those in the police forces who think like you go "hey, now we can deal with the bastards that we don't like, but could never touch before!" Then it's "well you can't object to this because if you do you're obviously on the side of people we don't like..."
Then the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller come true once more...
Re: @Psyx - Nevermind the gaps.
Let me just quote you a line from V from Vendetta:
People should not be afraid of their Governments, Governments should be afraid of their people!
You seem to be quite content to give away *my* civil liberties simply because *you* have a problem with "pikey wankers", well, I'm sorry, but those liberties are NOT yours to give away!
I should not need to choose different routes to avoid Government surveillance of my movements, nor should I have to take the bus to stop the State watching where I go. Anything like that needs a REALLY good reason to be introduced, not simply "well it will make Psyx happier" or "it might make the Police's job easier (and save us a bit of dosh)"
I am not being paranoid, you are being naiive and short sighted, so let me leave you with another quote, this time from George Satayana: "Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it".
"a number plate could be modified...
"to reduce the chances of detection by ANPR".
Such as sticking a piece of electrical tape on to a P to make it look like an R, for instance?
Damn these cunning high-tech criminals!!!
@Psyx - Re: Nevermind the gaps.
"You can't equate a number plate storage system to a police state. Ever."
That's where it starts. It's very unlikely to be where it finishes.
Remember the last Labour Government wanted to put ANPR cameras at every major intersection and automatically issue speeding tickets if you got from A to B quicker than they thought you should have.
It would also have given them the ability to track everyone, everywhere and that is the sort of thing that the Stasi et al would have loved! It's all very well starting out with good intentions, but remember where that road leads...
@Ken Hagen - Re: Nevermind the gaps.
"Perhaps because you don't know who the bad apples are?"
Right, so we should *ALL* be treated as potential bad apples, then?! Forget about presumption of innocence, forget about the Right to go about my lawful business without let or hindrence, forget about civil liberties, it's *far* better that The State can track us and monitor us and know everywhere we go.
As for trusting the Police not to abuse this dataset, remember Operation Ore? How many innocent people were accused by those Police, based on no actual evidence, of downloading kiddie porn and then coerced into accepting a Caution so they wouldn't be dragged through the Courts, not realising that that would leave them with a record that would follow them evermore any time they wanted a CRB check? Are these the Police you want to trust?
Remember: Vote Fascist for a Third Glorious Decade of Total Law Enforcement!
Re: Fiendish scheme
@AC "she is still facing the Death penalty if she misbehaves?"
No, it's only suspended for two years (not she will be suspended for two years...) If she behaves herself in that time, the death sentence is rescinded.
If she'd been an ordinary person without lots of political connections she'd be pushing up the daisies by now.
That was the retrospective "Oh, look, actually we were really being very clever" justification that Reagan gave for his Star Wars SDI programme when it turned out that all the fancy ideas didn't work.
Forget Online defences...
... we want Giant Robots that we can sit in and stomp around the landscape!!
Nice reputation you have, Squire...
... be a shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean...?
@P Lee: Re: Does this work the other way?
I was with you right up until your last paragraph when you uttered the nonsense "I suggest not downloading porn. It damages your chances of actually having sex, never mind a long-term relationship,"
May I succinctly say (and I'm speaking from not only personal experience here, but that of many of my customers who buy the BDSM gear I make and sell and who undoubtedly download and view porn): Bollocks!
I think you mean the B-Ark!
Ok, not necessarily in the best taste ever...
... but if I go out and buy a replica sword that I've seen in a movie, I'm not really going to go out and start carving people up with it, am I?
This looks more like some media bandwagon silly season "outrage" story.
Re: Pioneered in the USSR
@AC I think you're mixing up cataracts and corneas, there's an important difference...!
"If three of eBay's top executives turn into newts in the next month...
"...then we can all accept that as proof of the real-world efficacy of magic, sorcery, and witchcraft."
But what if they get better?
Far better to see if the practitioner weighs the same as a duck...
Re: I've yet to meet a green protester
Hello, I'm someone who thinks that a) our current levels of energy usage are unsustainable but that, b) does *not* fit your cliche'd stereotype "hair shirt" nonsense.
As I've posted on these forums before, what we need to do is to use energy in a *more efficient* manner and develop effective and sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels. Of course when you continue to see Opinion Pieces written by axe-grinding authors spreading their own "misleading propaganda" any sensible arguments get lost in the mouth-frothing nonsense that follows.
As someone said: "No matter how much information you give people, if their minds are made up, their minds are made up". Ironic, isn't it...?
Re: Many a true word...
@a cynic writes
IIRC in the UK (or it may be only England and Wales) once an invention has been demonstrated in public or information about it has been published, it is no longer patentable, it doesn't matter if the publication is in Science magazine or the Beano.
Well it's not exactly rocket science...
Many years ago I had a neat idea, but a trip down to my local library and a search through some patent records showed that it had already been thought of, a shame, but it saved me wasting time and money.
Still, perhaps it will stop all these BS patent trolls that are simply stifling innovation with their greed.
Re: Pioneered in the USSR
The Russians were pioneers of Radial Keratotomy, a precursor to laser treatment, whereby a series of spoke-like incisions were made around the iris.
Well done that Judge!
If this had been allowed it would have let big companies silence people who had been the vicitims of alleged bad practice and effectively sweep such problems under the carpet.
A great talent...
I first discovered Harrison whilst I was waiting around and someone had left a copy of The Stainless Steel Rat lying on a table. I almost missed what I was waiting for because I got so engrossed in the book!
Ok, his later works involving Slippery Jim showed distinct signs of being churned out, but he left a great body of work (such as Invasion Earth which I only just recently picked up from a second hand stall) which was interesting and thought provoking.
@Bainshie Re: From the original article...
"Why are you so against the storing of things done in public?"
You're asking the wrong question. You should be thinking "Why should everything done in public be subject to monitoring and storage?"
I have the right to "Go about my lawful business without let or hindrance". I do not have to prove that I have done nothing wrong, nor does the state have the right to monitor my every movement and action *just in case* I might do something wrong, this is a fundamental freedom that I enjoy in this country (well, more or less, since successive governments have already started whittling away at these rights!)
You seem to want a system like in the old East Germany where half the country was spying on the other half. I don't.
By the way, please understand that there is a difference between Public Information about what the Government is doing (since they are actually supposed to work for us) and information about what a private individual is doing and when you say "I can store that information and do whatever I like with it.", I suggest you look at the stipulations of the Data Protection Act (not to mention the laws against Stalking) and you may just find that actually you cannot necessarily legally do this.
"So you're one of those 600cc+ idiots weaving in an out of traffic like a idiot? I say this as a motorbike rider myself."
No, I am the one of the ones who is Making Progress legally and safely. And if you haven't taken Advanced Training, I'd strongly recommend it as I would to any other biker so they can do the same and *not* "weave in and out of traffic like an idiot".
Finally, how would your Big Brother system for "convicting hit and run drivers" work with stolen cars? Hmm...
@Titus Technophobe - Re: Objections
"I don't understand why the people in the societies that object to these Internet Domains don't just apply some self control."
Ah, but you see it's not *their* self-control that they're worried about, because they're all morally upright and pure-of-mind people, it's *our* self-control they are worried about because we are weak-willed and morally bankrupt and cannot be trusted to see/ read/ watch all of this corrupting material without wanting to go out and do bad things!
Oddly enough, the Government run by the Vicar of St Albions had similar views...
@JDX - Re: remind me what "freedom of speech" is
"something which is decided on a nation by nation basis, not some world utopian ideal."
Ah, so you think Freedom of Speech means "you have the right to say things that *we*, the Government, agree with".
@JDX - Re: "Many societies ... consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture [or] morality"
There's a difference between saying "I don't like this and I don't think you should do it" and "I don't like this, so I want a law to *stop* you from doing it".
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain BT Tower is just a relic? Wrong: It relays 18,000hrs of telly daily
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- Review: Sony Xperia SP
- Dell's PC-on-a-stick landing in July: report