"a domestic battery charge"
Presumably a re-chargeable battery...
6235 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Presumably a re-chargeable battery...
... have loved it if someone had changed the message to "People of Earth, Cower before your new Robotic Master! MWAHAHAHAAA!!!!"
"I was a policeman in the West of England many years ago"
Reading what you wrote after this, I have to say I'm damned glad you're no longer a policeman in this country because your attitude is what brings the Police Service into disrepute (just like the behaviour of some of your colleagues in the Plebgate Affair and many others)
I'm sure you did catch "an awful lot" of people. I'm also equally sure that you harassed a whole lot more people who were completely innocent of any crime, but had their Rights and Civil Liberties violated by some arrogant Jobsworth who liked throwing his weight around and abusing his power.
Arguing that we should all have ID cards to save *our* time when *you* and yours illegally hassle us for the sort of "crimes" that Constable Savage would have been concerned about is ludicrous and to compound that by suggesting that we should be able to "show evidence of who we are" the next time someone decides to engage in a bit of Security Theatre demonstrates that you were quite happy to piss all over the Rights and Liberties which you were supposed to be *protecting* just because you could.
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right and you accept that as part of that privilege you are required to 1) Pass a Test to demonstrate you have, at least, achieved the minimum level of skill to be allowed out on the road, 2) Make sure your vehicle has an MOT (and thus is safe to be on the road) and 3) Insure the vehicle to protect others if you behave irresponsibly and damage them, their vehicles or their property. None of these are requirements to be allowed to walk down the street.
Your references to gasment, electric meter readers and students/ lecturers are irrelevant to the situation under discussion.
If you have no problem with me (or anyone else) having to prove who I am to get on a plane with you, what about a bus? What's to stop me forcing the driver out of his seat and then running a load of people over? (GT Omnibus!)
Finally, I find it odd that you *do* object to the "other horseshit" involved in flying. Why is it that you object to all the other bits of Security Theatre (removal of shoes, limits on drinks, restrictions on what you can carry etc) but think that having an ID card to prove who you to be allowed on the flight is acceptable?
There is a fundamental principle of English Common Law that I and everyone else have the right to "Go about our lawful business without let or hindrance" ("let" meaning "permission" in this case).
Our law is based on the idea that any thing that isn't expressly forbidden is permitted (or was, successive recent "democratic" governments have been trying to whittle away away at these rights, but, the point is that, at present, I do not have to carry an ID card simply to prove that I have the right to walk down the street.
To argue that introducing an ID card "seems far better than what you are dealing with right now." only demonstrates that what we are dealing with right now is fundamentally fucked up, an ID card would just make the situation worse, not better.
"They slow down the traffic and create empty gaps"
You get a higher throughflow of traffic at slower speeds because you don't get the bunching caused by people "driving on their brakes" as they zoom up to the next vehicle/ pedestrian crossing/ traffic lights then slam on the anchors creating an extremely inefficient(!) stop-start situation as they waste momentum turning it into heat (in their brakes) and then have to expend fuel accelerating again.
The empty gaps left when two-wheel users filter can be used for efficient driving by simply going a bit slower and allowing elasticity in the system. (Look up Hypermiling for more details).
And London isn't representative of the whole country. Having travelled on two wheels in that city and others, it seems that the vast majority London road users, no matter how many wheels they are on, are bloody terrible!
" the bicycle uses the roads highly inefficiently and aggravates traffic congestion in the cities"
When transport congestion is modelled, two-wheel users are a positive benefit because whilst they might take up the same sort of space as cars etc whilst traffic is moving, as soon as things slow down, they start filtering between the gaps, thus *reducing* the amount of road space used and thus the congestion caused.
Thank you for the offer of an Economics Lesson, but since I studied the subject at A Level, I think I'll decline and just point out the flaws in your post:
1) "The market automatically makes us use ALL resources at the appropriate level of efficiency depending on their rarity/value."
Balderdash. In a completely free market, products, energy and so on will be sold at whatever price the customers will bear. This is why, for instance, we currently have the nonsense of the retail energy companies saying "it's not our fault that prices are going up, it's because of the wholesale cost" whilst forgetting to mention that they are buying the power from generators which they *also* own!
Their retail arms are only making small profits because their wholesale arms are coining it in as they have a tacit cartel agreement with their fellow generators that nobody will rock the boat by cutting the wholesale price and they know that the consumers are stuck with buying it at whatever price they're told it is.
2) "If you want to make people save energy and use it more efficiently, you are going to have to raise its price considerably"
Again, balderdash. Why do we now buy fridges and freezers etc which are more energy efficient than the ones that were available in the past? Because they are cheaper to run! If you have the choice between paying X to run a fridge every year or 50% of X, why would you buy a less efficient fridge when you need to replace it?
3) "There is NO justification for forcing energy prices high".
I agree entirely and I wouldn't argue for that as it's short sighted and ignores the fact that energy (like petrol etc) have a relatively inelastic demand curve, whereby pushing the price up causes only a small reduction in the quantity used.
So, inconclusion, more efficient use will either bring down the amount of consumption or (at the least) slow down the rate of increase of consumption. Either way it's win-win.
> I, personally, strongly dislike inefficiency (like the inefficiency of the wind power generation, for example).
And the fact that cars are about 30% energy efficient whilst bicycles are 98% efficient?
> as your things become more and more efficient you can afford to run more of them at the same time.
Yes, you can. It doesn't mean you *have* to or need to, though.
> the total energy requirements of humanity are going to go up even as the efficiency of the consumption will continue to increase.
True, but as I pointed out above, at the very least we can affect the rate of change (in the mean time we can wait until we sort out Fusion which I have been reliably informed is only 30 years away... ;-) )
The problem is that many people don't bother listening to anything beyond the rants of the "hard line greens" and, just as in many other situations, tar all people who have a vaguely similar philosophy or belief with the same brush as the extremists.
Lewis, as always, goes to the opposite extreme, citing the claims that "renewable power simply can't provide anything like the amount of energy required for any large proportion of the human race to live a reasonably comfortable life" and this "requires most of the human race to remain in miserable poverty", but misses the point that this assumes that to have a "reasonably comfortable life" requires people to engage in some equivalent of the ridiculously profilgate energy expenditure that the USA and Europe indulge in.
I have said it before and I will say it again, we need to use energy MORE EFFICIENTLY! For instance, switching on the air con when it gets a bit warm or the heating as soon as it gets a bit chilly is simple, but it is NOT necessary if we actually put some effort into designing our buildings correctly and getting from A to B can be done much more efficiently than driving vehicles the size of a small truck whilst carrying a single occupant.
No hair shirts are required, no living in houses lit only by a single bulb, no thick jumpers necessary, we are supposed to be an intelligent species, but until we actually start *using* that intelligence instead of just short-sightedly worrying about how much it's going to cost (and how that will affect someone's election prospects or the interests of the big businesses who only pay attention to their dividends and bonuses) we are going to end up screwing ourselves into the ground and not solving the fundamental problem!
And have a downvote on me for completely missing the point.
He starts by pointing out that chemical castration et al don't work to protect children, but then declares that he's in favour of them raping each other as if that's some sort of "justice".
I was about to upvote one of your posts (possibly for the first time ever) because you were actually making some sensible, factual comments. And then I read your last paragraph.
... what about all the other claims in the Bible...?
.... the full stop should have gone after "Happy Meal" in the title...
Forget about the ropey acting and dodgy special effects, the Doctor as Merlin, Ace as the Lady of the Lake, the Brigadier as Arthur and the new Brigadier Winifred Bambera (Winifred is derived from Guinevere...)
This episode should have been included. "What are you going to to [to stop the battle] just run down there and shout 'Stop'?" "Yes!"
... does a length of rubber hose cost...?
... basically there's a whole bunch of Merkins who get all their information about what's happening in the world in 140 characters or fewer...
Tsk, Judgement Day was supposed to have happened in 1997, we're lagging behind, guys!
... but, come on, guys, what about the Concorde?!
... and only *I* know the solution for mankind's ills!
Yes, dealing with Malaria is a Good Thing(tm) but giving people access to information and education is, incredibly enough *also* a Good Thing(tm)!
The two are not mutually exclusive, Bill.
Actually it's probably not him. He is, at least, brave enough to post under his own name (and can spell).
No, I don't think anything of the sort, but we're talking about Snowden and the USA here, not our spineless Governments who appear to have agreed to let GCHQ hand anything they get across to them.
Sure, he should shut up and stop embarassing the US by revealing how arrogant and power hungry their security services are, thinking they have the right to spy on everyone else, everywhere else because "We're the USA goddamnit!"
"Just wondering when Germany became part of the USA"
At the end of WWII. There are still over 45,000 US troops there.
... says it all.
"What do I win?"
A copy of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy...!
It could have been worse.
It could have been knocked into a black hole in a game of Intergalactic Bar Billiards...
... and only score 10 points.
"... He's a very naughty boy!"
And the other sort of bubbles which appear in the bath if you've been eating starchy food...
It's a Murdoch publication. If it were to claim that the sky was blue I'd go outside and check...
"...which Mozilla has determined is used by too many websites to fall under the manual activation requirement."
Really? Hmm, yes it's *so* difficult using FlashBlock...
Ah, so another country that thinks that Freedom of Expression means "Freedom to say what *we* approve of".
It's a good thing that there aren't people in Western Governments who think that way...
Obviously this needs to include a pulse monitor to ensure that it's still on the child's wrist. Or perhaps it should be lockable with only the parent having the key. And whist they're at it, why not include a remote electric shock device if they discover their child has wandered off the direct path home or has stopped off at a friend's house...
A friend of mine has been known to look in a couple of other places *after* he's found something he was searching for, just so he can say that it *wasn't* in the last place he looked...
... can you burn a DVD?
I hope that if I ever create a market leading brand, I'll still be able to keep to my ethical principles...
"If there was a significantly better free online map, I would use that."
But how do you know? If someone comes up with a better map which should, organically, go to the top of the search rankings, but Google keeps prioritising its own offering, how will you or anyone else find out about it?
Re: Tesco - They (and the other big supermarkets, Asda, Sainsburys and Morrisons) got to be Oligopoly suppliers because a decade or so ago they started selling bread at 7p a loaf and tins of beans at 3p each, ie at well below even the cost of production. This had the effect of driving all the small suppliers out of business, even those who were supplying better products and giving better service, because they simply couldn't compete when the vast majority of people were simply buying on price.
Getting back to google: Try this example, then, you open a copy of the Yellow Pages (which has been bought out by Google) and instead of finding it listed in A, B, C order, you find it goes Google, A, B, C. Most people will start at the beginning (hence why companies change their names to A1 Computers, 1st ABC Computers, .1Computers etc) but again you're getting one company prioritising its services over all others.
Or try this one: Financial Advisers used to be able to claim to be Independant whilst prioritising their own company's financial products over others which was to *their* benefit because they got bigger commissions from them than the ones which would actually have been best for the customer. Do you think that the government was wrong to make sure that people were kept informed of whether or not they were actually getting impartial advice?
Ensuring fair competition is not "manipulating the market", in fact it is the antithesis of it.
PS @Steve Knox - Building a bigger (or sillier) Straw Man doesn't make your arguments any better.
@obnoxiousGit and Steve Knox.
Way to miss the point, guys, so let me spell it out for you again...
"Is that giving you what *YOU* are looking for or what *THEY* decide is best for you to see?"
Once again we get the tired old arguments of "maybe Tesco should advertise Asda" and other such straw-man nonsense.
As Dr Mouse says, if he wants a map, he goes to google, types in a post code and there's Google Maps with all the others pushed down "below the fold". Sure, google makes it easy to find and nice and convenient, but it makes it easy to find their products before all others.
So imagine this: Google does a lucrative deal with Fox News so that every time you search for a news story, Fox's version of events and their opinions are prioritised above all others. Would you still be happy then?
Is that giving you what *YOU* are looking for or what *THEY* decide is best for you to see?
Here we go again...
The fact is that, for most people, Google is not just *a* search engine, it is *the* search engine. Do you "search" for something online or do you "google" it?
When a company is in such a market dominating position as Google is, it is no longer sufficient to say "well people can go somewhere else" because most people don't even know that there is anywhere else to go in the first place.
So they go to Google, expecting to get at least a semblence of impartiality in their search results, but, instead, get Google's preferred service at the top and others relegated to lower position *even if* those others might actually have had higher organic result rankings and that is an abuse of a monopoly position, just as it was when Microsoft restricted the browser choice market.
The fact of the matter is that monopolies are generally very bad for consumers because they end up restricting choice and that is the point at which regulators need to step in.
Sure! And if I steal something from you and you don't notice, you haven't been robbed!
"...at the lengths to which the government seems to have gone to intercept data from our private fiber networks" ... that's our territory and we don't want anyone else trying to muscle in on our Data Troughing.
Said the Google Spokesman.
Err, but bees don't have to worry about stalling if they go below a certain airspeed.
... that adding a + sign to every word in a headline about Google+ is not going to become another one of those tiresome "Look! Aren'!t We! Being! Clever!" in-house quirks like we get on Yahoo! stories...
I have to agree.
I can read a lot faster than someone can talk, so why should I waste time listening to someone blather on for an hour when I could read a transcript of the entire presentation in a much shorter time?
What kind of sucker do you think I am...
... my kettle is spying on me and I'm sure it's telling the toster and the microwave my secrets too...!!!
... this was going to be about a bunch of Sheilas in furry bikinis...
"...to better plug folk into the company's ad-backed internet systems"
Wasn't there a Doctor Who episode like that?
(Ok, I know it was really two ear buds with glowing blue lights...)