4080 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
... it's another Policeman claiming that our freedoms such as that pesky Presumption of Innocence are less important than something that might make their jobs a bit easier or, at least, let them accuse someone of a crime because their DNA was found at a crime scene and then effectively demand the suspect prove their innocence...
Mine's the one with the Citizen Number and DNA Barcode on the back.
@Wonko the Sane
> the 4th word of its current acronym
Err, you mean Magnetoplasma...?
It should, of course, be written VaSIMR:
"Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket"
Mine's the one with the Dilithium Crystals in the pocket...
> Should the Home Office now be called Minisafe?
Surely you mean "MiniTruth"!
Mine's the one with my Citizen Number stenciled on the back.
@April Fools Day = Outright Lies Day
Ah, cf "A good day to bury bad news".
The Government can put out any draconian announcements it wants to and people will just say "Ho ho, it's an April Fool gag..."
@This week's moan
"What are you losers going to do about the rape of your rights as a citizen? Carry on as last week? Just be as witty as usual?
"How about actually getting out off your fat arses and doing something for your children's future?"
I sense a certain irony here.
You could have done something more useful like posting the links to http://www.theyworkforyou.com and http://www.writetothem.com so people can contact their MPs and express their objections.
But I guess you were too busy calling people names and being sarcastic...
"such criticisms defamed China"
> "with stereotypes constructed from hearsay and prejudice in their mind, regardless of the reality".
Why does this remind me of "Comical Ali's" comment "I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad!"
@Only the guilty - @ac
"In order to prevent crime and terrorism, it is necessary to identify people and separate the law-abiding from the non-law-abiding. Only people with something to hide (i.e. as yet unidentified law-breakers) have something to fear from such a process."
Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes...
Mine's not the imaginary "suspiciously thick padded jacket" being "worn on a warm day".
Shurely the Police have nothing to hide...
"It also said that the police, many of whose officers have added themselves to the database voluntarily, rejected a request for their DNA samples to be used in a research project."
... so what do they have to fear...?
What is the point in...
... fining the BBC when it's funded by the licence payer?
"BBC executive directors were awarded pay rises of more than £100000 last year,"
So how about the BBC being required to take that money back off them and put it into programme making?
But did any of the shrews say...
... Yer my besht mate, pal...
Hey that reshercher's lookin' at me funny...
If you have nothing to hide...
... you still have plenty to worry about...
News from 2002:
"Police in Thailand hunting the killer of a backpacker from mid Wales say two transvestites have admitted planting false DNA at the murder scene."
News from 2008:
"Jacques allegedly took steps before Bennett's abduction to lure police into thinking that she had gone to meet someone she had been corresponding with online. And before Bennett's disappearance, Jacques instructed his 14-year-old female accomplice to collect semen from her boyfriend, which was later planted near Bennett's torn underwear."
These are just a couple of the examples of criminals already attempting to subvert DNA testing to cover up their crimes.
Unfortunately some people tend to watch TV shows like CSI and think that DNA is a "magic wand" that will catch the crook before the end of the episode, so it's *got* to be a good thing and the more DNA we have on record the better...
... run two versions of Firefox, one for the day to day stuff which sits on your HDD as usual and the other one Portable Firefox which you run from a USB stick and which doesn't cache anything and wipes cookies and history when you quit so you can browse the more interesting stuff safely...
... Erm, allegedly!
Not clear why...?
> Later, it may also be used at some ports and the Channel Tunnel, although it's not at the moment particularly clear why.
Oh it's very clear, it's to get us all used to the idea, so when they change the rules and decide that this data *won't* be destroyed at the end of the day, but will be added to the United Kingdom Guarding Borders database (nice one Colin Millar!) we're supposed to say "well, it's not going to do any harm is it...?" as the sheeple ignore another freedom disappear down the drain...
re: re: your Bootnote
Or they'll end up flung into the future where everyone has very hairy faces and... umm...
... The Last Starfighter.
This is excellent news...
... It finally makes clear to the Gutter Press that, as the PCC quote says, “what interests the public is not necessarily the same as the public interest”.
The News of the Screws has cynically and hypocritically tried to set itself up as the Moral Guardian of the UK and this has now backfired on them in a spectacular manner.
In a country where we have repeatedly seen laws passed based on the Government's knee-jerk reaction to whatever is in the newspapers that day, this is one back for the freedom of the individual to engage in consensual practices in private without anyone passing judgement or saying "we don't like this, so you shouldn't do it".
Oh and if Mr Mosely wants to spend some of his winnings buying some Affordable Leather Products, I'm sure he can find a company willing to supply him ;-)
"Please don't let anyone recognise me...!"
Of course with the "close your eyes for a second to switch it on", how long before some pillock walks into a lamppost or crashes a car...?
Here's another one from Lewis Carrol:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Obviously your "final" word means something different to you.
As for "sanctimony" how about one from The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Please, feel free to have the last word, although it will probably be the same ones you've been repeating as if they actually make a valid argument.
You are making the classic fallacious argument (often seen in usenet!) of "if you want to object to something you must provide an alternate/ better solution".
Well, no, sorry, we don't have to do anything of the sort.
If something is a stupid idea we are free to say "that's a stupid idea for these reasons, so just don't do it" and that is exactly what we are doing.
"What I tell you three times is true.''
- Lewis Carrol - The Hunting of the Snark.
Unfortunately you still manage to completely miss or ignore the point, rely on anecdotal evidence and choose instead to insult others instead, let alone suddenly adding the claim that you have had "plenty of driver training" without any details of what training or where or when.
In closing, for your information...
"Swenson asked about driving skill and driving safety, a follow-up study asked subjects to evaluate eight different dimensions of their driving (McCormick et al. (1986)). They had to say where they were on the dangerous-safe dimension, the considerate-inconsiderate dimension, and so on. Out of 178 subjects, only a tiny minority of responses were below average and for some of the measures, large majorities rated themselves as above average. Taking the eight dimensions together,
*** just under 80% of the subjects put themselves above the average driver." ***
@Wize and Onionman
> I find myself looking more at my speedo in an average speed camera area than I do normally. I'm betting I'm not the only one.
Just a thought, does that mean, perhaps, that you're not checking your speedo as often as you should as part of a regular scan of the road and your instruments.
> All hail your perfectly perfect perfection.
Obviously it is *your* skills which are "perfect" since you clearly know it all and don't need any more training in the slightest because you are such a "driving god".
Paging Messers Pott and Kettle-Black...
> I guess that's the way Democrats want it.
As opposed to Bush and his cronies "anti-porn initiative" that had FBI agents surfing for "deviant imagery" which featured consenting adults, forcing several companies to shut down because, even though they would have eventually won the court cases, they'd have been bankrupted in doing so.
Still, let's Stop the Propaganda, eh?
@Onionman and AC
> Another bunch of sanctimonious twaddle.
Followed by a bunch of the usual "I've driven millions of miles and almost never had an accident, so speed cameras make me less safe" garbage.
Your "evidence" is purely anecdotal and does not mean you are a "safe driver".
If you think your skills are so great, why not sign up to an IAM course and see what they say. You might be surprised...
Oh and to the Anonymous Coward, monitoring your speedo as part of a regular scan of the road/ mirrors/ road/ instruments/ road (which is what I actually said and which you ignored) is not the same as "staring at your speedo" which some people on here claim that cameras make them do.
If "Good drivers are able to maintain a safe speed for the conditions.... " then why are they, by your arguments, not capable of maintaining a speed below the set limit??
And, please, silly comments about men with red flags don't add any credibility to your arguments.
> They WORK in removing the concentration of the driver from the road onto his dashboard.
Why is it that, it seems, so many road users these days are *incapable* of maintaining a steady speed in their vehicle without staring at their speedometer?
Not only that, but they are, it seems by the arguments being presented, to be incapable of doing so *and* driving safely at the same time!
I wonder if they are capable of even walking and chewing gum simultaneously??
Advanced road use courses teach a regular "scan" of the road ahead, mirrors, road ahead, instruments, road ahead and repeat. The speed of repetition depends on the road you are on, traffic conditions etc.
This allows monitoring of all the factors which are important without needing to concentrate on one to the exclusion of all others.
Unfortunately apparently there are very few drivers who are even aware of this ("I've passed my test, I know all I need to know") let alone can apply it.
The thing is...
... these cameras actually *work*!
Rather than fixed speed cameras making people slow down at a particular point, (usually slamming on their brakes, then accelerating hard once past) or limit signs that get ignored, these do actually make people control their speed.
They are currently in place on parts of the M27 in Hampshire where there are carriageway widening works underway and you can travel along there without having to worry about Mr Clarkson and his ilk suddenly hooning up behind you way over the limit and then trying to muscle you out of the way because you're stopping them from getting to their destination ten minutes quicker.
PS Yesterday I saw a perfect number plate for Mr Clarkson, it was on the back of a Ferrari and had been re-spaced to say EGO 2 BIG!
Mode = Red Dwarf...
Rimmer: 'That's it, I'm invoking All-Nations Agreement Article 39436175880932/B.'
Kryten: '39436175880932/B. "All nations attending the conference are only allocated one parking space." Is that entirely relevant sir? I mean, here we are, in mortal danger and you're worried about the Chinese delegates bringing two cars.'
"undisclosed reasons at an undisclosed cost"
Reason: It doesn't work.
Cost: Too much.
The scene you're thinking of wasn't a "re-entry", it was a system allowing someone to successfully bail out of a supersonic plane at high altitude.
The situation being described is more like that used by the Mobile Infantry to effect an assault landing on a planet from orbit in Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
Mine's the Armoured Combat Suit...
"Cyclist kills pedestrian and gets £2000 fine" is big news because it happens so rarely.
Meanwhile "Lorry driver ignores Give Way sign, kills cyclist but only gets £275 fine" only makes the local papers because such things are commonplace.
And for those who criticise some cyclists for dangerous riding, I agree that they're putting themselves in jeopardy (and shouldn't do it), but, apart from some very rare cases, that's pretty much *all* they're doing. Whereas someone in control of a ton and a half (or more) of metal puts many others in jeopardy by failing to pay attention...
... "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you"
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act
Not many people are aware that this legislation brought in the "extreme pornography" criteria before that was even enacted in UK law. In its criteria for someone being excluded from working with children *and* adults, it says:
"conduct involving sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings (including possession of such images), if it appears to IBB that the conduct is inappropriate"
(The IBB is the Independant Barring Board)
In other words, even before it was illegal to possess so-called "extreme porn" it could *already* get you blocked from a job.
Oh and regarding the cyclist, I would invite people to consider the following:
Whilst the National News was trumpeting how a cyclist who killed a pedestrian gets a two thousand pound fine (the family, unsurprisingly, think that's not enough of a penalty), a lorry driver in Portsmouth got a £275 fine for killing a cyclist when he (the driver) ignored a Give Way sign
Of course the first story is the "big news" because cyclists don't actually kill or injure people very often, but cyclists being mown down by careless drivers happens on a regular basis and, as such, aren't newsworthy...
Thanks for posting what I was going to write!
Any Government that sets up a petition site which ignores or fobs off every single one that appears and then thinks it can force others to respond to petitions is suffering from severe rectal cranial impaction.
... it doesn't matter because the Government can say "We are Doing Something" and "We're Thinking of the Little Children"!
... All of this is irrelevant BS based on the idea that, somehow, if people don't see nasty things, they won't *do* nasty things!
Ever since Socrates was forced to drink Hemlock for "corrupting the youth of Athens" Governments have been trying to control or ban anything that they don't like because we, the weak minded public, cannot be trusted to behave like sensible, reasonable, rational beings.
Of course our Great Leaders are such paragons of Moral Virtue that they can make these decisions *for* us...
@More blame on customers
What Martin Edwards and the AC from the "Erm" post don't seem to realise is that the banks use the Chip and Pin system to absolve themselves from any losses caused by card fraud.
They go "Your card was abused? Well it was done with a PIN, so it must be your fault, so we're not going to give you a refund", despite the fact that this is an abuse of the Banking Code which requires that the banks *prove* gross negligence instead of just *claiming* it.
This means that the customer (and often the business the goods came from) get screwed and the banks are laughing all the way to... well...
Banks have only *now* started pushing the "protect your PIN" message, something which they should have done right from the start. The number of times I could have shoulder-surfed someone's PIN doesn't even bear thinking about, but if you point this out to people their attitude is "well you shouldn't have been looking" as if a criminal would care!
IMO this is gross negligence by the banks, but nobody can be bothered to take them to task over it.
> Is it considered bad form to take both whip & handcuffs on a first date?
No, that sounds fine to me. Do you want to bring your own along or should I get some out of stock?
Mine's the leather strait-jacket...
@people who don't read the dialogue boxs?
Consider the following situation:
1) I can touch type, ie I don't have to look at the screen when I'm typing.
2) I'm in the middle of composing a reply on a web page input box when I look away to check a reference
3) Whilst I'm looking away a dialogue box pops up on my screen saying "a new update is available, do you want to download it?"
4) I start to touch type again and then look back in time to see the message triumphantly vanish because I've just hit Return and it had taken over focus from Firefox with "yes" selected as the default option.
That happened to me just a few days ago.
Update boxes should *NOT* seize focus and take over from what you're doing (although at least it's slightly better than just assuming you want the update anyway as $ome other companies do...!)
> You can't fight a fire with gasoline.
No, but you can't fight a fire by legislating against it either, yet that is what our Great Leaders think they can do!
Your comparison with red lights is facile and irrelevant, I suggest you "stop and think" and then look at a little history because there are people who *have* given their lives to protect us from the sort of people who think that basic liberties and freedoms are inconveniences to be ignored when they interfere with what the State wants.
- 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