I don't care what his views are, but she needs a good suing for some of the rubbish she comes out with!
10 posts • joined 18 Mar 2009
This is all a waste of time. The government is only banning them because they have to reach the targets set for carbon emissions. The problem is, producing energy saving bulbs damages the environment more than making normal bulbs when you take into account the increased complexity of an energy saving bulb and the chemicals used. All the government is doing is shifting our carbon emissions to another country which produces the new bulbs (likely China, or Taiwan) and this does nothing in real terms in the way of saving the environment. Its just ticking things off a check-list of things to do for the sake of it!
Licenses are written by people with a vested interest in keeping the legal system complex, it keeps them in jobs, if licenses were written in a more logical simple to understand way then there would be a lot less cause to ever seek legal advice in relation to them.
The whole system needs to change, we pay a whole profession to provide understanding to things they themselves make complicated.
In response to the encryption issues I would say people writing encryption software will just ensure that encrypted data remains encrypted until it is executed by the CPU and so even when loaded into this new type of RAM it would be in encrypted state and then as the CPU needs to use a piece of data the encryption software would have to decrypt the data and feed it to the CPU and then manage the output ensuring that no unencrypted data processed from the CPU remains in RAM after (possibly by encrypting the output of the CPU).
The encryption software would essentially become a memory management program sitting low level in the OS and kicked into action when ever an encrypted piece of data is used.
There are no blocking issues to encryption introduced by this new technology, just new problems to solve.
Id like to see someone challenge this in a court of law. Is it really legal to say we will make it hard for you to get to your house if you don't produce two forms of ID which we have no right to ask for and are even willing to admit that?
If they have no legal right to stop you walking to your house and walking to your house is not suspicious activity so they have no right to conduct a search or stop you in any way, in which case people should just walk straight past the police and ignore their requests for ID, as they have already admitted they have no legal right to ask for it! It surely isnt legal for the police to harass you because you are not carrying ID they know you don't have to carry or show to them.
Crazy, everyone should walk around without ID and keep leaving and coming back. Who do these people think they are.
More stupid rubbish from someone trying to look like hes acting after a tragedy rather than really doing anything which will work. It seems no one is willing to accept the fact that perhaps some kids become messed up through their natural experiences in life and just will take actions we think are abhorent due to this. There isnt always an answer or reason, humans have been violent for thousands of years and yes, our evolution seems to be taking us away from that now but in reality its not that long ago violence was an every day part of the human races existance. Some people simply will still become violent and people need to accept that and deal with it.
The whole idea is so stupid, drawing an image makes no difference what so ever, the person had to think about it to start with. Seeing as we can not read peoples minds we can not punish people for thinking and imagining something so whats the point of doing so if they draw it? They can quite easily fantasise about it in their head and no one can do anything anyway.
This is just another case of the government and political figures in general just trying to do what they think the loudest shouting members of the public want to hear, nothing about right or wrong.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019