Slashdot Mirror

Wow. I'm actually speechless. Next you'll be telling me that loud pipes save lives? Right?

Slow down.

Slow down.

Slow down.

Slow down.

Try not to fall for bullshit such as this from someone who thinks they are *much* smarter than they actually are.

...to have him removed from the Health committee and the Science and Technology Committee: http://epetitions.direct.gov.u...

Also I see they're saying that being in this style of apprenticeship shall earn you a wage. The current wages for apprentices are typically around £2.73/hr, just over 1/3rd of the minimum wage. It doesn't say if they're planning to pay a higher wage, but it does say on the government site that the apprentice will earn a wage. It's obviously used for cheap labour, ie/ https://jobsearch.direct.gov.u... or https://jobsearch.direct.gov.u... two simply picked off the first page from the jobcentre website. To find 1000's more apprenticeships for extremely basic jobs (serving people at a shop counter for instance), simply search apprentice on their site.

This is simply the norm right now. It's a scam as it currently stands, will it be any different from the Digital Economy Minister?

Also I see they're saying that being in this style of apprenticeship shall earn you a wage. The current wages for apprentices are typically around £2.73/hr, just over 1/3rd of the minimum wage. It doesn't say if they're planning to pay a higher wage, but it does say on the government site that the apprentice will earn a wage. It's obviously used for cheap labour, ie/ https://jobsearch.direct.gov.u... or https://jobsearch.direct.gov.u... two simply picked off the first page from the jobcentre website. To find 1000's more apprenticeships for extremely basic jobs (serving people at a shop counter for instance), simply search apprentice on their site.

This is simply the norm right now. It's a scam as it currently stands, will it be any different from the Digital Economy Minister?

I'm not convinced that the high dollar helmets are any safer than the cheaper ones.

If you want more convincing, the UK government has a database of helmet ratings that's very enlightening. There are one- and two-star helmets in the same price ranges as the four- and five-star models. http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/

However, lots of votes will at least make ignoring the call embarrassing. Even the americans are claiming to review the situation.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51959

Brit /dotters can show support for unfiltered internet by signing this Do Not Force ISP Filtering of Pornography and Other Content petition. Bonus points if you can sign even though it feels identical to nominating yourself for a secret "British residents who like internet porn" watchlist.

UK residents can sign a petition against this for the government to dutifully ignore.

Shouldn't they give him a knighthood?

There was a petition to HM Government for that very thing. It was rejected on absurd grounds.

Banning ROFLMAO seems a bit harsh to me, when the British DVLA is selling this for 599UKP ($950).

Indeed. I strongly recomment that you support this petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/11653

I don't think you have much experience of UK government consultations then - my experience tends more towards the devolved Govs, but we worked closely with our English counterparts and for popular topics i.e. smoking ban, local income tax, gay marriage rights etc. the number of responses was massive and came from both sides of the argument in droves.

To have a well read consultation without a single person coming out one side at all, is unheard of.

Don't take my word for it though - all consultations are open to the public (legally - if you catch one that isn't then report it to the papers) and all responses should be posted to the Web and the British Library with 3 months. In fact I really do implore all UK citizens (and citizens of devolved nations) to take some time to check these things out regularly - don't wait for the news to come out about some piece of shit law, catch the buggers at the idea stage and you have a much higher chance of stopping things.

UK consultation are a pest - different site for each one http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/PublicConsultations/DG_170463
Scottish ones are a bit easier - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Consultations/Current
Welsh ones are similarly easier - http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/?lang=en

What happens is you have idiot cyclists cycling side-by-side (cars can't do that, motorcycles don't do that) just because they want to chat, you have them under-taking people, which you are not supposed to do, and you have them cycling in the wrong lane "because it's easier than following the rules of the road". Like you say they also ignore red lights, they ignore traffic signs

Ignoring red lights is unforgiveable - but mostly stupid, because the cyclist is putting themselves in serious risk.

Cycling two-abreast is explicitly permitted by the highway code although it tells you to go in single file on busy or narrow roads.

On my route to work, I undertake long queues of static cars. I can see no rational reason not to. Waiting at the back of the queue helps nobody. Overtaking puts me in the path of oncoming traffic.

I also use a left-turn lane to go straight on. It's tricky to explain without diagrams, but the alternative is to cross into the middle lane, where I'll obstruct cars.

I also make some of my journey on roads, and some on pavements. Always, it's the best balance between my own safety, courtesy to cars, and courtesy to pedestrians (I don't speed along pavements terrorising pedestrians).

There is no eventually about it. In the UK we already have a database of all vehicle license plates which is linked to data on which cars have insurance cover provided by the insurance industry. A few years ago it was made a legal requirement to make a declaration to the vehicle licensing authority if your car is "off the road", i.e. not being used on a public highway and therefore not requiring insurance.

There is already a list of the registered car owners without insurance (and also without having paid the road tax) who have not declared their car legally off the road. The database is already linked to license plate recognition systems so if a car which is declared off the road drives past it will be flagged and they can be prosecuted.

This state of affairs is largely supported by the population as there has been a significant increase in uninsured drivers who are involved in accidents (as insurance costs rose and recession bit people stopped renewing their cover). The cost of this ends up being born by the innocent drivers insurer, pushing up premiums for everyone else.

Someone should really tell the guys in power that 1984 was more of warning and less of a plan. Guess the old e-petition becomes invalid now: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400

I hope you are not doing this in the UK... Its a breach of both the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.

To reinforce that point:

UK employers have the right to monitor communications within the workplace as long as you are aware of the monitoring before it takes place. Monitoring can cover: emails / internet access / telephone calls / data / images - with the proviso that - You have the right to see any information held about you (for example, emails or CCTV footage).

And there are clear rules in place describing an employer's responsibilities and the consequences of improper monitoring.

The Human Rights Act applies to everyone (not just adults, not just British people, not just in British territory) and includes the right to Freedom of Expression.

There are also extra Children's human rights http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/parents/parentsrights/dg_4003313

from 15 January 1992, when the treaty came into force, every child in the UK has been entitled to over 40 specific rights. These include:
* the right to have their views respected, and to have their best interests considered at all times

Use Tor and you've told them everything they need to know...
Seriously though, it will be interesting to see how the government responds to suddenly seeing an entire nation's Tor use. Either:
(i) Everyone ends up becoming a suspect and gets subjected to other kinds of surveillance
(ii) Tor (and similar methods) get banned.
(iii) The system allows good statistical traffic analysis to be performed (less likely, as you'll be crossing borders but not impossible) and makes you less anonymous.
Ultimately though, the system cannot catch smart criminals, criminals who were operating in the open (and might have been caught) will start going underground and will no longer be caught which means the system will only be useful against dumb criminals (who would have been caught anyway) and a entire nation of innocent suspects. Um, e-petition, anyone? http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400
How can the the same nation that gave the world Orwell, Huxley, Oxford and Cambridge decide to pass something as dumb and self-defeating as this?

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31659

I am a single white man with no kids as well. Yes you get bumped to a low priority, but it is still possible. And it isn't only for people living in council housing, it is also for first time buyers who can't raise the kind of mortgages to buy a property at current prices.

This is what I'm on:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/HomeBuyingSchemes/DG_4001347

Something you might consider if you have the time is to get some teaching credentials. E.g. if you did some web-design/beginner programming courses at a local college. This would make you a "Key worker" and would propel your priority towards the upper end. I'm been thinking about doing this, because teachers (especially those who teach in community colleges) are something councils want to keep, so are willing to set your priority much higher, about as high as the council tenants/minorities with kids.

"Insightful". Oh please. Yes, the UK has a ridiculous number of CCTV cameras, both government-run and private. Even here in the London panopticon, though, I don't believe that there is a camera situated directly over my computer keyboard. Not yet, anyway.

If you live in the UK, please be brave, stick your head up over the parapet, and sign here, here, here, and here.

Is this really "by far the most controversial bill" discussed in the Queen's Speech?...this was not (unless I missed it) even discussed by Ed Miliband (the leader of the opposition party) when he criticised the legislative agenda.

It was not discussed by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, because, shamefully, the previous Labour governments (Blair/Brown) wanted even more draconian measures, including the creation of a giant central government database to hold the e-mail and phone call details. I suspect that to do the data mining they wish, this government will end up with IT consultancy and vendor recommendations to build something similar (at an exorbitant cost). And what is the point of collecting header data unless you want to get at the content? I don't believe any government assurances re limitations on this one bit!

I do think the invasion of privacy (what we have left of it) is something to get worked up about. While I agree there are other important bills (draft or otherwise) included in (or excluded from when it comes to economic stimulus) the Queen's speech, we should not let this one squeak by.

Also, there are two halves to this draft bill, both heinous IMHO:

    (1) The surveillance/snooping/spying by the government listeners and the requirement for (UK) ISPs and mobile phone companies to make their log databases available for real-time snooping, supposedly with the caveat that Home Secretary Theresa May or a judge can sign a warrant to do so (certainly not comfortable with any Home Secretary being able to do this without having to pass a legal test)

    (2) The entry and hearing of communications data evidence in secret closed courts (hence Justice Minister Ken Clarke's argument that the US is more likely to be willing to share secretly collected [via waterboarding at Guantanamo or rendition exercises?] evidence with the UK if it will not end up in open court.)

If you do not speak up, you can guarantee that with very little opposition (a few backbench Tories like David Davis and a smattering of Lib Dems not so enamoured of their government cars), the few scraps of privacy we have left will be taken away. Can you say Patriot Act UK?

I urge readers of Slashdot to sign (and forward the link to) the e-petition (set up a few weeks ago when this was first mooted) at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400

Signed,
K.E. (as I have already signed said e-petition, I am sure the government can find out exactly who I am)

Now, there is one for stopping the censorship of porn and there is one for blocking porn. But I liked this one even more.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1629 --- "None of the above" on ballot papers.

Hello porn, goodbye politicians (shut up, don't ruin my dream, it's the British dream, we have ours, you have yours).

surely if smart people know how to weasel their way out of jury duty, then it means jury members are likely to be more dumb?

a key problem here in the UK is that people and their employers are reluctant to do it if the case is likely to drag on, as it could mean a significant loss of income or cost to the employer, jurors can only claim relatively little expenses: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Juryservice/DG_197055

Link to e-petition: Scrap Plans to Monitor all Emails and Web Usage

In the UK you are not allowed to drive unless your eye-sight meets a minimum standard. Is it legal for a 95% blind man to drive in the USA?

Well this is the point; he's not really driving. The car drives itself so he's only test riding. So no, no legal issues, the only license required here is Slashdot's poetic one.

In the UK you are not allowed to drive unless your eye-sight meets a minimum standard. Is it legal for a 95% blind man to drive in the USA?

Someone needs to start a petition for the UK to get it over with and become the 53rd state of the US, in order to make it clear whose laws you are living under.

Blame the extortionate tariff on importing components versus the lack of tariff on finished goods for production being outsourced. Here's a direct petition on the matter: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/27158 -- that is the direct reason manufacture is being outsourced. From what I understand of the Foundation's statements on the matter no economy of scale could overcome the cost of the tariff because the bill of materials cost would be too high to be profitable at the desired price point as a result.

And I don't see any cost increase. Model As are $25 before tax and shipping. Model Bs are $35 before tax and shipping. That has never changed.

I like to blame the school curriculum

If you look at the actual curriculum, it is fine - it includes basic addition/subtraction/multiplication/division, which is all the normal person really needs.

Whether that curriculum is taught correctly, and whether the students absorb and retain the knowledge, is another thing. But the basics seem to be there.

You can start an e-petition and if you have 100,00 signatures it has to be debated in the House of Commons (Parliament)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/DoItOnline/DG_066327

Though they have been know to 'run out of time' to debate on at least one occasion

I'd really like to help, since if this passes it's only a matter of time before it's in the UK too.

If you are based in the UK there is the E-petitions website:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/search?q=sopa

This claim should be successful. Normally in the UK dismissal requires a verbal warning, written warning, then your notice with time to correct the situation between. Skipping any of these steps requires "gross misconduct". Knowingly skipping safety rules that could lead to someone getting injured is gross misconduct, floating your CV on the net isn't. The appropriate guidelines are here, and there's even a page about constructive dismissal (this wouldn't be the first case, it's probably the first involving linkedIn status). That is a government run site so should be reasonably accurate, although legally it can only be used as a guide.

The comment about being in administration probably refers to making someone redundant. However if challenged by the leaver the company needs to prove that the role is being closed, and that there was no alternative role they could have offered you. There are also statutory payouts (based on time spent with the company), which it doesn't sound like the case for this guy.

Even in the UK, you are entitled to leave your job anytime you wish as well. Anything else is slavery, which hasn't been recognized as legal in the UK for well over 400 years (in some parts, as much as 900 years).

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Resigningorretiring/DG_175837

Notice you must give your employer
If you have worked for your employer for one month or more, the legal minimum amount of notice you must give is one week.

(Unless there are special circumstances, e.g. job is dangerous.)

Depending on the contract, while you might be in physical possession of the device, if you have just walked out of a store without paying for it (Signed a contract though) I can't think of anywhere in the western world where a court would consider it "Your property".

If you cancel the contract then you are basically doing a "buy out" as you mention. This is what I'm referring to in your quote of my post. Until you have "bought out" your contract, then you haven't completely paid for the device.

You do read your contracts don't you? If you are willingly making calls outside of your contract and this is a problem, simply, don't! If this is such an issue for you, lodge a complaint with the carrier and ask for it to go to dispute resolution. At this point, they would normally settle then go through that as it will cost too much or complain to whatever Government based consumer rights group you have in your country. Looking at your previous posts, you're in the UK:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/Yourconsumerrightswhenbuyinggoodsandservices/DG_195147

A complaint to the Ombudsman (CICAS) costs the carrier money; they will go to dispute resolution and drop rates to prevent you from doing so.

There persists the impression that Kinghthood is some rare and impressive award - it isn't. Between the Birthday and New Years lists, a couple of thousand Knights are created each year, many for rather minor things. (Like 'services to the youth of Manchester' for a charity official.)
 
You can read more about the system, and download recent lists, here.

It's actually towards the higher end of average for a technical position.

The thing to keep in mind with UK vs US wages, however, is that we get a LOT more holiday time. Legally it's a 28 days/year minimum: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Timeoffandholidays/DG_10029788

But the big point of getting a P'n'S is to buy something cheap that you will be willing to risk on that rafting trip through the Grand Canyon. Or carry in your pocket anywhere you go. Without feeling like you need to protect your investment by keeping it in a case that keeps you from getting it out and using it.... For me, that means something under $100, but then I am just one of the 99%.

I have amateur photographic insurance, which should cover me if something happens. I have a DSLR. I'd take it to a street party or festival if I'm going more to play with photography than participate. If I want to join in, or go for a night out afterwards, I'll take my old PnS.

(And $100 isn't that much, is it? I'm not American, so your costs and income are different to mine, but I'd have to spend a good chunk of $100 to visit somewhere that isn't local. If I didn't have a job, the government would give me £67.50 = $104 a week to help find one.)

That's a good idea. I'm tempted to set up the UK equivalent, (it's http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ if anyone wants to beat me to it).

Of course the UK version needs 100,000 signatures, rather than 5,000, but it's still possible. I hope Slashdotters from other countries do so on their equivalents, where available.

The UK itself, disagrees: "The full title of this country is 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'"

The riots did spread to Wales, but are not considered an international incident because of it.

The original post still referred to riots in 3 countries regardless of the ambiguous nature of the UK being a country made up of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. Those are not "countries" as the term is used outside the UK (such as on the US based slashdot), but rather political subdivisions of the country of the UK, as they all have representation in the UK Cabinet.

Would you really be comfortable walking away from your job just because the pay stopped temporarily? Don't pretend that wouldn't be held against you...

I'd sue for Constructive dismissal, but then I live in the UK where we actually have some employment rights.

The government have recently introduced a non-emergency number which should get you your local police, it's 101, but hasn't been rolled out everywhere, you can check the link to see if your area is covered by it.

FWIW, there's a 0.5% levy on the purchase price. Details here.

Well, sort of. See Highway Code rule 18. It is an offence to loiter on a crossing.

Which means you can potentially enjoy criminal sanctions for crossing where you should be crossing, but not for crossing where you shouldn't. And this, m'lud, is why I never cross at crossings.

(It's like those stupid pavement railings close to crossings. It just means you have to make the extra effort of jumping the railing or hugging the kerb on the road side until the railing ends, which is far more dangerous than if they weren't there.)

This is not a troll. It is a commentary on the double standards which exist in the UK and other parts of Europe. They have a double standard for driver's license photos and for airport security for muslim women.

You're wrong for the UK. See here. In the PDF of examples there's a woman wearing a veil that covers her face, and it's marked "unaccepteble".

The difference is that you can actually SEE that the goods are damaged at the time you pick them up, before you'd actually buy them. You can avoid taking an item that has been damaged or removed from its wrapping and instead get one that hasn't.

With delivery services, you already paid and bought the item, essentially the deal's been closed. You can now try to return it and exchange it for an undamaged good, i.e. send it back, wait for the new item to arrive and hope it ain't damaged.

Buying off the 'net counts as distance selling, which in turn means I have a seven days from when I receive the item to send it back just because I feel like it: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/DG_183048

Being in the UK, the University of Oxford would have to pay the people doing grunt work the National Minimum Wage. I believe that organisations trying to use unpaid "interns" are being enthusiastically persued for using illegal labour. Heck! Even illegal imigrants have to be paid the national minimum wage....

Given that its going to cost them, then employing a temp typist will be cheaper in the long run than an unskilled dogsbody (the correct term for "intern" btw). And its easier to get rid of them once that particular project has run its course. After all, it'll be a temporary expedient whilst all those clever buggers break the encryption and DRM that prevent automatic transcoding of e-books into correctly paginated Open Document format files, suitable for proper printing. LaTex output will naturally also be part of the output stream.

Back to this "intern" thing. What the feck IS an "intern"?

I thought it was a medical dogsbody, like a "House Officer". Sounds like some down-on-their-luck Arts graduates have been pimping their CVs again.....

Two of my idiot friends got their second DWIs recently. One of them recently enough that he's almost certainly going to have to put one of these things in, and I hope the other one as well.

In this country, after the first offence your friends would probably have been banned from driving for 12 months (or more), especially the one that crashed the car while drunk. If they were caught drink driving while disqualified they'd probably go to jail.

"In the case of serious offences, such as dangerous driving and drink-driving, the court MUST order disqualification. The minimum period is 12 months, but for repeat offenders or where the alcohol level is high, it may be longer. For example, a second drink-drive offence in the space of 10 years will result in a minimum of three years’ disqualification." (link).

Perhaps it's just the UK then. The key phrase is "Fit for purpose", things must behave as something of that class of things is supposed to behave, and have a reasonable life expectancy (quality).

Advice to UK citizens from the government

Of course it's all a bit vague, which means that the consumer sometimes wins and sometimes gets screwed.

Depends on how frequent the hoops are on the road I guess. You could afford to paint solid white lines as a visual cue, perhaps with accompanying warning text.