Slashdot Mirror

Using prostitutes is not illegal in the UK *yet*.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/men-targeted-for-buying-sex-with-slaves-1025039.html

But thank god we've got people like Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith running the country. Soon we'll have banned this sick filth, and the morally corrupt will be where they belong - behind bars!

Incidentally, we're about to build 5 new prisons. And to think some cynical people are pointing out that we're in a recession, but if someone who loses their job is sent to prison, they no longer show up on unemployment records. Nonsense! We're cleaning up the country!

Now I think we can all see (at least at an intellectual level) why they want to try this. In theory, at least it'll allow for faster and more accurate convictions.

The problem is, the UK, who has the largest DNA Database in the world, is having some problems with accuracy. And the Germans spent 15 years hunting a serial killer who didn't even exit.

Furthermore, juries are lead to believe that DNA is perfect evidence. While in theory the probability of two non-twins matching is very low, the issue is there is absolutely no way to prove how exactly that material got there. What if you were in a car, and two weeks later someone else is shot in it? Or worse, what if you and your girlfriend did some dirty business in the back? Your DNA will be in the back, and it's going to be hard fighting that off in court, because the Jury believes that DNA is full-proof evidence.

for about five years i commuted 87 kilometers a day - it took me about 40-45 minutes.

then for another two years i travelled 113 kilometers a day to toronto - it took me about 70-75 minutes each way. that's about 2.5 to 3 hours stuck in traffic ontop of a minimum 8hr workday - that's 10.5 to 11 hours before you even get started on saying hi to the family, thinking about dinner, etc.

so after seven years of this nonsense, i found an apartment about a couple blocks away from where i work, sold the car, and started riding bike - best thing i've ever done in my life. i started having a life again, i started getting fit and healthy. i started to enjoy the morning commute.

fifteen-twenty minutes on a bike in the spring is the bees knees. now winter is a little tougher - but you've got about three cold months in the year, and nine generally beautiful months for cycling - but you've got to dress for it. ever since i sold my car, moved and got a bike, my life has been happier.

after a couple years on a bike, i was lucky enough to live on toronto island - one of the largest car-free communities in north america. i witnessed sixty year old women wrapped in scarves and hats - grandly riding thier bikes through the snow in the middle of january - people ask how they got so healthy. there was almost nowhere you couldn't get to in downtown toronto in under 40 minutes by bike - several years without ever paying for parking or gas. but it requires a change in your way of thinking about thinking about things - need groceries - get a cart. got kids? get a bakfiet (yes!). its not so hard once you try it - and its enjoyable.

i'll leave you with two gems:

i) Yehuda Moon (Bicycle Comic Strip):
http://www.yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2008-01-22

ii) Steve Jobs on Bicycles: So then finally, what is the last piece of technology
    that he [Steve Jobs] acquired - not made by Apple - that really delighted him?

    He pauses for long seconds, looks down, puts his hands on his knees, looks away.
    "I actually bought a bicycle recently. It's just ... wonderful."

    (Steve Jobs: The Guru Behind Apple, Charles Arthur; October 29, 2005)
    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article323133.ece

Adding a note to my previous comment:

I happened to notice a story in the London Independent today which refers to this process, whereby antagonists evolve to live together:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-bird-flu-cases-suggest-the-danger-of-pandemic-is-rising-1667526.html/

That can't even provide healthcare and decent education to all of its citizens?

Yes, keep repeating the lies.

Education

Health

Here you go: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-fog-of-war-white-phosphorus-fallujah-and-some-burning-questions-515345.html

So this is flamebait why? The US Army did use white phosphorous in Fallujah and did so even according to the US Army themselves. White phosphorous is a terrible substance that "melts people's bodies down to the bone", and requires significant moral gymnastics/cowardice* to justify as a weapon of war. I think it's only reasonable that, as an American soldier, the option to deploy banned weapons against the enemy be an option, just as it should be possible to win the game by not ever going to war on half-truths and lies disseminated by a blatantly evil and corrupt administration. (* Delete as appropriate)

Remember, after a nuclear war, there will only be two things left, cockroaches and Keith Richards.

This will work just like the UK banning hand guns, now the only people with hand guns are bad guys AND they all know the law abiding citizens aren't armed. Also once we get rid of all our nukes, then the bad guys get to turn the tables on us and say okay if we see you guys trying to build any nuke we're gonna nuke you.

Yeah, and we all now how big the UK's gun problems are:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html

And although I am in favour of banning guns and a reduction of nuclear weapons I don't think it's a comparable analogy.

Given the shape of popular british paranoia these days, I would have expected the google car to be identified as an agent of the paedophiles and run out of town for that reason...

Could be worse, could be hassled for being suspected paediatricians.

How to say this politely...

STFU!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html

[...]Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms[...]

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
2005 CDC Statistics for firearm related deaths in the US (latest that are available):
Number of Deaths: 30,694

Now, tell me again how gun control does nothing to prevent crime?

Call me when you find these "men who are less interested in sex".

I know you're being funny, but apparently there's actually a significant number: Link.

Apparently Alfred Kinsey's pioneering research into sexual behaviour turned up about 1.5% of the male population as having no significant desire to have sex whilst otherwise healthy (they even enjoy masturbation - it just isn't focused on anyone). According to the article, it's become acceptable to admit to straight or gay orientation but not having an orientation at all is still a source of great embarrassment and suspicion.

That's plenty of people (even males) who are quite naturally not interested in fighting over partners.

I agree. Or at the least, a requirement for an image being illegal is that it is reasonably considered to be an image depicting an abusive act (there doesn't even need to be proof beyond reasonable doubt, just a reasonable belief - just so that someone taking an image of themselves, or 30 year old Album covers, not to mention cartoons, don't get counted).

The situation today is very different to when child porn was criminalised in the 70s. Back then, any such image was an image of abuse. The only way to get such images was usually to pay for them, so the distinction between buying and possession didn't matter. But things are different today.

The sad thing is that far from realising the law needs to be refined, lobbyists are scaremongering about the availability of images as a reason for stronger laws - e.g., the NSPCC [*] recently announced 20,000 child porn images a week put on internet. Perhaps many of these images are of real abuse, which is very worrying, and should rightly be stopped. But it's hard to trust political lobbyist organisations - how did they estimate the numbers of images that came from abuse? (Also see http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html ).

Unfortunately, somewhere along the line lobbyists started to claim that child porn was bad not due to the abuse, but because it causes people to become abusers. The argument becomes circular: the large numbers of images is assumed to be evidence of increasing abuse, but they can also say that increasing numbers of any child images on the Internet must be causing increased abuse, therefore all depictions must be criminalised.

[*] A child protection charity, but they've lobbied both for this law, and the recent "extreme porn" law criminalising images of consenting adults.

Same in the UK too - the law was even specifically changed to raise it to 18 in 2003.

And a law currently going through Parliament will criminalise all sexual images (including drawings, cartoons) that appear to depict someone under 18 (or even an adult with the "predominant" impression of someone under 18): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/graphic-artists-condemn-plans-to-ban-erotic-comics-1652270.html

Soon privately doodling a sketch of yourself at 17 (or perhaps older, if the jury think you look young enough in the drawing) will be illegal.

They called the police and what? Your story stops dead there, and I bet I can guess why.

The person was arrested and had to hire a lawyer.

See these:

• Column: High Court Child Porn Ruling Erodes Free Speech
• Supreme Court Upholds Child Pornography Law
• Baby photos that fall foul of the PC police
• Is this child pornography?
• Julia's pictures: could it happen to you?

Falcon

Oh, and never use contaminated cotton swabs. I think that was day two.

Tell that to the Manchester police, who used swabs that had been stored in alcohol to test alcohol-levels in drivers...

Oh, I know :( It's a mad law. And for anyone not following, next on this list is sexual cartoons with any character that looks like they're under-18.

What is your point exactly ? You seem to be arguing that all races are equal and then you drop this :

I"m not saying there may not be significant genetic differences between the races.

Let's agree that there is at least one significant difference between the races : skin color. And are others, as you say, and truly sorry, intelligence differences are amongst the bigger differences. Races are genetically different, and by quite a margin.

In reality there is no real question within scientific circles, but everybody who dares to say it, gets clobbered :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

You can also see the political reaction : ad-hominems. People attack science because it clashes with "progressive" ideals. The reaction of anyone who claims to accept science as truth would obviously be entirely different, or at least : they wouldn't shoot the messenger.

Unfortunately science has long since stopped supporting the prevailing political view of the world that most people in America have, to say nothing of Europeans warped views. In economics, biology, medicine, ... especially "progressive" ideology gets clobbered. It is in fundamental conflict with evolution*, with economics**. Physics***, and Psychology : Modern progressive ideals are based on the ideas of the noble savage (the idea of fundamental innocence of human beings, which unfortunately is ... non-existent), and the fundamental "goodness" of the human race, which everybody interprets as "having the same morals as me". Obviously the mere fact that there exists more than one religion is a contradiction with that theory.

When science, independent critical examination yields results that fail to live up to the political view, the pattern is the same everywhere. Video games cause violent behavior (in 23% of humans) and so does TV, but computer games are worse than TV in causing violent behavior : http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html. Again, amongst psychologists this result is not, at all, in dispute. Another extremely disputed psychological result is that threatening kids with punishment is the *best* incentive possible for them to learn, and far outweighs the advantages offered by a capable teacher, or good books. Or put another way : if you are forced to learn, you will learn. If you merely have the option, you won't learn (again this is true for a majority of people, not for every last person).

Contrary to "atheist", science is *NOT* in fact atheist. It is agnost, and it will never change that position.

Furthermore, science cannot replace religion in the thinking of people. All science is based on maths, and math has been proven to both leave a large class of problems absolutely unanswered, and another, even bigger class of problems are prohibitively difficult to solve (e.g. NP-complete problems), and will forever remain so.

* obviously protective nature policies are simply another factor in evolution, they cannot do what progressives expect them to do : stop evolution in it's tracks (which is what needs to happen in order to "preserve" e.g. a national park). The depopulation of yellowstone park for example, is not something that we can prevent.

Furthermore, you hear a lot about evolution, except there's one tiny little part of that theory that no progressive will ever mention : natural selection. Death. Death of everyone and anyone that's not good enough. Death that comes unpredictably, because we have little idea about the factors that are "being optimized" at the moment (and a less-than-polite person would change "being optimized" into "being genocidally implanted", since that would be close to the method gaia uses to do so)

AdAMO's mirror image is OMAbA...switch b and M, ObAMA... This article claims that "amabo" is Latin for "I will love"...whats Dell doing screwing up names?

... the Featured Artists Coalition, which consists of 140 of the UK's biggest music stars, voted recently on the issue of illegal downloading, and "most of the artists had voted against supporting any move towards criminally prosecuting ordinary members of the public for illegally downloaded music."

Bragg was speaking as a key member of the coalition, which was set up to give a collective voice to artists who want to fight for their rights in the digital world. It is pushing for a fairer deal for musicians at a time when they can use the internet to forge direct links with their fans. "What I said at the meeting was that the record industry in Britain is still going down the road of criminalising our audience for downloading illegal MP3s," he said.

"If we follow the music industry down that road, we will be doing nothing more than being part of a protectionist effort. It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

"Artists should own their own rights and they should decide when their music should be used for free, or when they should have payment."

The artists wanted to tell Lord Carter "that we want to side with the audience, the consumer".

Since we keep getting told to think about the artists, why is no-one listening to what they're saying?

Chimps are Terrifying.

The UK just wants to cover itself.
The good old days of standing before the "house" and saying 'we' do not spy on UK citizens is over.
Allowing the NSA spy at will from bases within the UK.
Spying on "Ireland"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/gchq-spies-eavesdropped-on-irish-1106575.html
The problem is not the spying, or allowing US bases to spy.
The problem for your average UK MP critter is getting exposed lying to the house.
A baited question about domestic public/corporate surveillance and this helps with that.
The MP can face questions in the house knowing they will be covered as they spin.

Nine times out of ten in this world, convenience is accompanied with a lot of bending over and taking it.

My local video store stocks somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 titles. Any five movies from the enormous back catalogue for $10, with a seven day return period. No pop-ups, no Silverlight, no Flash, and only movies I pick myself. If I just had a DVD player lobotomized of the "operation prohibited by madmen with small winkies" message when I try to bypass the FBI warning or the logo rotation, my movie watching experience would be 100% ankle-grip free.

The other day I received an unsolicited offer for life insurance with a pre-authorized chequing option. It contains the sentence "This authorization to the company is also my authorization to the Bank; however, the Bank need not verify that payments are withdrawn in accordance with this authorization."

Convenience, check. Jolly rogering, check.

Need not verify is precisely what Madoff's glamazons were all about.

all societies are dynamic, not static

there is a large movement in the middle east for women's rights

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/lipstick-revolution-irans-women-are-taking-on-the-mullahs-1632257.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/opinion/26thu2.html

women's liberation contrasts with traditional thinking

proponents of traditional thinking in the middle east portray the movement for women's rights as a western plot to destabilize the middle east and destroy traditional culture and traditional islam

this is true of any society: take the argument over gay marriage in the united states

all societies are changing in one way or another, pitting traditionalists against liberal thinkers. the traditionalists use scare tactics. for example, in the usa the propagandizers say gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia and necrophilia. yes, some idiots in the usa really believe that's what gay marriqage will lead to. just like some idiots in the middle east think women can't drive a car, according to islam

So that they can give it to the poor destitute W^HBankers.

You really need to provide a link to a quote. Of course, you can't realistically do that.

Here yah go. From his speach at the Climate Change Summit in Bali. He claims the ice cap will melt in 5 to 7 years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/al-gore-the-world-cant-wait-for-george-bush-765015.html

Mod parent up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-and-tube-firm-at-odds-over-cctv-footage-of-innocent-brazilians-shooting-503943.html

Malice or incompetence, it's unacceptable.

At least phone companies have inadvertantly given just about everyone with a cellphone the ability to record events.

Ok then:

http://www.hs.fi/english/print/1135228139635
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lund_Report
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/radical-ewan-maccoll-was-tracked-by-mi5-for-decades-468689.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/big-brother-how-mi5-kept-watch-on-orwell-463837.html

Ok then:

http://www.hs.fi/english/print/1135228139635
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lund_Report
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/radical-ewan-maccoll-was-tracked-by-mi5-for-decades-468689.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/big-brother-how-mi5-kept-watch-on-orwell-463837.html

..... i do think we're implementing the tools totalitarian dicators dream of. I hope we manage to keep electing the right people.

electing the right people, yeah, like here in italy where the worst prime minister of all times just told that he want to change the constitution so that he does not have to have his emergency legislation submitted to the head of state signing.

that after he hastily made a law to prohibit to let die a poor person that has been in comatose state for last 17 years (not even eutanasia, simply cease the forced alimentation)
law that was refused by the president because anti costitutional.

search englaro case for information.

for example this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coma-womans-fate-left-in-berlusconis-hands-1604504.html

Sir Ranulph Fiennes (the famous arctic explorer, among other things) was actually kicked out of the SAS for destroying a dam using stolen explosives. You can google for more detailed accounts of the story, but here's one:

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/career-planning/getting-job/my-first-job-explorer-sir-ranulph-fiennes-was-an-sas-officer-420601.html

While I agree with the sentiment I cannot go so far as to be guilted into not using Google. This craziness stretches into other areas. Large plasma TVs are facing face being banned in the EU. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/giant-plasma-tvs-face-ban-in-battle-to-green-britain-1299665.html

There is talk about heavily taxing the airline industry to bring down the number of miles flown.

There seems to be no middle ground. Either its denial of global warming or banning major economic and social activity in the name of the environment.

Of course we can solve the problem. We need to use non carbon emitting sources such as nuclear power, solar and wind power. Instead the greenies on Europe want to guilt anyone who uses energy. In the end all that does is to depress the economy, raise unemployment and lower standards of living.

Its also ironic that the greenies always try to inhibit the green power they always go on about. The have stopped wind power on top of mountains in Vermont ( http://www.windaction.org/news/3653 )and filed lawsuits against solar power in the Nevada desert. http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/09/25/are-some-solar-projects-no-longer-%E2%80%98green%E2%80%99/ They even oppose wind power out at sea - Nantucket sound. http://www.nesea.org/publications/NESun/cape_controversy.html Why? Because it's development and they hate ALL development. They always have some objection.

The irony is that we cannot address global warming BECAUSE of the opposition to environmentalists. Indeed if we are to use electric cars we are going to need many more (non carbon emitting) power stations which the experimentalists fight against tooth and nail.

And then I am always amazed by how so many people seem to forge that China is the number one emitter now and that India will soon be number two. If you cannot get these countries on board you are wasting your time. So while the EU impoverishes itself trying to reduce its carbon emissions by 1% China happily adds 10 times that every year anyway.

An opt-out system (or presumed consent) was debated a lot here in the UK in 2008. Due to objections from various sources, our government is trying a "major publicity campaign" to boost the numbers of donors. If that's not successful, we may end up with the system anyway.

• 2000: Israel/Palestine: Armed Attacks on Civilians Condemned
• 2001: Israeli Missiles Kill Two Kids
• 2002: Panel to look into civilian deaths in 2002 IAF attack on Shehadeh
• 2003: Secrecy over shoot-to-kill fear in Gaza, Two journalists have been gunned down by Israeli troops
• 2004: TOTALS FOR 2004: Israelis: 8 Palestinians: 188
• 2005: Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order
• 2006: Teenager killed as missile explodes near school bus
• 2007: Israeli army says three children killed in Gaza were playing
• 2008: Palestinian group says Israelis killed 68 children in Gaza in year
• 2009: Israel Hits Second U.N. School, Blasts Way Into Southern Gaza

That's bullshit. Stating that "It's just the soldier's job" is the same nonsense that it was at the Nuremberg trials. Soldiers are people and they are expected to refuse both immoral and illegal orders.

maybe we shouldn't vote in bloodthirsty psychos

As opposed to the Israeli leadership?
Belgium bars Sharon war crimes trial
The man who would testify against Sharon is blown up. Was this another targeted killing?

I make no claims that the Hamas leadership is a bunch of nice guys, but you may want to do some more reseach on Israel. I'm sure you can find at least as many bad things to say about Hamas, but as the saying goes:
"Two wrongs don't make a right."

The IDF has always attacked military targets

No. I place as much value on a Palestinian life as an Israeli one. My values are not what is under question, though. What I'm saying is that the IDF values, and should value, the lives of the citizens that it is their duty to protect over the lives of Palestinian civilians (which they are under no obligation to keep out of harm's way).

So yes, innocent Palestinians do have as much right to like as innocent Israelis. However, the hostile militants that they put in power do not.

Your last comment is simply ignorance. Suicide bombs that purposefully target city buses? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E5D7123FF935A35750C0A9659C8B63 How about hotel lobbies - on passover? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/suicide-bomber-kills-19-in-passover-feast-massacre-750377.html More recently, how about a shopping center? http://middleeast.about.com/b/2008/02/04/first-suicide-bombing-in-israel-in-over-a-year.htm Try searching "Hamas target civilians" compared with HAmas target military" on google. The results are pretty self-evident.

Suggesting that Hamas militants habitually target anything other than innocent civilians is astonishingly naive. But that's not the point. If I had my way, everyone would simply forget past deaths, get over it, and live together. However, that's not going to happen anytime soon. Until it does, until the Palestinian populace says "hey, maybe we shouldn't vote in bloodthirsty psychos to lead us," there will be no peace. The IDF has always attacked military targets in immediate retaliation or, very rarely, pre-emptive strike. But always military targets - buildings or personnel. Therefore, the burden is on Hamas to stop attacking or on the Palestinian people to get them out of power.

The Independent picked up on this before Slashdot, and that's not unusual in my experience.

In these hard times companies are also scrapping upgrades and new systems as well. I can;t quite believe it, but MS is (apparently) going to lay off 10% or so of its global workforce. Perhaps they finally realised how many of those microsofties do useful work, or they've decided to get rid of all the Raymond Chens now they only use .NET.

Obviously if revenue is "disappointing", it can only mean companies are not buying more MS stuff, probably because what they have works (though MS is desperate to get everyone to upgrade), but also possibly because Linux is really making inroads in some areas.

2009 could be the year things really changed for the IT software marketplace.

Folks know ash collapses roofs. So, gasp, folks would clear the ash as it accumulates.

Oh, I wonder why nobody else thought of that simple idea!

but the fact that real photographs may be "turned into" non-realistic images that are indistinguishable from drawn cartoons.

Note that that's also already possible. I'd have no objection to criminalising images derived from abuse (as is the case in the UK, for example). It might be useful to have some way to track which images were derived from abuse, but either way, there is no justification for criminalising all images of non-realistic images.

I also find it rather odd that someone would ever want to do this - wouldn't it be far easier to just create the cartoon without abusing children? I'd be curious to see evidence on how much this ever happens - it may well be a myth created to help support new laws on non-realistic images (the UK Government recently made these claims).

Also I would be careful of the argument that child abuse images are converted into other things - where will it end? Supposing we hear stories that pedophiles are photoshopping images of child abuse to look like adults - shall we criminalise adult porn, or do we need to track which adult porn images came from adults and which were photoshopped from children? Supposing pedophiles are photoshopping images of child abuse to look like non-pornographic images of children - do we need to do the same for all images of children now? Or perhaps all images full stop, as they might have been converted from a child abuse image?

but I wonder how many people are looking to outlaw cartoon images simply because they cannot be distinguished from real images which have been doctored to look like cartoons, thus painting the law with broad strokes?

Indeed, some such as the UK Government are. Though it is a pretty poor argument as I say above, especially with little evidence presented of how much this actually happens. I am also suspicious if this is really the true reason, as the proposed law has no defence for images that can be proven to not come from actual abuse (see my comment here - people who make arguments of "we have to criminalise it all, just in case it might be abusive" typically are not even willing to consider the burden of proof being on the defendant). I suspect that they simply want to criminalise images they find "disgusting" (as was the case with the recent law criminalising possession of so-called "extreme" adult porn), and simply stir up claims of pedophiles converting images of abuse to cartoons in order to lend support (even though the UK has already criminalised possession of non-realistic images that were derived from abusive images...)

1) You will lose weight when you excrete shit.
2) If the stuff you take that makes you shit also changes your intestinal flora, it could affect your "efficiency" of converting food into body fat.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/could-friendly-bacteria-hold-the-key-to-weight-control-457625.html

Last summer a team headed by Professor Jeffrey Gordon at Washington University's Centre for Genome Sciences managed to narrow the strains responsible for the fat storage down to two key players: Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron (B. theta) and Methanobrevibacter smithii ( M. smithii). Rats with both strains had 13 per cent more body fat than those with only one. The possibility, some years away yet, is that researchers may discover how to manipulate your gut bacteria population so less fat gets stored.

and if you dont believe him here is a link (i found it on the internets so it must be true)

Clearly we can depend on the British software community to make the right technical choices ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-16357m-efficiency-drive-that-cost-16381m-1128203.html

Don't you know that cartoons are people too?

Captcha was "supplies"

Not a problem with the Government's planned ID card scheme. This will require you to notify the Government of "drastic" appearance changes, or face a £1,000 fine.

I don't know if big bushy beards and long hair would count, but it's worrying nonetheless.

In response to your final 3 words (modern, free society), can I point you to this article by Mark Steel? ;D

"The sad thing about the greenies is that they would be the first to tell the Religious Right, "stay out of my life!" on abortion or gay marriage or sex on TV or the Internet, but they are the first to tell others how to run their lives in a green way, whether anyone asked them or not."

At the age of 50 I'm certainly aware that political ideaology is no match for real life pragmatisim in a Darwinian environment. I am not Irish but for conceptually similar political reasoning I am unashamed to be "green". I ask you to please refrain from lumping all greenies (evironmentists) together under the greenpeace banner. Some of it's later day actions are a huge cringe factor to the rest of us and have been successfully used by many politicains/corporations to put rational people with genuine concerns into the political "nut-job" basket.

As a scientifically literate "greenie" I am happy to inform you that I do not want to "tell you what to do", the caveate being that whatever you ARE doing has no material affect on me. If what you are doing is offensive to me (but not directed at me) I will ignore you, if you befowl OUR planet I consider that a material affect on me and reserve the right to "interfere" by finding/pointing out what you are doing and petitioning society to find an effective solution. Even if that solution is to take your company away by force as a defensive measure.

Note - The link is an extreme example, I don't think GP self-promotion is a "defensive measure" but the jury did and that's what counts, I am compelled to begrudgingly accept the referee's decision not because I think it's justice servered but because imperfect democracy trumps a perfect free market.

Like most humans (including "greenies") enviromentalisim is only part of my world view. If you want to label my politics I would say "socially liberal, fiscally conservative, strong advocate of science based policy" - To me the science requirement would seem to automatically imply the environmentalisim, it would also reduce the influence of the creationists, the eco-warriors, the French secret service that sunk their boat, the managers of Exonn and their chief anti-scientist Fred Singer, Neo-cons at the UN, Senator Inhofe and his fans, in fact a whole bunch of cliques within large organizations who do no actual work in society other than trying to "tell you what to do" by unilateral force or deception....OTOH....Each and every one of us has a point in our worldview beyond which "telling someone what to do" is our only reasonable option.

Then you either don't live in the UK or don't pay much attention. Adverts must be "legal, decent, honest and truthful", and failure to meet any of these requirements is grounds for the advert to be banned:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4353055.stm
    - Marmite ad banned from being show during children's programs because it "terrified children"

And there's plenty more examples:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/21/crazy_frog_off_air/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/dec/10/advertising.media2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/12/asa.advertising

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/kate-moss-mascara-advert-was-misleading-asa-rules-395805.html

It's true, Hello Kitty makes hella money. I can only guess that brands like Ultraman and Godzilla keep selling to boys well into their teenage and young adult years worldwide, while outside Japan Hello Kitty sales drop off dramatically among adolescent and teenage women. The 15-25 year old demographic loves to part with its disposable cash. I don't have figures, but that's my hunch.

"you have nothing to hide, right"

That idea is an extremely slippery slope, that is all too often used to extend ever more control over people. For example, one of the fundamental principles of law, is someone is innocent, until proven guilty. But by applying the idea, "you have nothing to hide", it means anyone suspected (in this case, by automated profiling) of being a criminal, now needs to prove they are innocent. It means if you are a false positive, then you will be stopped from what you are doing and interrogated and even your house and belongings can be searched, until you can prove you are innocent. While all this is happening, you will also have no privacy at all and your freedom is removed from you while you prove you are innocent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_until_proven_guilty

So over time, as they add ever more automated profiling, they get ever more ways to get more people caught up as false positives. That's ever more people, being deprived of freedom, until they can prove their innocence.

The route to a totalitarian society, is via people using the idea of, "you have nothing to hide". Yet ironically, all too often, its the minority of people who have power in (ever more) totalitarian style societies, that are able to cause the greatest injustices to their powerless minions. They cause their harm through multiple means. Some are self-righteously ignorant of the harm they cause. Others deliberately seek to exploit their position of power, for their own gain.

The real danger is this minority of people (in ever country) who seek to dominate and control others. This applies to people who seek political or business power over people and ironically terrorists also seek to dominate and control others, into their twisted points of view, for their groups gain. In the case of the terrorists the gain they seek is for their own side, (even if their lower foot soldiers don't gain) as they see it as a battle for their point of view. In the case of political or business power, the gain is directly for them.

The majority of us who don't seek power over others, are simply caught up in an endless power struggle, throughout history between different minority groups, who do seek power and so seek to get others on their side, to boost their own power and to overthrow the other power seeking groups.

Therefore, "you have nothing to hide", is wrong. Everyone has something to hind from some of these groups, who seek power. Because some of the groups will use anything they learn to gain power over people and the more extreme they push towards a totalitarian controlled society, the more they can exploit, stop, search, detain or interrogate, you and your family. That's not the kind of world I want to live in. Plus once these laws are passed, they can be used by any new party getting into power later on. Imagine what power some more extreme groups would do, if they gained access to this kind of power in the future.

For example, in the UK, http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00065/cartoon291008_65504a.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqui_Smith "As the UK Home Secretary, she has been noted for advocating strongly authoritarian policies."

"Authoritarian", in her case, as in extremely arrogant, self-righteous, self-serving, power seeking, contempt for the views of others. She is a great example of how power corrupts and she is dragging the whole UK into her own total police state hell.

For example, in the UK, even some companies can legally break into peoples homes.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/consumer/bills/article.html?in_article_id=427634&in_page_id=510
That

And Hoover, ugh, don't even get me started on that bastard. The Brits couldn't stand working with that transvestite media whore in WWII.

That that was all too subtle for the swinging dick approach favored by American intel.

So, the Brits couldn't stand working with a swinging dick transvestite? Considering that MI5 and MI6 were sort of a gay dating service for the KGB, can we file this one under professional jealousy?

See, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/secrets-revealed-of-gay-honey-trap-that-made-spy-of-vassall-406096.html

and see also the individual biographies of
Anthony Blunt, Guy Burgess, and Donald Duart Maclean of The Cambridge Five http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five