Slashdot Mirror

According to this, sixpence translates to 2.5p, or 0.025L (not even going to try using the right character, /. will eat it). And according to this PDF, the Pound was worth roughly 76 times more in 2005 (the year it was written) than it was in 1914. So it comes out to be about 2L, or about US$3.

You all just got trolled by the media and Ken Clarke. This is not about forcing anyone to hand over any information, websites aren't automatically liable for all the content on them, and is nothing to do with last week's Facebook case (although some MPs debating the Bill still think it was).

This story is about the Defamation Bill, currently going through the UK Parliament. For the most part, it simply codifies existing case law (but with enough pointless changes in terminology and detail to cause headaches for lawyers and courts for a few years). However, clause 5 creates a new defence to defamation specifically for operators of websites. However, it can be defeated if it is "not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement" (although no definition on "identify" is given). This doesn't force websites to do anything, nor does it remove any of the multitude of existing defences or limits to defamation claims against them (see, for example, a recent case involving Google, which has been ignored by the government due to happening after they decided what to put in the bill, where Google was (a) not a publisher, so not liable, (b) protected by the Defamation Act 1996 defences, and (c) protected by the Electronic-Commerce Directive defences), or even the new ones created in this bill, particularly Clause 10.

In practice, the aim behind the limit on anonymous authors seems to be part of a deliberate attack by the UK government on anonymous speech and the Internet in general. Website operators won't be aware of the intricacies of English defamation law, and so are likely to be scared into banning anonymous comments. In that regard, it is a very bad clause, plus it is limited to "websites" only, not the rest of the internet, or even anything in the offline world.

The Facebook case from last week was over a private prosecution for harassment, public order offences or malicious communications (or something). Nothing to do with defamation. In order to bring her prosecution, the victim had to get a standard order from the court compelling Facebook to hand over whatever details they had (IP addresses, account names, email addresses) that would help identify the posters. This type of order comes from a 1970s case (Norwich Pharmacal) and has been used mainly against ISPs for copyright infringement. Nothing new to see here. Other than the press, and MPs using it to conflate defamation with "trolling" and "cyber-bullying", to fight anonymity and the Internet.

You all just got trolled by the media and Ken Clarke. This is not about forcing anyone to hand over any information, websites aren't automatically liable for all the content on them, and is nothing to do with last week's Facebook case (although some MPs debating the Bill still think it was).

This story is about the Defamation Bill, currently going through the UK Parliament. For the most part, it simply codifies existing case law (but with enough pointless changes in terminology and detail to cause headaches for lawyers and courts for a few years). However, clause 5 creates a new defence to defamation specifically for operators of websites. However, it can be defeated if it is "not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement" (although no definition on "identify" is given). This doesn't force websites to do anything, nor does it remove any of the multitude of existing defences or limits to defamation claims against them (see, for example, a recent case involving Google, which has been ignored by the government due to happening after they decided what to put in the bill, where Google was (a) not a publisher, so not liable, (b) protected by the Defamation Act 1996 defences, and (c) protected by the Electronic-Commerce Directive defences), or even the new ones created in this bill, particularly Clause 10.

In practice, the aim behind the limit on anonymous authors seems to be part of a deliberate attack by the UK government on anonymous speech and the Internet in general. Website operators won't be aware of the intricacies of English defamation law, and so are likely to be scared into banning anonymous comments. In that regard, it is a very bad clause, plus it is limited to "websites" only, not the rest of the internet, or even anything in the offline world.

The Facebook case from last week was over a private prosecution for harassment, public order offences or malicious communications (or something). Nothing to do with defamation. In order to bring her prosecution, the victim had to get a standard order from the court compelling Facebook to hand over whatever details they had (IP addresses, account names, email addresses) that would help identify the posters. This type of order comes from a 1970s case (Norwich Pharmacal) and has been used mainly against ISPs for copyright infringement. Nothing new to see here. Other than the press, and MPs using it to conflate defamation with "trolling" and "cyber-bullying", to fight anonymity and the Internet.

I think that this is an early draft text of the bill in question: http://inforrm.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/defamation-bill.pdf

I think that's the existing law, from 2011. The new proposal is linked to from the article: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/cbill_2012-20130005_en_2.htm#pb2-l1g5

It does indeed contain new language protecting websites that host user generated content.

I haven't found the article, but I am pretty sure it was about different criteria that police reported homicide. This won't be completely conclusive, but I've done a little bit of digging into how the UK defines it and how the US defines it.

• http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-056.pdf: "Homicide in England and Wales includes the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide."
• http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide: Defines homicide as "the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime." I believe this is more along the lines of how the US categorizes it... I will continue to search for more on this. It probably varies by state.

I realize this isn't very detailed, but perhaps it offers some other possibilities. Statistics are unreliable and governments have a tendency of changing how they collect data to coincide with a recent change to make it appear as if some political move actually had a positive impact.

This is a bad law because it grants extra rights for a group of people for no good reason. In particular, English law already allows truth as a defense. If a peer reviewed article can't establish the truth of its claims in court then either (A) peer review hasn't worked in that case or (B) the court's standards are wrong.

I think, in practice, science is far messier than that. Papers advance theories which, though supported by the evidence at hand, still require further analysis and may ultimately be wrong. I think it is reasonable to protect the product of honest enquiry if it is done in good faith, even if it turns out to be wrong.

Also a good part of the libel reform agenda has been motivated by the financial costs of defending against libel claims and the chilling effect that has on those who may well have a defencible but cannot afford it (or the risk) and therefore back down.

I think the "Peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal etc" part of the law doesn't really give a class of people more rights, it merely lowers the burden for a subset of defendants.

The same principles are available to everyone, ie the "Truth", "Honest opinion" and "Responsible publication on matter of public interest" defences. This additional defence just makes it easier (and therefore cheaper) to show a work that has undergone peer review has been published in accordance with those principles.

The Slashdot article seems to single out a single part of the bill for some reason. The actual bill has a lot more, including a "truth" defence.

That's the same in the US; they just don't call it an ASBO, and it isn't restricted to anti-social behavior.

You're focusing on the fact that judges have the power to issue orders (a power that is sometime used too flippantly if not outright abused).

ASBO's go one step further... if I'm reading Wikipedia right, anyone who has the right influence (or nagging skills) can get their local council or police chief to apply for an ASBO. It still has to be approved by a judge (to certain standards, in theory), but now your local neighborhood busybody can initiate and help formulate the order. Annoyed by the kid next door playing football in the street? Maybe you can criminalize it for just that one kid. Irritated by the couple in the upstairs apartment having loud sex? You can criminalize that too. Want to shut down the feed-the-homeless operation that occasionally serves soup in the town square? Sure.

While ordinary judicial orders can put you at the mercy of the powerful, ASBO's sound like they can put you at the mercy of the petty.

Here's some real information:

Further supplementary memorandum submitted by the Government Office for Science and the Cabinet Office (SAGE 00b)
RECORD OF THE SEVERE SPACE WEATHER WORKSHOP
Meeting held in Room 35 Great Smith Street, London on 21 September 2010 at 1000.

Representation from Government: Cabinet Office, Ministry of Defence, Her Majesty's Treasury, Department for Transport, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, Government Office for Science, Department of Health.
Representation from the science community: The Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, The British Geological Survey, The Electrical Infrastructure Security Council, The Meteorological Office. Representation from the Energy, Communication and Transport Sectors..
[...]
THE REASONABLE WORST CASE SCENARIO

(2) The selection of the Carrington Event as the basis for a reasonable worse case solar scenario was discussed. Although much work has been done on the scaling of this event compared to other historical events, the data on which this has been based are limited. A full analysis and use of the Carrington event as a reasonable worst case scenario requires the use of "extreme value statistics" and the currently available data allow only rough and preliminary estimates using this technique. Discussion also centred on different scaling factors used between the UK and the US, because of differences in magnetic latitude. Given these uncertainties, the view of most was that the duration and magnitude of a Carrington event scenario cannot at present be used with high levels of confidence.

(3) It was reported that there was a 1% chance of a Carrington-like event occurring during a solar maxima year. The Carrington Event was 150 years ago but the intervening years contain about 30 strong geomagnetic storms of a similar but slightly lower intensity, notably the 1921 storm which damaged telephone networks in Sweden. It was also reported that large geomagnetic storms can be caused by a rapid succession of flare/Coronal Mass Ejections and this has been the case in several important storms. Discussions were held on the increase or decrease in the probability of a severe event in relation to solar maxima and minima years respectively. It was reported that strong solar events can happen at any time, including minima years (eg the 1986 storm), however there is 20 fold increase in likelihood of an event happening during maxima years. Discussions also centred on the robustness of 1% likelihood of a Carrington-like event and whether this was a sufficiently reliable statistic on which to base investment in more resilient technologies.

(4) Concerns were raised about the amount of credible data available which could be used to make predictions about future solar events. It was reported that, while UK Flood risk assessment exploits decades of data from similar streams in different catchment areas to construct long statistical datasets (hundreds of years of data), accurate solar data has only been available for the past 40yrs, and with only one source; the Sun within the Solar System. Around 500 years of good recorded data would be needed to estimate 1/100 year events with high degrees of confidence. Ice core readings containing trapped nitrates have provided data which may be used as a proxy of solar radiation storms over the past 400 years, but no proxy yet exists for geomagnetic storms. It was noted that there has been a very strong scientific focus on the Carrington Event in recent years and that other storms should also be considered to construct a reasonable worst case scenario.

(5) The direction of solar events was discussed. The impact of a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) of Carrington magnitude is dependent upon the direction of the ejection and the orientation of its magnetic field, relative to t

These guys might not like that... http://www.parliament.uk/ But with this site they may be on to something... https://www.whitehouse.gov/

More amusingly the ssl is broken, so it comes up with the "This Connection is Untrusted" message. Truer words were never written...

"The oldest recipient of an order to date is an 87-year-old who among other things is forbidden from being sarcastic to his neighbours (July 2003). He was subsequently found guilty of breaking the terms of his order on three separate occasions. He awaits sentencing but the judge has already made it clear that "there will be no prison for an 88 year old man". (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)"

I know ASBOs are a farce, but jesus, I didn't know how far we had sunk - as a Brit, I'm amazed at this list of more controversial ASBOs - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm

Just to illustrate how full of bollocks Lord McNally actually is, take this example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4796579.stm ...or to sum up for those who can't be arsed to read the link, in 2006 we pardoned 306 World War 1 soldiers who were executed for cowardice. It was also perfectly legal action at the time. So the question is Lord McNally, why the hypocrisy?

This example displays only consistency, not hypocrisy, a point made in the well-argued article referred and linked to in the submitter's article.

Basically, the soldiers' had a medical condition which resulted uncontrollably in actions that were mistaken for cowardice. They should not have been found guilty of the law of the time, regardless of whether the law was just or not.

Turing however had a sexuality, which does not in itself uncontrollably result in actions that were illegal. Thus he did break the law of the time, even if the law was not a just one.

Also as noted in the article, the way forward would be to request a deletion under the Protection of Freedoms Bill which is nearing completion.

Up until about 1820, there were 400 offenses in England that carried the death penalty. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/victorianbritain/lawless/default.htm

And the prisons were indeed terrible places

This did not make for a safer, more law-abiding society.

Actually, it did. Victorian England was a lot safer than today's England.

From here:

"The number of indictable offences per thousand population in

1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1."

The problem isn't so much legal, or technical, it's that US courts tend to be far more patriotic, in protecting US citizens and interests - they ignore the fact the treaty is stupidly unfair for the average joe who can get extradited at will, and protect American interests- they ignore the terms of the agreement.

Nice theory. However, the US has never refused an extradition request for the UK, since the treaty was signed. The UK has refused several times. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news/111202-us-ambassador/

... and a new law in 2010 *excludes* members of the Church of Jediism in the UK from protection against racial discrimination and hatred.

No it doesn't. There is no such law. Wikipedia is wrong (I shall be editing that article in a minute).

The source for the wiki statement is a debate in a House of Commons Standing Committee which was scrutinising the bill. As a means to stir debate, an MP tabled an amendment defining religion by means of inclusive lists and exclusive lists. The two lists were likely to be incompatible. Jediists and Scientologists were mentioned in the exclusive list, not because the MP wished to exclude these groups from protection against religious hatred but because he wished to incite a debate about the definition of religion in the context of such a law. The amendment was not incorporated into the final Act, thus there is no law excluding Jediists from such protection.

The whole debate is a worthwhile read and can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/e/st050629/pm/50629s01.htm

The shedule of the Act can be found here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/schedule

It's scary and even regulations on labeling can't be imposed thanks, apparently, to the need to keep the government out of the way of business. According to the USDA, in 2007 50% of the apple juice consumed in the US came from China. That number is sure to increase.

Things I buy often say things like "contains Thai chicken", but I had a look at UK law and can't see where this is required. The best I can find is a proposed bill to change the law to require it to be said, but Parliament ran out of time to debate it.

Does anyone know?

(Actually, I very rarely buy the kind of processed food that would say "contains Thai chicken", but when I do, most of the time the origin of the meat is clear. Fresh fruit and vegetables in the supermarket generally say "Grown in Kenya" or "Grown in the EU". All fish and dairy things say where they're from. But there isn't much consistency. Some things just say "Produce of several countries.")

There have been growing concerns in recent years that defamation law in this country has come to be more protective of reputation than elsewhere in the world to such an extent that London has become the preferred location for defamation actions involving foreign parties with only a tenuous link to this jurisdiction. ... Some say that London has developed a reputation as the libel capital of the world and that the judgments of its courts are having a chilling effect on freedom of speech in other parts of the world. ... The draft Bill seeks to prevent claims against defendants who are not domiciled here or in another EU member state without a strong link existing to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. It prevents a court from hearing such a case unless it is satisfied that this jurisdiction is the "most appropriate" place for a defamation action to be brought.

we recommend that any material written by an unidentified person should be taken down by the host or service provider upon receipt of complaint, unless the author promptly responds positively to a request to identify themselves, in which case a notice of complaint should be attached. If the internet service provider believes that there are significant reasons of public interest that justify publishing the unidentified material—for example, if a whistle-blower is the source—it should have the right to apply to a judge for an exemption from the take-down procedure and secure a "leave-up" order.[170] We do not believe that the host or service provider should be liable for anonymous material provided it has complied with the above requirements...Any host or service provider who refuses to take-down anonymous material should be treated as its publisher and face the risk of libel proceedings, subject to the standard defences and our proposals relating to leave up orders. It is for the Government to make clear in the Bill any exceptional circumstances in which unidentified material should have evidential value for the purposes of defamation proceedings.

I'm not sure how I feel about the proposals themselves but they're still in the consultation phase - if you disagree, call your Member's number.

we recommend that any material written by an unidentified person should be taken down by the host or service provider upon receipt of complaint, unless the author promptly responds positively to a request to identify themselves, in which case a notice of complaint should be attached. If the internet service provider believes that there are significant reasons of public interest that justify publishing the unidentified material—for example, if a whistle-blower is the source—it should have the right to apply to a judge for an exemption from the take-down procedure and secure a "leave-up" order.[170] We do not believe that the host or service provider should be liable for anonymous material provided it has complied with the above requirements...Any host or service provider who refuses to take-down anonymous material should be treated as its publisher and face the risk of libel proceedings, subject to the standard defences and our proposals relating to leave up orders. It is for the Government to make clear in the Bill any exceptional circumstances in which unidentified material should have evidential value for the purposes of defamation proceedings.

I'm not sure how I feel about the proposals themselves but they're still in the consultation phase - if you disagree, call your Member's number.

Heh, not really. Although I don't know of a whole lot of rest homes for swinging gay seniors... In all seriousness, though, the life expectancy for someone born in the UK in 1912 is around 52, so making it to 66 and then contracting AIDS would still put a person well ahead of the curve.

I'm on the 4th column at the moment, and so far all I've read are "Honourable Friends" thanking "right honourable Gentlemen" for introductions, support, thanking them for the thanks, offering support for other amendments which in turn gets further thanks for the support, and reciprocal thanks for their thanks!

Can't they just talk about sorting out these crappy laws instead of thanking each other?

I do not think actually the proper distinction is whether this was formerly publicly owned and now become private or not, I think the distinction to be made is whether this is perceived as community space.

"Who is the youngest MP?

The youngest MP is Pamela Nash, Labour MP for Airdrie and Shotts, aged 26.
What is the average age of an MP?
- http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/
Following the general election of 2010, the average age of an MP was 50."

Hardly "old" 70 on is "old" 50 is middle aged and 26 is barely out of nappies.

50 is old enough to be seriously out of touch with electronic communications. We are talking about 50 year olds that don't work in IT or any related field and who went to school back when computers didn't exist and international phone calls had to be booked via an operator. Their main skills are manipulating people not technology.

"Who is the youngest MP?

The youngest MP is Pamela Nash, Labour MP for Airdrie and Shotts, aged 26.
What is the average age of an MP?
- http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/
Following the general election of 2010, the average age of an MP was 50."

Hardly "old" 70 on is "old" 50 is middle aged and 26 is barely out of nappies.

So, Britain 1910. About 10,000 people in prison within a country of 42 million.

Do you honestly think this is because of a liberal attitude to crime that favours community punishments, fines, ASBOs over incarceration? In Edwardian Britain? Where criminals are still be hanged for murder and beaten by coppers and prisons are so strict that convicts are not even allowed to speak? Come off it. As a historical theory this is on a par with David Irving.

But you're otherwise right. The sensible approach is to emulate the "something else". Unfortunately, if you don't approve of prison, you're really not going to like the "something else".

Thanks for the link to the PC Pro article, it's very interesting and personally I felt you left out it's most interesting point:

The cited source [in the report itself, not the media articles] of that figure? None other than this report from PC Pro from 13 May.

Regretfully having read much of the report, the above is a good example of how worthless it is. PC Pro rubbishes poor media coverage of a government report, then another government report quotes PC Pro and uses the figure in exactly the wrong way that PC Pro was complaining about in the article the report is citing!

Admittedly the report does refer once to "median total cost of ownership", but either they failed to understand what that meant or failed to communicate the meaning in the report. Read para 16 & 17.

It's a very poorly written report, irritating to read and lacking in professional verse. While they appear to have sourced widely, assertions are made in the form of regurgitations of other's material, and throughout those sources are often very poor. There's no sense that they explored any of these sources in depth, let alone went into the field and investigated for themselves.

This is a pity partly as it attempts some very interesting topics and partly because a group of people running the country can't write a decent report.

the summary mentions the £3.5k, but with a slightly different context than TFS.

Given the cuts that they are having to make in response to the fiscal deficit it is ridiculous that some departments spend an average of £3,500 on a desktop PC.

is this with or without software? add a Citrix licence, SAP access, some security token with a user licence, MS Office, AD user access licence, ... and it is at least thinkable that one workstation is expensive as hell.

Not unchecked powers - only in May an English court told the police off for acting illegally by keeping someone under arrest for more than 4 days (the legal limit) without charging them.

Of course, the police complained about the "bizarre" ruling, claiming it would lead to the release of 80,000 criminals (or rather, suspects) including "murderers, rapists and paedophiles" (interestingly, only two of those are criminal) and asked the government to change the law, completely overriding established constitutional principles. Oh, and it has taken 25 years for someone to spot that what they've been doing was illegal.

It took a week for the bill to get through the UK Parliament.

Sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13970159
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009917/Emergency-bail-law-needed-says-Policing-Minister-Nick-Herbert.html
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/policedetentionandbail.html

I said:

Provide evidence in the form of research results which demonstrate that corporal punishment is effective.

You say:

There's no correlation between the punishment of bad behaviour, and a corresponding increase in good behaviour? Are you really saying that!?

(1) "!?" is not a suitable argument technique - it shows that you're flustered by an attempt to poke at your prejudice with reason;

(2) You've erected a straw man: we're discussing corporal punishment, not punishment in general;

(3) Even your straw man is fairly sturdy: punishment of general bad behaviour (e.g. by locking up in jail) isn't a very good deterrent. It tends at worst to be no better than much cheaper and more humane methods of modifying behaviour. Soooo much research on recidivism.

There is evidence of a strong correlation if you are willing to look for it. It is hidden from you by people who would rather it was not true.

LOL, a conspiracy theory about hiding the effectiveness of corporal punishment of children? I love the Internet!

One relevant fact is that the inner city schools once were effective educational establishments with good discipline. That was 50 years ago. What happened since?

Well, 50 years ago there were lots of secure training and job opportunities. Page 24 might help you.

Newsflash: he's right.

Whatever you say, Violet.

If the Left really cared about social mobility, helping the poor and disadvantaged, social justice and so on, then they'd call for the reintroduction of effective discipline without delay.

Discipline is worthless without opportunity. Effective discipline does not translate into corporal punishment.

Okay, you need a 20km exclusion zone around 1 nuclear plant every 25 years. Assuming that we go with a sort of 40% nuclear, 20% wind, 20% solar, 20% other low-CO2 mix, this would be a approximately twice as many reactors; right now many countries are around 20% nuclear, and newer reactors tend to be bigger than older ones. I figure the danger would remain around the same - newer reactor designs are substantially safer; they're designed to be able to SCRAM without external power, among numerous other improvements.

One of the things about wind and solar is that they are far less dense than nuclear power. Some sources suggest exclusion zones for housing of up to 2km. 350-500 meters is more common. It's not listed here, but some suggest these zones due to concerns about blade separation or ice formation(and subsequent 'throwing' by the turbine). Going by the study, I wouldn't want to build closer than ~150m, even without noise concerns.

Roscoe Wind Farm - 782 MW, 400km^2. Cost > $1B. Going by standard 30% capacity factor, that's 2,055 GWh a year. $487k per Gwh/year
Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - 392 MW, 16km^2. Cost $2.2B, Annual Generation of 1,080 GWh, capacity factor 31%. $2M per Gwh/year(ouch!)
Palo Verder Nuclear Generating Station - 3,875 MW, 16km^2, $5.9B, 29,250 GWh/year. A capacity factor of 86%. $202k per Gwh/year.

Wind: 5 GWh/km2, $487k per Gwh/year
Solar: 67.5 GWh/km2, $2M per Gwh/year (produces half the power at twice the cost...)
Nuclear: 1,828 GWh/km2, $202k per Gwh/year

There are 442 nuclear plants in the world today, with a combined output of 374,958 MW. At an 80% capacity factor(average), that's 2,627,705 GWh a year, or to give them the same room as teh Palo Verde plant - 1,437 km2. Each Chernobyl level disaster will take out ~1256 km2. Let's say that lasts 100 years. That'd mean 4 uninhabitable areas(worst case scenario, Chernobyl was BAD, and I don't think the Fukushima exclusion will be that large or last that long). That's 5k km^2 due to nuclear accidents, adding up to 6.4k km2 for all nuclear power plants + exclusion zones(make great wildlife preserves if Chernobyl is any indication).

Wind, which you don't want to be building underneath: 525k km2, or 82 times as much area that you can't use for much other than farming/grazing.

Solar power is extremely expensive, around $5-6 a watt(installed), and made worse by the ~30% capacity factor, but is significantly denser, at least at Ivanpah. It would still require 39k km2, requiring 6 times as much area. Sure, you can dual-use in much of the world, but unless the cost comes down...

Still, I'm not about to depend on one source, so my suggested ratio is around 40% nuclear(double today's), 20% wind, 20% solar, and 20% other(hydro, geothermal, tidal, biomass, etc...)

I can't speak for Germany or Australia, but here in the UK we never had free speech nor do we pretend to have it. It seems to be a cultural thing, in that Europeans (and this is obviously a gross generalisation) don't care as much about freedom of speech as USians.

Of course, we're still doing what we can to roll back intrusive stuff. There's even a Protection of Freedoms Bill before Parliament at the moment, along with a new Defamation Bill (designed to tighten up libel law). The Identity Documents Act already passed (scrapping the ID card scheme) as did the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (the first step in getting vaguely democratic elections).

Sadly, I imagine most of these won't make that much of a difference, and in any case, the government can do whatever it likes, really, but it is a start. There's also the irony that the bill on the lists next to the freedom bill is the Prevention of Terrorism Bill which effectively scraps the Human Rights Act, but that's a private member's bill, so shouldn't get anywhere.

UK, who extradited McKinnon among others, a nation that is also a NATO member by the way, that is a member of the Extradition Act of 2003 and accepts 70% of all extradition requests by USA will be less likely to comply to this?

Ahh, the old "think of scottish children" argument? If the 32 inhabitants of Loch Bleakypeat want to opt out, here's the answer http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ ?

Finally got this comment through the filter after removing MANY of the links.

In a field where all you really have are climate data and computer models, refusing to share them with the world is akin to a physicist claiming that he’s invented Cold Fusion, but refusing to show exactly how (except perhaps to a couple of his friends). Gavin of course defended him saying that while maybe THEIR data wasn’t available, HIS data was available, and so that made it all better. (Which it didn’t – it rather just highlighted their shady behavior). ... [ShakaUVM]

Gavin wasn't just saying that other data was available, he was saying that CRU doesn't do any primary data collection:

... Claims that data has been destroyed or lost are untrue. Claims that there is no access to the raw temperature data are untrue. There is nothing in any of the CRU archives that is particularly special or noteworthy and that isn't mostly available to anyone already via NOAA. ... [Gavin Schmidt]

... If you want the very original hand-written records from individual stations, ask the National Met. Service in the relevant country, not the people who collate the homogenised records for use in tracking climate change. [Gavin Schmidt]

The raw data is in the custody of the met services who originated it. CRU is just a collation, not a temperature measuring organisation. [Gavin Schmidt]

No data has been destroyed, the original files and numbers are with the national weather services that provided them. Removing a copy of a original file because it is not useful for my purposes is not 'deleting data' [Gavin Schmidt]

The raw data is the GHCN data (v2.mean.Z) (publicly available, as has been the case for decades). [Gavin Schmidt]

Unsurprisingly, that's also what the reviews said:

The Unit does virtually no primary data acquisition but has used data from published archives and has collaborated with people who have collected data. ... [Oxburgh panel, p2]

The CRU dataset, which forms the land surface component of the HadCRUT global temperature record, was compiled with the aim of comprehensiveness. The majority of the data in it are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA. ... [UK House of Commons Inquiry, p13]

Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data. ... Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so. [Muir Russell Review, p48,53]

Somehow, you managed to twist the fact that it was impossible for CRU to prevent access to the raw data into a

Well, this is a point which we are certain to disagree on, because you have the causal relationship the wrong way around. You seem to be saying that crime happens because society is broken.

You should be forgiven for thinking this, because it's a very common viewpoint, shared by our ruling class and our mainstream media, with the notable exceptions of a few tabloid newspapers that decent people simply do not read. Nevertheless, it is demonstrably incorrect.

For example, I am sure that you would agree that 19th century British society was about as broken as any society could be, what with all the poverty, inequality and social injustice. And yet there was virtually no crime in relation to the present day, as you can see from the statistics (page 14). So how could this be explained, if not by robust law enforcement?

Besides this article is talking about Scotland Yard. I don't know about US federal law, but UK's Police and Justice Bill allows for up to 10 years in prison and / or fine for denial of service style attacks. Of course the judge is going to take into account age and other factors so you could walk free after conviction, but if you did, count your blessings. You could probably kiss your career in computers goodbye though as most places wouldn't touch a convicted hacker (or a script kiddie) with a bargepole.

But the Baroness really is a part of Cobra!

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Lords/bydate/20101101/mainchamberdebates/part009.html

And has ties to sketchy Russians.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303215/MI5-vetoed-Security-Minister-Baroness-Pauline-Neville-Jones-links-Ukrainian-oligarchs.html

I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.

That's what you'll need to read Hansard for. Alas, it seems to be difficult to search, but I think this is relevant. Moreover, as in the US, UK courts most certainly do take into account what was said in the legislature during the legislative process when dealing with some law, though they prefer to use the letter of the law as stated and existing precedent in relation to any particular act.

As pointed out in the link, there may well be superior legislation that prevents English Heritage from successfully making the claim. I would expect the key issue to be whether the photographs in question are, in principle, commercial or private pictures, and not whether some company is making money off hosting them.

I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.

That's what you'll need to read Hansard for. Alas, it seems to be difficult to search, but I think this is relevant. Moreover, as in the US, UK courts most certainly do take into account what was said in the legislature during the legislative process when dealing with some law, though they prefer to use the letter of the law as stated and existing precedent in relation to any particular act.

As pointed out in the link, there may well be superior legislation that prevents English Heritage from successfully making the claim. I would expect the key issue to be whether the photographs in question are, in principle, commercial or private pictures, and not whether some company is making money off hosting them.

The act was passed in the last parliament. Section 15 gives the secretary of state power to determine how the costs are split. And he's taking 25% from the ISPs.

Labour passed the act and the Conservative/LibDem coalition is implementing it. That's all the major parties with a hand in this.

Or see the full list of shame.

"The climategate scandal was really about climatologists hiding their data and methods from critical review."

I suppose you're going to tell me that the three independent inquries that exonerated Jones and the CRU (including the CRU investigation headed by the ex-chairman of Shell) were a whitewash. Look closely at the third one where it describes how the investigators were able to obtain the "hiden data" from public sources within two days. If you still belive the CRU was hiding anything after the thourough debunking of those claims then you haven't been paying attention.

Why don't you see the doctor about that knee-jerk and read the original document here with more thoughts here (pp.64-66)?

On a plus note, at least the Boundaries Commission can continue delivering ;-).

because the officers who showed up at Portcullis House without a warrant (which they didn't have to have, but would have been a good idea) bamboozled their way past the Speaker by allowing the Serjeant at Arms to imply that the investigation was national security\terrorism related. Take a gander at the select committee evidence.

"If McKinnon is extradited, he could be given a 70-year sentence in a high-security prison (he would, as an overseas national, be considered a "flight risk", hence imprisonment with violent criminals rather than in an open prison)."

If McKinnon was tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve time in prison, then he would obviously no longer be a "flight risk" (as he would already be imprisoned). Therefore, if McKinnon was placed in a "high-security prison" (what we call "maximum security" in the US), it would not be because he was a "flight risk".

Neither extradition, nor conviction, would guarantee McKinnon prison time in a maximum security prison by default. The ignorant assertion that they somehow would is sensationalist nonsense, and a gross misrepresentation of the American justice system.

If McKinnon was placed in a maximum security prison, he would not be housed with violent criminals. He would be confined to his own individual cell and have no contact with the other inmates. This is IF he was placed in a maximum security prison.

McKinnon falls under the category of what we define as a "white collar criminal" in the US. These are criminals who post little physical risk to the public and are non-violent. They are placed in minimum security prisons.

"If tried in the UK - his home country, and where he was living when he committed the crimes he admits to - the sentence would be more lenient."

Where McKinnon was living when he committed the crime is irrelevant. When McKinnon unlawfully accessed US computers, he committed a crime on US soil, involving US property. If he didn't want to come under US law or jurisdiction, then he shouldn't have compromised US government computer systems.

According to the House of Lords judgment in Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and Another, McKinnon's crimes have equivalents under British law for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence under US law provided in your quote is 70 years. Both of these numbers are arbitrary however as any reasonable person is aware that under both American and British law, individuals rarely receive the maximum sentence for their crimes, other than in the most egregious of crimes and circumstance.

If we are to consider the maximum sentence facing McKinnon, then should we not also consider the scope of the crimes for which he is accused?

The allegations against McKinnon can be viewed in the April 2007 High Court Judgment. Paragraph 4 outlines data deleted by McKinnon, which includes:

(1) Critical operating system files from nine computers, the deletion of which shut down the entire US Army's Military District of Washington network of over 2000 computers for 24 hours, significantly disrupting Governmental functions [...]

(2) 2,455 user accounts on a US Army computer that controlled access to an Army computer network, causing those computers to reboot and become inoperable [...]

(3) Critical Operating system files and logs from computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle, one of which was used for monitoring the identity, location, physical condition, staffing and battle readiness of Navy ships. Deletion of these files rendered the Base's entire network of over 300 computers inoperable at a critical time immediately following 11 September 2001 [...]

What a laugh this man must be having at the expense of American and British relations, judicial process, and the spirit of our common law with his long line of vexatious appeals.

TFA is wrong - the most recent hung parliament was 1997 (before the election that year). Second most recent was 1977.

Full details in http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04951.pdf

Also, Northern Ireland is not a country, only a province, and Sinn Fein are not barred from Parliament, only from the chamber of the House Of Commons. Sinn Fein have full use of the rest of Parliament, including their offices there.

TFA is wrong - the most recent hung parliament was 1997 (before the election that year). Second most recent was 1977.

Full details in http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04951.pdf

This would work great with the UK's plan for a new Digital Economy. On no, wait - it won't. Can't have open wi-fi any more. Can't have any sort of Internet connection where anyone using it cannot be tracked down and punished for allegedly infringing copyright.

Of course, according to Stephen Timms, Minister "for Digital Britain", if someone was worried about wireless connections being used by other people, he "could introduce a password so that somebody driving up outside his house would not be able to use his [connection]". So wireless is perfectly secure. Although this is the same person who was recently caught referring to an "Intellectual Property (IP) address" so possibly not the best person to be running our digital economy.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100407/debtext/100407-0026.htm#10040767000001 links to the debate yesterday I gather.

I haven't read through all the explanatory notes that cover the bill so I can't comment on the requirements when it comes to throttling/disconnection. But the copyright holder is required to provide evidence of 'apparent infringement' even at the stage where only letters are being sent.

From the Digital Economy Bill explanatory notes, note 47 (emphasis mine):

The notification from the ISP must inform the subscriber that the account appears to have been used to infringe copyright, give the name of the copyright owner who has provided the report, provide evidence of the apparent infringement, direct the consumer towards legal sources of content, include information about subscriber appeals and the grounds on which they may be made, and provide other information. It also requires ISPs to make available advice on protecting internet access services from unauthorised use, taking into account that different protection will be suitable for different subscribers such as, for example, domestic subscribers, libraries, and small and medium business. The code may require the notification to include other material as well, such as a statement that information about the apparent infringement may be kept and disclosed to the copyright owner in certain circumstances. Further apparent infringements using the subscriber’s account may result in additional notifications.

What concerns me is that this part of the law seems to be very much written for Bittorrent. Copyright holders are expected to acquire the IP addresses of infringers by connecting to a tracker. This means that when piracy deserts Bittorrent in favour of another method of distribution, the copyright lobbies will be back asking for broader powers to snoop online.

Funny thing is, even John Hemming (BPI, Performing Right Society and the Musicians Union) seems to think this bill needs proper scrutiny: Commons Hansard