Slashdot Mirror

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/09/12/njunk112.xml

I got as far as "Page 1 of 15" (And not the Tom's Hardware sort of "page" either!) and gave up, which I suppose strengthens their point.

Yes, I can see that this sort of thing goes on in the US. I am, after all, from the UK, and view such things with a mixture of horror and pity.

Er, why? I'm from the UK too and under no illusions that we are some paragon of virtue when it comes to free flows of information. Shall I quote from a story recently published in the Telegraph?

Managers from [Dounreay nuclear power plant] assured him that the event was a one-off. But since then, 66 more particles have been found. The latest comes from rods that Dounreay's workers call "bone seekers". They pose a danger to anyone who comes in contact with them.

Mr Minter has carried out his own investigations and says he has uncovered numerous cases of incompetence and errors, including serious accidents covered up by the Official Secrets Act.

In other words, the fuckups of the nuclear industry were being suppressed by the government as nuclear power and energy generation is a political hot potato right now.

Want another example?

This [act] makes it a criminal offence to directly or indirectly incite or encourage others to commit acts of terrorism. This will include the glorification of terrorism, where this may be understood as encouraging the emulation of terrorism.

From the Terrorism Act 2006.

Now, I guess you could argue there's a world of difference between this and making it illegal to "endanger China's national security" or "violate China's religious policies or preach evil cults or superstition" or "incite hatred and discrimination", but I'm not seeing it. Seems like a minor difference in wording to me.

Don't get me wrong. I think what the XNA is doing is a very bad thing indeed, but then, I am not going to claim we have some moral high ground here. Let's just recognise that it's wrong whoever does it and get off our high horse about it.

I found a more insightful article that explains the advantage of this system over existing airport shuttle systems:
The difference for passengers will be not so much the journey time - which will be about four minutes - but how long they have to wait. Instead of huddling under a shelter for as long as 20 minutes as they currently do waiting for a bus, the pod will be at most a minute away.

LoL.

As if stopping "meddling" in the middle east would even begin to solve the problem. Not all islamics are middle eastern. Just wearing bikini's in the states are enough to piss them off. Just not believing "Allhu Akbar" is justification enough to do these things.

The occasional wackjob is not the problem. There are christian crazies, atheist crazies, and probably bhuddist and hindu crazies. The problem with islamics is that the *sane* ones by their own belief systems head large organizations with the resources to perform these acts and they really really do want to kill us.

As Khomeni said, "Those who advocate peace with Islam are fools of this century."

Small isolated wackos who would be turned in by members of their own religion just can't do much effectively. Sane people taught from birth that we are evil don't need poverty or "meddling" in their countries as a reason to kill us. They didn't have a chance- they were corrupted towards murder and death before their brains were finished developing.*

And anyway- the powers that be (corporations and near nobility multi-national rich) don't care that we get attacked anyway so meddling in your countries (and our countries) are not going to stop. Blowing us up kills a few of us but the corporations are immortal and soulless. The multi-national rich have allegience to no country or creed. In fact, it's probably in their interest to KEEP you stirred up since then we'll all buy weapons (from the military-industrial complex as foreseen by Dwight Eisenhower). Ask yourself- if most democrats, republicans and libertarians in america favor closing our southern border and the republicans *know* it will probably cost them many elections this fall- why are both parties ignoring this issue? Could it be because the wealthy and the corporations want cheap labor and they control both parties in power in the US?

*
http://www.textbookleague.org/121musm.htm
Sowing Seeds of Hatred
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1307263/p osts
The Palestinian schoolbooks: Planting seeds of the next war
http://www.teachkidspeace.org/doc3516.php
Teach Kids Peace - Saudi Education: Hatred of Christians & Jews
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/06/25/wsaudi25.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/25 /ixnews.html
Christians still 'swine' and Jews 'apes' in Saudi schools

You can go to prison for contempt of court, but I think it's very rare for it to happen to journalists. Hmm, this Telegraph leading article has more on the subject.

while health spending accounts and direct negotiating drive prices downward

Again, another misunderstanding you have - The national debt is a credit line extended to US corporations backed by the rest of the world.

Please don't let Bush plunge the world into the Realm of $200 a barrel oil prices by attacking Iran.

Why not? Oil crises are good for you. The 1973 oil crise made us think about using oil more efficiently for the first time since WWII. Higher oil prices will make alternative fuels more viable. If it is a result of politics rather than that the oil wells really have dried up (as they surely will sooner or later) it means that we will still have oil for making funky plastics that are difficult to make from etanol.

And remember that this guy actually believes he is to here to prepare for the return of the Mahdi -- the islamic Messiah.

I'll gladly pay $200 a barrel to keep him from getting the bomb.

Or maybe targetting dead relatives...

I am constantly in awe at the failure of implementating of IT within (the) public sector (services). Governments/states spend millions on the lowest bidder, with costs often spiralling to beyond that quoted by the highest bidder initially, and it increasingly seems as if you get what you pay for.

At least in this case lives were not at risksee here, here and here.

It could be argued that selection of companies such as Diebold comes from a lack of awareness of IT by governments, and is simply a cost/saving excercise, but even so- sensible questions should be raised about all contractors- have they got a track record, how are they trialling the product, are their guarantees more than verbal...do we have a backup?

Sure DIebold cannot make excuses...but can the government either?

But they're failing to use my own much more reliable form of astronomy. They say that discovery of a new planet is always associated with new technology. I claim that finding of a new planet is always associated with new discoveries in the field of astronomy.

The Daily Telegraph (London UK) reports that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has a rounding problem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/m oney/2006/08/15/cnus15.xml

It seems that doubtful rounding practices have distorted US consumer price index figures.

The scary thing is that his first name is not Mahdi - it's Mahmud. Mahdi is the "hidden Imam" that's supposed to return in the end days. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ ixworld.html

Witnesses say the whole starving thing was a sham, not surprising since food and medicine were specifically exempted:

  Saddam's parades of dead babies are exposed as a cynical charade
(Filed: 25/05/2003)

The "baby parades" were a staple of Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine for a decade. Convoys of taxis, with the tiny coffins of dead infants strapped to their roofs - allegedly killed by United Nations sanctions - were driven through the streets of Baghdad, past crowds of women screaming anti-Western slogans.

The moving scenes were often filmed by visiting television crews and provided valuable ammunition to anti-sanctions activists such as George Galloway, the Labour MP, who blamed Western governments for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.

But The Telegraph can reveal that it was all a cynical charade. Iraqi doctors say they were told to collect dead babies who had died prematurely or from natural causes and to store them in cardboard boxes in refrigerated morgues for up to four weeks - until they had sufficient corpses for a parade.

[...]

Dr Amer Abdul al-Jalil, the deputy resident at the hospital, said: "Sanctions did not kill these children - Saddam killed them. The internal sanctions by the Saddam regime were very effective. Those who died prematurely usually died because their mothers lived in impoverished areas neglected by the government.

"The mortality rate was higher in areas such as Saddam City because there was no sewerage system. Infectious diseases were rampant.

"Over the past 10 years, the government in Iraq poured money into the military and the construction of palaces for Saddam to the detriment of the health sector. Those babies or small children who died because they could not access the right drugs, died because Saddam's government failed to distribute the drugs. The poorer areas were most vulnerable."

He added: "We feel terrible that this happened, but we were living under a regime and we had to keep silent. What could we do?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2003/05/25/wirq25.xml

Of all governmental hypocrisy this is possibly the most disgusting.

I'd rather live in a god-forsaken place than the US/UK where every other word out of a politician's mouth is "God."

Actually, here in the UK, politicians tend to get laughed/sneered at when they mention the word "god". After all, we don't do god.

The clinical term is "smacky face."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2003/03/09/walqa309.xml

Have a nice day.

Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's "Chief Lizard Wrangler" cited the company's install base at 40m-50m in an interview a couple of months ago.

link

The economy in a downfall, interest rates lower than the inflation, people with money trying hard to find a place for investment. That's what we have today.

No, the UK has gone far beyond even the worst that 1984 can offer.

I agree, mass wiretapping and other Big Brother-ish stuff we're seeing are pretty bad. However, there's still some things about living in the US that aren't nearly as bad as the UK. For instance, suppose a couple of burglars break into my house, and then suppose my wife (who would normally just shoot them with her shotgun; she's the more violent of the two of us) decides to be nice and we simply tie them up until the police arrive. Here in the USA, and more notably here in Arizona, the police would simply arrest them and take them away, and probably either thank us for making their job easier, or ask us why we didn't just shoot them. In the UK, however, an act like this would get US arrested for unlawfully arresting the burglars!! Sorry, but I can't imagine living in a place where I'm not allowed to use force to protect my own home against invaders.

Here's an article all about it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml= /opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/200 4/10/31/ixop.html

2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/05/0 9/wus09.jpg

That's the new suit they've been handing out to HMMWV turret gunners.
The suit is bullet & shrapnel proof, including the visor.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessio nid=DCKRNZUO0GTG5QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/200 6/05/18/wchimp18.xml

UK Student dies in home invasion from gun shot to the head (Yes, I'm assuming you are from the UK)

Now, if you want an example of a firearm being used to DEFEND, well, that would be harder as the UK has disarmed it's victims. One would also be less likely to report such an action as it could be an arrest-able offense (Like force laws being what they are in the UK.)

Oh, bear in mind that if we are in a situation where the honest person could have a gun, then the criminal almost certainally has one.

You are in that situation now.

One must assume that the criminal will have the means to commit the crime. Once you assume otherwise (underestimate you opponent) you are dead. If a thug walks down the street with a had in his pocket, I assume that he has something there that will cause injure (be it a knife or a gun, or whatever) so I make sure to keep track of that.
Oh, and 15 years ago had you been allowed to defend yourself either with a gun or with non-leathal means (Pepper spray) the thugs would probably have run off and there would have been no attacking at all, no deaths, no injuries, no nothing. You would have gone about you business and reported the crime. In the US, pat on the back, in the UK, arrested and tried for brandishing as the thugs didn't have any weapons and you did.

UK Home invasion article

I personally love the UK, but I have always (and will always) question the stripping of the peoples rights to defend themselves. Time and time again, I read articles about UK citizens being arrested for using whatever means it took to defend themselves while the criminal gets to sue them for loss of wages.

And it's not just guns, I'm talking about the basic right to defend oneself. Be in Martial arts, a bat, whatever. The courts may just say "He was trained in martial arts, the criminals weren't, therefore since he was more of a danger to them, we'll throw him in jail."

You question the need for guns. I understand, they are dangerous. But time and time again, they are used for defense (properly) and just the fact that criminals will ALWAYS have them (regardless of the law) shows the overwhelming need to let the citizens own them if they wish.

There are 80,000,000 gun owners in the US yet only 1500 accidental gun deaths per year (FBI stats)

There were 3,306 accidental drownings in 2001 (CDC stats) in the US. I doubt there are 80,000,000 people who own pools, but never the less, I guess we should ban pools as well.

With the recent release of Einstein's private letters indicating that he was a Mack Daddy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/07/11/weins11.xml suggests a new series of gritty urban videogame: the GTR series.
You start as a small time patent clerk named Al working your way up the ladder of Organized Physics. Busting up dice games run by God, setting up a convention for tense-hos, projects that are the Bomb, and so forth.

Senseless.

You either require an additional licence to do something (and must therefore pay for the privilege) or you don't, and therefore don't need to pay for it.

The government can tax anything they feel like, as much as they feel like - air, olive oil, the use of escalators, whatever. In their infinite wisdom, they already charge VAT at 17.5% on blank CDs. So the government is taxing the purchase of CDs. But they are not extracting a levy from those who buy blank CDs, in order to compensate copyright holders.

Charging a levy is a muddled idea. Either an additional licence fee is required, or it isn't. If the levy represented the additional fee required to make the copy legally acceptable, that would be different - but it doesn't. Furthermore, the BPI have publicly stated that consumers should be allowed to legally copy music without fear of prosecution, ie. that the BPI does not consider that copying for personal use requires additional fees to be paid, ie. no levy is required in this scenario.

So the only reason remaining for a levy would be copying outside the realm of personal use, which covers a whole lot of different scenarios and is therefore likely to require a separate licence to be negociated. At one extreme, a few pennies' worth of levy is unlikely to strike the BPI as acceptable compensation for scenarios which are out of the scope of any form of 'fair use' (selling copies of Disney movies at a car-boot sale, for example), and at the other, the entity doing the copying probably shouldn't be paying anything for it at all (there are copyright exceptions in UK law for things like copying for non-commercial research, access for the visually impaired, etc). The obvious scenario in which a levy does apply is downloading of copyrighted material off the Web - but in that case, why put the levy on the CDs? Why not on the connection to the ISP? Per gigabyte download?

The problem really lies in the way we in the UK have implemented extradition legislation to the US. Evidence is not required going one way - UK -> USA

I wonder if proper body and vehicle armor is cheaper than prosthetics, multiple surgeries, psychological counseling, and a lifetime of subsequent health problems.

Besides, with the quality of explosives the other side is using, they can kill an M1! Charges that cut through a main battle tank are not going to be slowed down by any amount of Humvee up-armoring.

Speaking of which, I've wondered why we still call them IED's, or "immprovised" explosive devices? They've grown all too sophisticated to be called "improvised."

As for not starting the war in the first place, good idea. But now it's too late, what should we do? (Besides not repeating the same mistake in the future.)

The Disney Corporation backed down yesterday after banning grieving parents from putting Winnie the Pooh on their stillborn baby's headstone.

I looked for the rates of home invasion, which I believe are increasing in Canada and the UK, but could not find them.

The telegraph puts the rate at 50% of burglaries in England being "Hot", meaning that the occupants are at home but in the US it's 10%.

LK

Would you happen to have the name of a reputable scientist that claims solar output variation is responsible for global warming, by any chance?

This has the names of some of the non-US scientists reporting it.

I am still inclined to believe it is a combination of many factors,
even the weakening and polar reversal of the earth's own magnetic field.

The large increase in activity in the ring of fire, and underwater volcanoes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/i xnewstop.html

Thanks,
Ex-MislTech

You can get anything published in scientific journals, so long as you put it in context. However the speed with which those articles get taken out of context is amazing.

Go read http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jses sionid=H0UDXCSJ0NINFQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opini on/2006/04/09/do0907.xml.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessio nid$N24ETIUZ3QYIPQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/200 3/05/04/neye04.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/04/ixhome. html

Apparently a 10% failure rate of the surgery. The blinding rate is far lower than that, probably not the 1/20 I quoted (I must have had the 2 mixed up in my head). But there's a spectrum here- of the 10% that fail, a portion will have no negative effect (discounting temporary pain), a portion will have low negative effects, a portion will become blind. When the alternative is just needing to wear glasses, even a 1% worsening my vision at all is too much. I'd happily take risky surgery if it was that or lifelong debilitation/death, but these are just glasses.

So, which was the first print newspaper to have a website?

You're opening a real can of worms there but I'll submit the UK's Daily Telegraph, which launched its online version, Electronic Telegraph (now telegraph.co.uk), in 1994. Their tenth anniversary homepage (from 2004, natch) has more details. According to Wikipedia's article on Electronic Telegraph, it launched on November 15th 1994 and was "Europe's first daily web-based newspaper".

So, which was the first print newspaper to have a website?

You're opening a real can of worms there but I'll submit the UK's Daily Telegraph, which launched its online version, Electronic Telegraph (now telegraph.co.uk), in 1994. Their tenth anniversary homepage (from 2004, natch) has more details. According to Wikipedia's article on Electronic Telegraph, it launched on November 15th 1994 and was "Europe's first daily web-based newspaper".

Sorry, but when the destruction of western civilization is on the line, a well-supported hypothesis is enough to go on. You're just pissed off that you might not get to drive an SUV anymore.

I can't speak to whether the OP has hard feelings about his/her SUV, but (again) there are *multiple* lines of thought and well-supported hypotheses about global warming, some of which do not point to mankind as the reason for change (at least not all by itself).

Along the lines of your own example, suppose that global warming is tied directly to solar activity cycles (the actual output of the sun has been rising, and we've even seen evidence of climate change on mars). If that's the case, and a well-supported hypothesis is enough to go on, do we continue to pour *all* of our effort into studying man's possible effect on global warming, or do we also spend some time trying to figure out how to survive the opposite of an ice age?

For something so potentially huge, it makes sense to cover your bases, don't you think?

Civil servants *flash* (i.e. full frontal nude exposure) their colleagues

Gore based his claim on a survey done by UCSD Science Studies professor, Naomi Oreskes. She summarized her findings in a Washington Post editorial that can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A260 65-2004Dec25.html

From her editorial:

There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.

The Journal of Science paper in which she details her survey can be found here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/ 5702/1686

Naturally, claims of bias in the right-leaning popular press have followed. See this U.K. Telegraph article for an example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml

You're right. The muslims don't want to turn us into Muslims.

They want to rape our women in Sweden. http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/immigrant-rap e-wave-in-sweden.html
They want to burn our cars in France. They don't like trains either. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2 &objectid=10362567
They don't like tall buildings. http://www.terrorism-victims.org/terrorists/wtc-pe ntagon/3trade-towers-collapse.jpg
They want Sharia law in Indonesia. http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041022-1 01916-3985r.htm
Forget discos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_terrorist_b ombing
They want Sharia in the UK. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02 /19/ixportaltop.html
Oh crap, no more political cartoons. (I think you know of this one)
No, they don't want a Caliphate. Oh no. http://www.khilafah.com/home/index.php (wish I still had the pic of the guy protesting in canada w/ sign asking for Caliphate)
What does that sign say? Oh, it only says to massacre those who INSULY Islam. Nothing in it about conversion. http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-135019 17,00.html

You're right. 100% spot on. We need to fear the Christians.

This is somewhat similar to statements that he made to The Telegraph in October of 2001:

"The human race is likely to be wiped out by a doomsday virus before the Millennium is out, unless we set up colonies in space, Prof Stephen Hawking warns today."

    See the article at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2001/10/16/nhawk16.xml

Or 78 to shut down a 1-man peace protest

It's equally amazing the mental gymnastics some will go through to avoid facing the fact

Deception and Agendas are aplenty, and we will not know whether or not you are right
for some time, but...consider Iran's step to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/49819 40.stm

If you want to send a message that you are totally above board you would NOT subvert
inspections by nearly 100% EU inspection teams, Iraq did this as well.

Playing shell games, delaying inspectors from the EU, and declaring numerous massive
presidential palaces off limits. Having huge stockpiles of "pesticides" that fit
dual use in ammo dumps and bunkers with aerial camouflage .

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=13168

Former Iraqi officers speaking of the chemical weapons, and their coverup over
intercepted phone calls in Iraq prior to the 2nd gulf war .

http://www.slate.com/id/2078196/

17 UN resolutions that were ignored time an time again .

The shell game, deceptions, and intimidation used against the inspectors and
lack of "Full Inspections".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2002/09/08/wirq208.xml

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page277.asp

If Iraq and Saddam were innocent , why then the elaborate deceptions,
intimidation, hauling top soil away...

To me ...

It's equally amazing the mental gymnastics some will go through to avoid facing the fact

Ex-MislTech

Would you have some reference for that?

It's found here.

Go ahead and read that, then take a swing by this.

Fatawa are the theocratic equivalent of diplomatic policy statements; they mutate as required by whatever banana republic issues them. Useful idiots like the grandparent selectively chose their preferred version.

50 centrifuges
 
...is more than sufficient to seed the engineering necessary to make more. You don't know how many they are operating. Please don't assert your number as credible.

National Intelligence Estimate

You're citing a product of US Intelligence regarding the state the WMD in the middle east?

declared that atomic weaponry is unislamic

Fatawa are often contradictory, depending on political requirements. Wikipedia is not a good primary source for this sort of thing, mkay?

Sigh.

Iran is a net exporter of fossil fuels. They have more gas and oil that they know what to do with. They're making nuclear weapons. Please pull your Daily Show educated head out of your ass.

Oh look! American Idol is on!

US pop show victor attracts more votes than any president

This may sound a little partisan and controversial, but the problem is basically Tony Blair.

Since coming to power, he's increasingly become a control freak.

He's emasculated the house of lords, under cover of "reform", while seemingly trying to block the option (favoured by many MPs) of a largely-elected house of lords (because a largely-elected second chamber would be a legitimate "check and balance" on his authority, as compared to a set of nominated place-men). (See for example here).

He's also marginalised parliament - his government carries out the minimum of "debate" there now, merely using it as the place to anounce previously-decided policies. There was a big fuss recently, little reported, about the government trying to pass a law allowing them to change legislation at will, without any debate at all, under cover of "reducing red tape" (see here.

Even within the cabinet, he seems to fire anyone who seems remotely a threat or who disagrees with him in any way (with the exception of Gordon Brown, the chancellor (and probably the next Labour leader), who is powerful enough to be left alone).

Since he's been prime minister, there have been dozens of crime bills, making hundreds of new criminal offences (e.g. see here.

He's increasingly making noises about the criminal justice system being "out of touch" (i.e. not automatically just doing what he says), in a seeming bid to further curtail their powers. For what he's already achieved, see, for example, here.

He himself is becoming increasingly irrational and out-of-touch to the extent where his party are starting to think of him as a liability, let alone what the country now thinks of him. The more out of touch he gets, the determined to get his own way he becomes. He's done a lot or damage to this country's constitutional processes, a lot of damage to its reputation (via Iraq), and the sooner he goes, the better.

This may sound a little partisan and controversial, but the problem is basically Tony Blair.

Since coming to power, he's increasingly become a control freak.

He's emasculated the house of lords, under cover of "reform", while seemingly trying to block the option (favoured by many MPs) of a largely-elected house of lords (because a largely-elected second chamber would be a legitimate "check and balance" on his authority, as compared to a set of nominated place-men). (See for example here).

He's also marginalised parliament - his government carries out the minimum of "debate" there now, merely using it as the place to anounce previously-decided policies. There was a big fuss recently, little reported, about the government trying to pass a law allowing them to change legislation at will, without any debate at all, under cover of "reducing red tape" (see here.

Even within the cabinet, he seems to fire anyone who seems remotely a threat or who disagrees with him in any way (with the exception of Gordon Brown, the chancellor (and probably the next Labour leader), who is powerful enough to be left alone).

Since he's been prime minister, there have been dozens of crime bills, making hundreds of new criminal offences (e.g. see here.

He's increasingly making noises about the criminal justice system being "out of touch" (i.e. not automatically just doing what he says), in a seeming bid to further curtail their powers. For what he's already achieved, see, for example, here.

He himself is becoming increasingly irrational and out-of-touch to the extent where his party are starting to think of him as a liability, let alone what the country now thinks of him. The more out of touch he gets, the determined to get his own way he becomes. He's done a lot or damage to this country's constitutional processes, a lot of damage to its reputation (via Iraq), and the sooner he goes, the better.

This is already enacted, it just needs a ministerial order to bring it into effect. The debate was over five years ago. It came to prominance again in November last year, when the UK was debating how long it was reasonable to keep people in jail without trial, with a key point of the Government's argument being that they needed three months to decrypt data - the opposition pointed out that with holding encryption keys was already an offence in its self so that argument was nonsense.

This law scares me, because it, like many of the 700-1000 new criminal offences created by Blair's Government since 1997 it has the potential to criminalise people who've not activly done anything wrong. Read Section 3 of the RIP act the State only has to have reasonable grounds for believing someone has an encryption key to force you to reveal it (then throwing you in jail if they won't / can't / or havn't a clue what an encryption key is, when they might have used one or how to supply it to big brother.)

The law also states that it may, depending on the circumstances, be an offence to tell anyone that you've been asked to disclose your encryption keys - there is no exemption for instructing a lawyer to defend the demand for the key.

This law is not only bad for Business as indicated in the article, but yet another frightening step knocking the relationship between the state and its people out of balance

A sampling of real headlines courtesy of Google News:

Gr-ape lengths made in human DNA study
Men mated with chimps for 1m years (now that's endurance!)
A chimp off the ol' block
Chimps & Early Man couldn't stop lovin'
Grandma Manimal

And they keep going and going...

that's a problem for people that only believe what they see on what they presume to be un-alterable video tape... but why not just ask the people that watched it happen.

As any psychologist will tell you, your memory is pretty easily alterable. Elizabeth Loftus is probably the most prominent name in the area of altering memories, and has done a number of interesting experiments.

My favorite experiment involves counting the number of passes that people make with a pair of basketballs in this video here (someone warn the University of Illinois, they might experience a slashdotting!).



After you've watched the tape, you can read about how perceptive you are (or aren't) in this article.

Basing a war on lies is wrong for the person who does it, but our soldiers, the people GP was talking about, did not base their actions in this ware on lies. They based them on fairly accurate opinions of the Iraq situation built up over the last 12 years.

You know I'm amazed some americans still believe this.

The Downing street memo
Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment
CIA leak illustrates selective use of intelligence on Iraq
Bush talking on the political advantages of war in 99

We didn't attack Iraq, we attacked its government. There is a huge difference. The country as a whole still suffers consequences, but that doesn't diminish the distinction.

The people of Iraq may not agree. I sure as hell don't. Collateral damage is newspeak:
U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq
THE REAL WMD'S IN IRAQ - OURS
Displaced Iraqis 'living like animals'
'unknown Americans' are provoking civil war in Iraq
The Missing Girls of Iraq