Slashdot Mirror


Survey Says To UK — Repeal Laws of Thermodynamics

mostxlnt writes "As we noted, the new Tory UK government has launched a website asking its subjects which laws they'd most like repealed. There are proposals up for repeal of the Laws of Thermodynamics: Second, Third, and all (discussion thread on this one closed by a moderator). One comment on the Third [now apparently deleted] elucidated: 'Without the Third Law of Thermodynamics, it would be possible to build machines that would last forever and provide an endless source of cheap energy. thus solving both potential crises in energy supply as well as solving the greenhouse gas problem in one step... simples... eh?'"

161 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. When you open up the floodgates... by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    idiots pour through.

    1. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not idiots, just trolls who want a few lulz.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by fractoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Parent is a restatement of the second law of Thermodynamics. Idiots flow from areas with fewer idiots to areas with more idiots, but it takes work to reverse the flow and decrease the idiot density of one (low-density) area while increasing the idiot density of another, higher-idiot-density area.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    3. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      idiots pour through.

      Whereas most smart people in Britain would rather repeal the law that Americans don't get British sarcasm and wit, but sadly that also seems to be an unchangeable law of nature...

    4. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by w0mprat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Idiots flow from areas with fewer idiots to areas with more idiots, but it takes work to reverse the flow and decrease the idiot density of one (low-density) area while increasing the idiot density of another, higher-idiot-density area.

      Now demonstrated to be false since the discovery of Quantum Bogodynamics, back in the early days of IT. http://wikibin.org/articles/quantum-bogodynamics.html Idiots flow from idiot-dense areas to low idiot density - non-idiots must work hard to either keep idiots out. This force is transmitted by an Idiot giving up a particle of Bogon which is absorbed by a non-idiot. Thus manifesting as an attractive force.

      This is why the most beautifully engineered and brilliant machines will fail in the most spectacular way when the strongest bogon emitters are invariably attracted to them. This is why Lamborghinis seem to spontanously catch on fire but that old Toyota Corolla you can't can't kill.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    5. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did parent and GP just describe the influx of people from high-replacement rural areas to low-replacement urban areas, or did I miss something?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    6. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Aw bugger, I got the first bit the wrong way round. Oh well, it was only a simple sign error... and the second bit, I hope, made it clear what I meant. :P

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    7. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fox News has prior art. You're gonna get sued.

    8. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nonsense - feminists have been campaigning against the laws of Thermodynamics for years: they are sexist, as they favour men, who can understand such complex issues, while women only want to worry their pretty heads about perfume "because they are worth it"

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      But all it would take to reduce the idiot flux in a particular place (say my office) would be to place an idiot detecting demon at the front door. When an idiot approaches the demon closes the door. When a non-idiot approaches the demon opens the door.

      Now to explain this to management...

    10. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by fractoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem is that the idiot-detecting demon at the front door (let's call him Maxwell) will, sadly, become more stupid with each idiot he allows to walk outward, and each idiot he refuses entry. Ultimately, Maxwell will be enough of an idiot that he will fail to function.

      ...don't you hate it when you take an analogy way too far and still, somehow, it holds?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    11. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I call the reversal of the process Idiostmotic Pressure.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    12. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I'd love to visit Maxwell's house. I bet he has good coffee.

    13. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Nahhh. The idiot burns his damned coffee. If you can find the Folger's demon, he has pretty decent coffee. To get better coffee, you have to get fresh ground and freshly roasted beans. But, you probably knew that already . . .

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    14. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      At an idiot/non idiot junction, picture an aquarium with a piece of glass in it. The effect varies. Ball bearings roll down one way and bubbles roll up the other way.
      Mapping the gradient is called redistricting.

    15. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by paxcoder · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I wanted to say: They are given a real opportunity to be involved in politics, and give their input regarding laws, and instead they are making a mockery of it - as it would be said in dark corners of the internet: simply for the "lulz".

    16. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      or just go to Tim Horton's.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    17. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      This new theory could lead to the large head-on collider to discover the until now mythical higgs-moron particle.

    18. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      are you taking abouyt the comentators or the LibDem's

    19. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Y2KDragon · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is much like those who sent around the petition to ban the use of "Di-Hydrogen Oxide". It's more a wake-up call for those who are just looking for a quick sound-bite or political leg up without actually accomplising anything.

    20. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by makomk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Half-true. There are some feminists out there who are against science because it favours men, but the reason why isn't the sexist bullshit Anne Thwacks wrote. It's feminist bullshit instead - something about the privileging of male logic over female intuition IIRC. Then there's the vaguer anti-science sentiments.

      In general, though, more mainstream feminists are only against science when it gets the wrong answer. (Take a look at the issue of domestic violence, for example: the exact same research methods are praised when they show huge numbers of women are victims and attacked when they show nearly as many men are. The preferred statistics for the ratio of male to female victims are police ones known to omit many victims - almost certainly in a non-uniform fashion - but anyone using these for the number of female victims obviously hates women.)

      Funnily enough, this did have a political effect here under the last Government. Take a look at the studies leading to the extreme porn act and the changes in the laws on prostitution. Poorly-conducted, politicised crap, but because the newspapers care more about getting the most sensational stories than accurate science and the general populace handily doesn't know better, it worked.

    21. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by delinear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's far from a "real opportunity to be involved in politics", unless by that statement you mean it's "an opportunity to have their views ignored by politicians". If our government (and I'm aware that it's a different government, I've seen enough to know they're all basically the same) could ignore the views of 750,000 - 2,000,000 people who turned up in person to protest the Iraq war, what makes you think they won't ignore people who are only posting on the internet? We already have the precedent of government ignoring mass e-petitions on the number 10 petition site, so far as I can see this is no different, they'll cherry pick the laws they want to repeal, find a handful of petitioners and use that to justify that they're following the will of the people, meanwhile they'll conveniently ignore any large petitions to repeal laws they actually want to keep.

    22. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Errrr... So that would make Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, et al. the Maxwell's Demons who keep the idiots in? I think I'm beginning to understand...

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    23. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's far from a "real opportunity to be involved in politics", unless by that statement you mean it's "an opportunity to have their views ignored by politicians".

      Worse than that, it's an opportunity for politicians to selectively "hear" opinions which support a particular effort or view, and ignore the rest. If everyone were being ignored uniformly, that would at least be fair.

      --

      Long signatures suck.
    24. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      This is why Lamborghinis seem to spontanously catch on fire but that old Toyota Corolla you can't can't kill.

      Two thoughts: which of those is more thoroughly engineered for reliability? how reliable would the corolla be if you flogged it like a lambo?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    25. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Oh please, the current feminist movement is campaigning for equal everything while carefully preserving the artifacts of the old world, where women were fragile things that required special handling. Basically, like any other political movement, they want to eat their cake and have it too.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    26. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      How can you classify them as idiots? If you repeal the laws of Thermodynamics, all sorts of useful breakthroughs can happen. They should repeal the laws of Physics while they are at it.

      If you had of even read the blip, if you repeal the third law of thermodynamics, "it would be possible to build machines that would last forever and provide an endless source of cheap energy. thus solving both potential crises in energy supply as well as solving the greenhouse gas problem in one step"

      Sounds pretty insightful to me. :-)

    27. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Do you hate racial/ethnic/religious jokes as well?

    28. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      As someone who learned to drive on an 80s stick shift corolla and then proceeded to drive it like any 16 year old would, I would say it would do fine.

      The lambo is designed to look cool and go fast. Reliability is not what you get from a super car, much less an italian one.

    29. Re:When you open up the floodgates... by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

      I guess it also counts for physics.

  2. Is it April 1st again? by julian-lam · · Score: 1

    Did I miss the memo? Is it April 1st again?

  3. First Law? by kai_hiwatari · · Score: 1

    What about the first law?

    1. Re:First Law? by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

      These aren't complete idiots. Everyone knows the First Law is what prevents robots doing harm to humans.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:First Law? by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      I don't even know why the scientists keep making them.

      Old Glory Robot Insurance; For when the metal one come for YOU!

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    3. Re:First Law? by GuerillaRadio · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first law of Thermodynamics is that YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS!

      --
      If a man empties his purse into his head no man can take it from him. An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.
    4. Re:First Law? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Where I come from, no one can spell it, let alone talk about it. They would get tongue tied trying to pronounce it, which would call for a trip to the emergency room. (Don't look at ME - I'm not untying some homely redneck's tongue for him - the bastard might want to kiss me for helping him!)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  4. 4chan threw the vote by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No other way.

  5. Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Government actually uses the internet for something potentially beneficial, and people troll it. I'm surprised there isn't anything related to lazers, mudkips, or Pedobear on there.

    1. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well what the hell did you expect? The site is little more than theater - nobody in power is going to take it seriously one way or the other, so why not have a little fun with it?

    2. Re:Brilliant by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suspect that nobody is really that bothered by laws requiring those under 16 to practice with the longbow or cabs to carry bails of hay. I also seriously doubt that many people even know that many laws, let alone which ones are absurd.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I dont know, look at Di hydrogen Monoxide...nearly got banned in California.

    4. Re:Brilliant by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      It's sad that I had to think this one through before I got it.

      I'm not, by any means, Hawking or Einstein, but I'm not Larry the Cable Guy either (I fall somewhere toward the middle of the bell curve); no wonder it almost got banned.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    5. Re:Brilliant by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      I suspect that nobody is really that bothered by laws requiring those under 16 to practice with the longbow or cabs to carry bails of hay.

      Generally, these stories are apocryphal, and were either never true or long ago repealed.

    6. Re:Brilliant by roke_tm · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I always disliked this "Speed Limit" of the Light. I wonder if they can repeal that too? I want warp speed!

    7. Re:Brilliant by JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So did I the first time I heard it. I knew there was a trick since the person had a giant idiot grin on his face while he cited the number of fatalities caused buy it.

      This is one of those tricks that idiots hear and like to repeat because it make them think they are looking clever. Have you ever know someone who memorized the answers to one or two incredibility difficult equations and kept spouting it out? My favorite are people who run their emails through a thesaurus so they can use bigger words even when they do not know what those new words mean.

      I think that we can all agree that we should work together.

      becomes

      I deliberate that we container all enunciate that we should vocation simultaneously.

    8. Re:Brilliant by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I thought that's how they talked in China, and some of the rest of Asia. Seriously - have you read some of their maintenance manuals, owner's manuals, or assembly instructions? If you get one, just study the pictures. The printed instructions will just make your head hurt!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:Brilliant by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Classic line from my Chinese-made SKS manual:

      "Do not let your SKS become tainted with defilement or sunburnt."

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    10. Re:Brilliant by JustOK · · Score: 1

      MC^2 FTW!

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    11. Re:Brilliant by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Tiller's Rule correction: Units of hay are bales; bails appear on fishing reels, as handles on buckets, and in courtrooms (as in let out on bail).

      We now join our regularly-scheduled program [that is] already in progress.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    12. Re:Brilliant by krou · · Score: 1

      My favourite two laws are that a pregnant woman can request to urinate in a policeman's helmet, and that it is legal to urinate on the rear inside wheel of any vehicle.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    13. Re:Brilliant by delinear · · Score: 1

      Well often what happens is they simply get superceded by later law which renders them moot. They no longer apply, but it costs money to repeal them, so they just stay on the books forever but it doesn't matter until someone five hundred years later digs them out and uses them as absolute proof that the laws of the country are insane. It doesn't really matter that you're technically allowed to shoot a Welshman using a longbow within the city walls of wherever if the murder laws have basically overruled that.

    14. Re:Brilliant by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      More often, as in the bales of hay one, they're simply bollocks and the putative law never existed.

    15. Re:Brilliant by jd · · Score: 1

      The longbow law was actually cited and used by a pastor in England in the last month. It's definitely real and on the books.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    16. Re:Brilliant by jd · · Score: 1

      How many cities (other than Chester) still even have City Walls? But, yes, you're right, the system in England is one of superseding past laws rather than removing the old ones. Partly, as you say, for reasons of cost. But also partly because it's easier. Same reason that the Constitutional amendment enabling prohibition is still in the Constitution, but was abolished by another amendment.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    17. Re:Brilliant by jd · · Score: 1

      Bah Humbug! My effort to corrupt the English language has failed! (Ok, ok, I wasn't paying attention.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    18. Re:Brilliant by kyz · · Score: 1

      The bales of hay one is a real law. Introduced in the London Hackney Carriage Act 1831 s.51, repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976.

      What the law actually stated was that nobody could "feed the horses of or belonging to any hackney carriage in any street, road or common passage, save only with corn out of a bag, or with hay which he shall hold or deliver with his hands".

      --
      Does my bum look big in this?
    19. Re:Brilliant by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      The urban myth states that hackney carriages are required to carry a bale of hay, that section of the act doesn't say that and never did. You're correct that it's the source of the myth, but at no point has the myth been accurate.

  6. Newsbiscuit, anyone? by boundary · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think it's happening because of this article on a British clone of The Onion, called NewsBiscuit... http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/07/05/nick-clegg-to-repeal-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

    1. Re:Newsbiscuit, anyone? by evilandi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Boundary> http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/07/05/nick-clegg-to-repeal-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

      The really clever bit being that Professor Brian Cox really is a top-ranking physics professor, who was indeed the keyboardist for the band D:Ream who did have a UK number one hit "Things can only get better" that was used as the election theme tune for the previous government. Which puts the satire way above The Onion. You'd have thought that a CERN scientist wouldn't have penned such an inaccurate song, although "Things will get more and more random" probably wouldn't have achieved the same chart success.

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    2. Re:Newsbiscuit, anyone? by Inda · · Score: 2, Funny

      http://newsarse.com/ is a British sporting version. Good for a giggle.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    3. Re:Newsbiscuit, anyone? by imakemusic · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'd have thought that a CERN scientist wouldn't have penned such an inaccurate song, although "Things will get more and more random" probably wouldn't have achieved the same chart success.

      That depends on your stance on randomness. He's obviously in favour of it.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    4. Re:Newsbiscuit, anyone? by Threni · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some people in Britain have worked out how to access websites hosted outside of the UK, so it's entirely possible, however unlikely, that they were inspired by an Onion article:

      http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281/

  7. Perfect laws? by EricX2 · · Score: 1

    If the citizens have a chance to repeal their laws and this is what they come up with, they must be perfect... right?

    If they ever gave me a chance to do that in the US I sure wouldn't waste it on crap like that. But since it's idiot day apparently, Law of Gravity gets my vote.

    1. Re:Perfect laws? by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gravity, that Law that keeps me form drifting out into space and into the sun?

      Wait, if Gravity were gone, that wouldn't happen, because the sun couldn't pull me either.

      What the hell would happen?

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    2. Re:Perfect laws? by Third+Position · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reason this is largely being treated as a joke by the British people is that most of the unpopular laws are coming from Brussels, not London. There isn't much the British government can do about EU directives, besides withdraw from the EU. And that's not on the table.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    3. Re:Perfect laws? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Ever been on a carrousel?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    4. Re:Perfect laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Once. I mentioned to my Dad how neat the centrifugal force was. Then he pushed me off.

    5. Re:Perfect laws? by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      Let's expand the idea...rotation, that would create force based on rotation, and where there's no external influence on me, presumably I would remain attached to the ground. However, when such force is exerted that would exceed the centripetal force of the Earth's rotation, I would fly free in whichever direction...

      I think you just might have given an answer to a completely sarcastic question. And maybe made me realize why the law of gravity might exist in the first place...not sure, beer by this point has made my brain a bit fuzzy.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    6. Re:Perfect laws? by value_added · · Score: 3, Funny

      The reason this is largely being treated as a joke by the British people is that most of the unpopular laws are coming from Brussels, not London.

      I found another online survey the results of which reflects similar sentiments.

      What should we call those [shakes fist in air] people in Brussels?

      5. Let's not call them anything. Let's ignore them.
      4. Belgians. Nothing is more derogatory.
      3. The Sprouts.
      2. The Phlegms.
      1. Miserable Fat Belgian Bastards.

    7. Re:Perfect laws? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Yes, we need better government at the federal level (to put in in American terms), and the only way we will get that is by getting better constitutional arrangements, which will only happen if the EU actually gets a proper constitution - but that will reduce the power of state governments even further.

    8. Re:Perfect laws? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The Earth would explode, since nothing would counteract its internal pressure anymore. So would Sun, Moon, and any other body kept together by gravity. Earth's explosion would likely kill you, but if it by some miracle failed to do so, the lack of breathable air - since that too is lost as soon as gravity fails - would, and then the expanding shockwave from Sun's explosion would vaporize your bloated remains, assuming that the increased radiation due to its core shining through dispersing external parts wouldn't.

      Destructive and just plain stupid legislation that can't be enforced and can't be defended on anything but purely ideological grounds - just the kind that's been all rage lately (right-wingers, I'm looking at you).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:Perfect laws? by digitig · · Score: 1

      The reason this is largely being treated as a joke by the British people is that most of the unpopular laws are coming from Brussels, not London. There isn't much the British government can do about EU directives, besides withdraw from the EU. And that's not on the table.

      Well, that's what the insular British press says. Funny thing is, the rest of the EU tends not to have the really nasty laws. You'd think that they would if Brussels were imposing them on the whole EU, wouldn't you?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    10. Re:Perfect laws? by AGMW · · Score: 1

      Once. I mentioned to my Dad how neat the centripetal force was. Then he pulled me off.

      There, fixed that for you ... and will you call the social services or should I?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    11. Re:Perfect laws? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Informative

      The serious favourite for repeal on that site is the law against cannabis. Perfectly reasonable law to repeal. Plenty of good reasons for doing so. But there's no change the government will do so. They aren't really interested in hearing what the public wants. They just want it to appear that they are listening.

      Hence why the public choose to ridicule the whole thing by voting for the repeal of various laws of physics.

    12. Re:Perfect laws? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      w
      h
      o
      o
      o
      s
      h

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    13. Re:Perfect laws? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      OMG. I just happened to catch that episode of Monty Python over the recent US Independence Day holiday while flipping through the channels. I can only take 5 minute doses of MP, so the odds of me catching that very scene are 'inconceivable!'.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    14. Re:Perfect laws? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Actually the highest rated requests seem to be such matters as the Digital Economy Bill, and the various pieces of overzealous law and order and anti-terrorism legislation enacted over the past decade. None of the 60 top rated requests are anything to do with the EU.

      Considering how much of the press is concerned with EU law, it's amazing how few people are actually troubled by it.

    15. Re:Perfect laws? by makomk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, successive British governments have realised that people think this. So they've taken to passing all the really unpopular laws by asking their appointees in the EU to push for EU-wide laws on the subject. If necessary, any additional nastiness above and beyond what the EU is willing to do can be inserted into the British implementation of the EU directives. The press are guaranteed to still blame it all on Europe, and only people who've been paying close attention notice it's a load of bullshit.

    16. Re:Perfect laws? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      The Earth would explode, since nothing would counteract its internal pressure anymore.

      Okay, so, that would be bad.

      But suppose we could lessen it's severity? That way, I could lose weight without having to change my personal habits. Sounds like a good plan to me...

    17. Re:Perfect laws? by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      centripetal

  8. Re:Foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, if you squint really, really hard, that rolled up newspaper looks an awful lot like an olive branch. The thing is, they both smart when you're being whacked with 'em.

  9. Reminds me of my favorite April Fools by n2rjt · · Score: 4, Funny

    I remember a news article that circulated around the communications company where I worked, on some April 1st, saying that Shannon's Law had been repealed, and the company was ready to release a new product offering high speed Internet access over HF on a 2.8 kHz channel. So, I'd vote for Shannon's Law to be repealed.

    1. Re:Reminds me of my favorite April Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I can't believe they don't want Murphy's law repealed.

    2. Re:Reminds me of my favorite April Fools by JustOK · · Score: 1

      they really tried, and almost succeeded, but...

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Reminds me of my favorite April Fools by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      What does any of it matter when we're surrounded by potentially deadly chemicals like Dihydrogen Monoxide every day?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Reminds me of my favorite April Fools by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the courageous efforts by The Man Show to end women's sufferage. You can still sign the petition.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  10. "Tory" government!? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here was I thinking we had a coalition of Tory and Libs.

    1. Re:"Tory" government!? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here was I thinking we had a coalition of Tory and Libs.

      Yup, the Libs think that too. Aren't they just adorable?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:"Tory" government!? by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      right.. go on.. one small step astray and off to another election..

    3. Re:"Tory" government!? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure, they'll spit their dummies and force an election the instant the ink is dry on any new voting system that gives them even a sniff of real power, which is why the Cons will never let them have one.

      And they can't throw their toys out of the pram over the issue, because until they have a new system, they'll always be a minority party, and so they have to walk the talk about how it's possible for them to be part of a working coalition government. If they bring down the government under the current system, they won't get their snouts in the trough during the next parliament.

      Poor dears - remaining meek and impotent is their strongest strategy.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:"Tory" government!? by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      yes and when the bullingdon chaps get board they can roast the libdem fags on the fire (btw this is the publicschool usage of fag and not the more common one in use today)

    5. Re:"Tory" government!? by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      Wow, you should become an author, I can see communicating your thoughts by conversation just doesn't work for you.

    6. Re:"Tory" government!? by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      Yup.. wait till the budget horrorshow start and tell me who has the stronger hand..

      It's not the 1980s anymore and there is no more blue-collar types that can pad the massive redistribution of wealth (back to the wealthy). It's the lower middle class and newly grads next.

  11. Round PI off to 3.00 for convenience by aauu · · Score: 3, Funny

    We need simple easy to remember mathmatical and physical constants. Alabama failed to pass this modification to the universe. Washington could do much better.

    --
    When I was young, I had to rub sticks together to compute.
  12. Repealing the Second Law by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I actually thought about this once, not that I have any illusions about being able to do it; it was just a Gedankenexperiment. My conclusion was that if the Second Law was eliminated, the odds are good that somewhere in the universe some process would enter a feedback loop, producing ever more energy at an ever accelerating rate, and the first we'd know about it would be when the shock wave washed over us at a substantial fraction of the speed of light.

    The universe as it stands may be a raw deal, but most imaginable tweaks to the laws of physics make it even worse.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:Repealing the Second Law by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Entropy provides the damping necessary to maintain a stable system.

    2. Re:Repealing the Second Law by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The universe as it stands may be a raw deal, but most imaginable tweaks to the laws of physics make it even worse.

      The Winston Churchill rule: This is the worse universe, except for all others.

    3. Re:Repealing the Second Law by mrthoughtful · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well actually, the British Empire is no more, so the effects of UK legislation would be limited to it's borders.
      I'm pretty sure that biological processes require 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so life in the UK would cease, but all of UK neighbours would benefit from the energy leakage of from (possibly) the only non-singularity free of the second law.

      --
      This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
    4. Re:Repealing the Second Law by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      I prefer the Gottfried Leibniz rule: this is the best universe, among all the others.

    5. Re:Repealing the Second Law by selven · · Score: 1

      Repealing the second law of thermodynamics doesn't repeal conservation of energy. If we can, I'd say why not - with the law intact you can't live forever.

  13. How will you know? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well what the hell did you expect? The site is little more than theater

    It is because people like you are making it one.

    What if it's real? Why try to kill something that might actually help before it has a chance to show if it's theater or not?

    Why is it so hard to believe that a group being voted in on a wave of people finding the government unreasonable, might in fact want to git rid of some of the more egregious laws that have sprung up? It seems pretty obvious if you get rid of very unpopular laws you (and your group) are going to win more elections. So the thought that it's theater did not occur to me, if for no other reason than politician self-interest - and do you really want to bet against THAT?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How will you know? by Miseph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Being theater is not mutually exclusive to being taken seriously. Just because they couldn't really care less, doesn't mean they are somehow above throwing the people a meaningless and symbolic bone to appease them. Never forget: good theater keeps the lights on and the players employed.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    2. Re:How will you know? by excelsior_gr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because political parties are not even doing the things they promised *before* the elections. Should't they at least *try* to implement their political portfolios before they start pondering what their next move should be? In my opinion, this is just a distraction from their inneficiency to do what they promised, or at least something meaningfull. The fact that the discussion evolved into a Monty Python sketch shows that they cannot fool people any more with their rubbish. People are not taking them seriously any more.

    3. Re:How will you know? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but whatever government won the election was going to have an extremely tough time staying in power at the next one; the measures necessary to cut our country's deficit are unlikely to win many votes.

    4. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I could give you mounds of evidence, but here's what stands out:

      Clegg, the overt organiser of this circus, has sold out his Party to a power shak^Hring agreement, abandoning pretty much every core platform on which they established their vote. More insidiously, he's accepting arrangements which make it look like the LDs are pushing for their manifesto when in fact they're doing precisely the opposite. For example, his Party has steadfastly put voting reform to Proportional Representation at the top of the political agenda for decades, but now he is proposing the Alternative Voting method - a "compromise" system even less Proportional than FPTP which will inevitably be voted against in any referendum, ensuring the status quo.

      The LDs have always been the "Party who cares"[tm], i.e. proposes more than just slight tweaks, and they've always been laughed at because, "They'd never really do that and can only say that because they'll never get into power." Well, now they do have a certain degree of power. And they're doing none of what they said. Instead, as just illustrated, their method will be to listen, propose a "compromise" which no-one wants at all, then wait until it's not imposed and nothing changes at all. The exceptions will be where laws were already going to be tweaked, in which case this site will be used as an excuse (digital economy, personal welfare).

      tl;dr We are living in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. There is neither the framework, education, means nor (most importantly) interest to listen directly to the people. Even referendums are barely an exception as they're worded precisely by the government and (hi, EU!) sometimes just repeated until the population is worn down and the right answer is obtained.

    5. Re:How will you know? by jasonq · · Score: 1, Troll

      Why is it so hard to believe that a group being voted in

      They weren't voted in!

    6. Re:How will you know? by digitig · · Score: 1

      Because political parties are not even doing the things they promised *before* the elections. Should't they at least *try* to implement their political portfolios before they start pondering what their next move should be?

      This was in the LibDem "portfolio" -- their manifesto promised "we will introduce a Freedom Bill to restore the civil liberties that are so precious to the British character", and this is a step towards that. I think we need to take your "political parties are not even doing the things they promised *before* the elections" with a pinch of salt, given that you've just shown that you don't actually know what they promised.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    7. Re:How will you know? by digitig · · Score: 1

      And, as always, grammar nazism has its place. In choosing "that" rather than "which", the writer has not meant:

      • Restore civil liberties because civil liberties are so precious to the British people,

      i.e. the classical liberty of freedom of expression (deployed as speech, assembly, photography etc., all coming under the same principle); instead quite specifically aiming to:

      • Restore only those civil liberties which are somehow identified as "precious" to the British people.

      This has further degenerated to:

      • Consider those civil liberties which a small unrepresentative set of Internet lurkers with too much time on their hands (who may not even be eligible British voters) want to babble about.

      Which proves that you haven't actually read the manifesto and are just trolling. Freedom of speech and assembly are specifically addressed, and the problems with photography are coming about because of abuse of anti-terrorist legislation which is also specifically addressed. How much of that they can actually get past the Conservatives is questionable (although quite a bit of that was in the Conservative manifesto too) but all the things you say are not there actually are there. Grammar Nazis get it wrong again.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Which proves that you haven't actually read the manifesto and are just trolling.

      You pasted a quote from the manifesto. I discussed what the language of the quote actually means. In fact, by analysing the language I've provided support for your argument - the intention of the LDs was to find out what the British find important rather than to merely assert "civil liberties are important" - but you may be so blinkered by support for the Party that you're not even paying attention.

      How much of that they can actually get past the Conservatives is questionable (although quite a bit of that was in the Conservative manifesto too) but all the things you say are not there actually are there.

      I didn't say something was "not there". I said that the language implies that a selection is going to be made. You're referring to the introduction of p.87 and the list of specific promises pp. 93-95. From that all we've had any push for is (1) what the Tories already wanted; plus (2) the interpretation of the wording I've provided above.

      My post is precisely because I've read the manifesto and tried to understand it in terms of "what is going to actually happen" in the light of coalition LD behaviour.

    9. Re:How will you know? by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      Alternative Voting method - a "compromise" system even less Proportional than FPTP

      [citation needed]

    10. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Explanation needed, perhaps, but not "citation".

      Try starting here. Don't forget to follow the link giving the detail of LD Roy Jenkins' (RIP!) opinion.

    11. Re:How will you know? by digitig · · Score: 1

      You pasted a quote from the manifesto. I discussed what the language of the quote actually means.

      Except that had you already read the manifesto at the time you made your comments you would have known that that was not what the language actually meant: although a grammar-Nazi reading could find your interpretation in there the remainder of the text plainly contradicted that reading. And even Fowler (2nd edition), while recognising that your reading of the which/that difference is the better one, acknowledges that using the terms the other way around isn't necessarily an error.

      As for what we actually get, a lot of people seem to be forgetting that the LibDems did not win the election and we don't have a LibDem government. What they can actually get past the Tories is inevetably limited.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    12. Re:How will you know? by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      "which will inevitably be voted against in any referendum, ensuring the status quo."

      Why are you so sure of that?

    13. Re:How will you know? by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      Hmm... my understanding was that the proportionality (fairness) of a voting system was not a matter of opinion, but rather a fairly well-defined area of mathematics, and so an assertion that AV was less fair than (say) STV or FPTP could be backed up some formulae and numbers.

      I'm not saying you're wrong - just that the finality with which you stated it made me want a solid, indisputable citation.

    14. Re:How will you know? by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      Am I overlooking something is the only argument against AV in that article a complaint that people are stupid enough to for Labour?

    15. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      you would have known that that was not what the language actually meant

      Yet the LD coalition government has done precisely that. Perhaps you should be more careful when reading manifestos in order to see what principles the Party is more willing to give up.

      a lot of people seem to be forgetting that the LibDems did not win the election and we don't have a LibDem government

      The Lib Dems were not forced into forming a coalition with anyone. The Lib Dems had the opportunity to try much harder to require various policies as a condition of coalition, yet they required almost nothing. The only possible advantage of this coalition is a tempering of more extreme Tories who would otherwise destabilise the current government.

      At least LD in opposition did some opposition (as well as not draining the pool of core supporters). Unless Labour recovers on less Blairite lines, we may now enjoy no credible opposition in the House of Commons.

    16. Re:How will you know? by digitig · · Score: 1

      Yet the LD coalition government has done precisely that. Perhaps you should be more careful when reading manifestos in order to see what principles the Party is more willing to give up.

      Strangely, none of the manifestos included that.

      The Lib Dems were not forced into forming a coalition with anyone.

      Indeed. Had they not, we would almost certainly have a Conservative government now, with no tempering of the more extreme Conservative policies. It looks to me as if they did the right thing there, but maybe you wanted to see those more extreme Conservative policies in force?

      The Lib Dems had the opportunity to try much harder to require various policies as a condition of coalition, yet they required almost nothing.

      Really? How do you know they didn't try as had as they could? They were in a weak position because they and the Conservatives both knew that only the Conservatives could afford to run another election campaign if no government could have been formed.

      Unless Labour recovers on less Blairite lines, we may now enjoy no credible opposition in the House of Commons.

      True, but you can hardly blame those in government for the opposition being useless.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    17. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Read Crispin Allard's very short and to-the-point article in Representation. He asserts that, in aggregate terms, neither can be assessed as more proportional. But AV favours moderate/close parties "which are good at attracting vote transfers". In particular, he contrasts 1992 and prior elections with the 1997 election: the proximity of LD and New[tm] Labour meant that AV would have further solidified Labour's lead.

      IOW, it is a matter of opinion of alternative Parties, and AV may serve to promote homogeneity.

    18. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      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 ;-).

    19. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Had they not, we would almost certainly have a Conservative government now, with no tempering of the more extreme Conservative policies.

      What are you talking about? Had the Tories formed a minority government, the LD MPs would have had a (more) free vote. As it is, the LDs are reined in by the Clegg-Cameron duet.

      Read again what I said: The only possible advantage of this coalition is a tempering of more extreme Tories, i.e. those who may rock the boat in favour of more extreme Conversativism in the longer term. Any extreme policies wouldn't have actually got through on a minority government. But what we do have instead is lots of standard issue Conservative policies with no opposition.

      How do you know they didn't try as had as they could?

      Absolute time spent is the most glaring piece of evidence. I've spent longer helping two dogs negotiate peace. No, Rome wasn't burning, despite Tory claims.

      They were in a weak position because they and the Conservatives both knew that only the Conservatives could afford to run another election campaign if no government could have been formed.

      Assuming that the alternative was forcing another election.
      Assuming that the amount of money spent on another campaign would make the difference.
      Assuming that a lower profile LD would result in LD voters flocking to Tories rather than Labour.

    20. Re:How will you know? by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We know that both the Lib Dems and Tories (both parties in the coalition) have promised a bill to repeal some laws - it was in their manifestos. Sure, they might lie, but I think it's quite reasonable to believe they will have some form of "freedom bill" (they've already repealed ID cards and biometric passports, for example).

      This site might be "theatre" in the sense that they already have their list of ideas, and this site is only there to add support to it - e.g., "We're repealing the Digital Economy Act because it's one of the top of the list, and we're doing what people want!" But is that a bad thing? I would be very happy if they repealed the DEA, and if this site gives them extra support to do that, I'm happy to support the site. Even though technically it might be "theatre", the site still has a use in giving them extra support for repealing those laws.

      I wouldn't want a site where the top ideas automatically get repealed, anyway - direct democracy has it's downsides, as well as the problem that online polls/voting can be very unreliable anyway. But having a site that helps to feed ideas that politicians might not have thought of could be of use.

    21. Re:How will you know? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. I don't see anyone claiming that they'll only repeal what's proposed on this site. They already have a list of candidate laws to repeal. This site is just one additional method for people to feed ideas too.

      And, if current LD coalition behaviour is a model for future LD behaviour, this will become:

      Selectively pick and reinterpret, proposing instead a compromise which no majority wants.

      Untrue. Whilst I accept that some people dislike AV more than FPTP, this is not true for everyone. Even though it doesn't solve the problem of being non-proportional, I would still favour a system that better reflects what people vote for, rather than plurality voting which has many flaws.

      If you think it "will inevitably be voted against in any referendum", then the same would certainly happen with any PR system.

      The fallacy of argument to moderation is a problem in politics, but I don't see any evidence of it being specifically a problem with the Lib Dems, this freedom bill, or this website. The Goverment already repealed ID cards and biometric passports - there was no compromise.

    22. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. I don't see anyone claiming that they'll only repeal what's proposed on this site.

      Which hasn't been claimed by anyone. The site is a symptom: LD is the Party for paying feel-good lip service rather than being clear about what you want and following it through. The language of the manifesto hinted at this.

      If you think it "will inevitably be voted against in any referendum", then the same would certainly happen with any PR system.

      You sure? But more insidious is that "no-one really wants AV" (which is true) will be interpreted as "no-one really wants PR" (which is false).

      The Goverment already repealed ID cards and biometric passports - there was no compromise.

      ID cards: why would you need a compromise? The Tories also wanted to scrap this, along with the National Identity Register.

      Biometric passports: Ties in with data now not collected above - you could collect fingerprints separately, of course, but why would you? The content of passports is really up to America, IOW they set the standard for passports not requiring a visa.

    23. Re:How will you know? by digitig · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Had the Tories formed a minority government, the LD MPs would have had a (more) free vote. As it is, the LDs are reined in by the Clegg-Cameron duet.

      And how long would have a minority government lasted?

      Read again what I said: The only possible advantage of this coalition is a tempering of more extreme Tories, i.e. those who may rock the boat in favour of more extreme Conversativism in the longer term.

      A significant advantage, and the best that could be got under the circumstances.

      Any extreme policies wouldn't have actually got through on a minority government.

      No, they would have had to have waited until the minority government collapsed at which point it was as near to certainty as elections ever are that the Conservatives would have got an absolute majority.

      But what we do have instead is lots of standard issue Conservative policies with no opposition.

      Which is pretty much what the electorate voted for -- the Conservatives did get the largest proportion of the vote. If you don't like it, blame the electorate, not those trying to make the best of it. One doesn't go into an election planning to form an effective opposition, one goes in to form a government. If forming an effective opposition were so important then the Conservative and Labour parties could have stood back and let the LDs form a government. They'd have had a really strong opposition.

      Absolute time spent is the most glaring piece of evidence. I've spent longer helping two dogs negotiate peace.

      Absolute time is a poor indicator. You'd have to have been in the talks to know whether any further progress was possible.

      Assuming that the alternative was forcing another election.

      The options available to the LDs were:

      • Form a coalition and have at least a little influence
      • Form a supply and confidence agreement, leading to an unstable government and an early election
      • Not enter into any agreement, leading to an unstable minority government and an early election

      (Labour blocked the rainbow coalition, so that wasn't an option)

      Assuming that the amount of money spent on another campaign would make the difference.

      Lord Ashcroft seems convinced.

      Assuming that a lower profile LD would result in LD voters flocking to Tories rather than Labour.

      It's unlikely to be a matter of LD voters flocking anywhere, and more lilely to be a matter of turnout. And the general tendency in such circumstances is usually a swing to whatever is least likely to result in another hung parliament, ie, towards whoever got the biggest share of the vote first time around. No, none of it is certain, but the LDs will have been working on the reasonable expectation that failure to form a coalition would have led in short order to a Conservative majority government.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    24. Re:How will you know? by delinear · · Score: 1

      They already know which laws are unpopular, so if they're not going to use the strict measure of that unpopularity to eliminate said laws, why even have the theatre of the site? I agree a site that auto-repealed laws would be silly, but how about they commit to saying if X number of people speak out against a law on the site then they promise to have a referendum on that law, with informed public debate, and then abide by the public's decision. All they've offered is vague posturing, exactly as Labour did before they started ignoring petitions on their website while in power.

    25. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      And how long would have a minority government lasted?

      If you want to say, "And I don't think a minority government would have lasted very long," then say so. What is your evidence that, on this occasion, a minority Tory government would have quickly disappeared? What Tory proposals are so controversial that being 20 seats short of majority and 49 ahead of the closest opposition would have rendered them impotent?

      One doesn't go into an election planning to form an effective opposition, one goes in to form a government.

      Nonsense - many have stood at an election with the purpose of opposing, and it's effective for tempering representatives of the major Parties. But if you're going in to win in a representative democracy then it's proper that you go in to win on your manifesto.

      Absolute time is a poor indicator. You'd have to have been in the talks to know whether any further progress was possible.

      Nonsense - time is always available as a tool in diplomacy. Until time has been exhausted by some set of appropriate measures, further efforts at negotiation are worthwhile.

      And the general tendency in such circumstances

      Since WW2 there has before 2010 been one hung parliament in the UK, the only hung parliament with a political map similar to today's. With 635 seats and 319 (a tiny majority) elected Labour in October 1974 from 301 in February, that's a 2.8% increase for Labour. Guess what a 2.8% increase for the Tories this year wouldn't have done?

      Moreover, in February 1974 there was a difference of only four seats between Labour and Tory, and the ideologies of the Parties were far different vs today. The minority government of 1974 was inevitably unstable. The situation today is simply not comparable.

      tl;dr No.

    26. Re:How will you know? by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      Why don't you link the original document instead of posting an article where someone spouts some unsupported rhetoric?

    27. Re:How will you know? by digitig · · Score: 1

      If you want to say, "And I don't think a minority government would have lasted very long," then say so. What is your evidence that, on this occasion, a minority Tory government would have quickly disappeared?

      What is your evidence that they wouldn't? Those negotiating the coalition had to do so on the best assumptions that they could. If pliticians could predict the future with certainty then their job would be a lot easier (although they'd probably all quit it and start playing the National Lottery instead).

      Absolute time is a poor indicator. You'd have to have been in the talks to know whether any further progress was possible.

      Nonsense - time is always available as a tool in diplomacy. Until time has been exhausted by some set of appropriate measures, further efforts at negotiation are worthwhile.

      I didn't say that time wasn't available, I said that neither of us has any way of knowing whether it would have done any good. There were no external factors that would have strictly exhausted the time available. Had the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats done nothing, Labour would simply have remained in power -- and I'm guessing that it's because that didn't happen that you're upset. In practice, the patience of the markets was a limiting but hard to predict factor; they had to come to a resolution before the uncertainty caused a total collapse of the economy, but they couldn't tell when that was going to happen so they had to play safe.

      Since WW2 there has before 2010 been one hung parliament in the UK

      Since WW2 before 2010 there have been three hung parliaments. If you're going to give public lectures it would be as well to get your facts right.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    28. Re:How will you know? by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      After reading the first document it seems the main problem found in AV is that without constituency changes the Conservatives will find themselves much more poorly represented. I'm not sure if this is a valid argument against AV in the referendum as the Parliamentary Reform Bill "also includes the other coalition measures of reducing and resizing the Westminster parliamentary constituencies".

    29. Re:How will you know? by JabrTheHut · · Score: 1

      More specifically, it's a vector of attack against the Human Rights Act. It allows the Tory faithful to post up the Human Rights act as a law that should be repealed, lots of Tory supporters jump on the website and say they agree, and the 'debate' will be declared over as 'the people' have spoken.

      I don't know what it is about the Human Rights Act that has the Tory party so riled up about it, but to repeal it seems to have been on the Tory agenda for a while. And there's nothing on any website that allows support for any laws - at least not on any government website.

      --
      Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
    30. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      What is your evidence that they wouldn't?

      This is becoming one of those, "You're the one with extraordinary assertions - you provide extraordinary evidence." Main supporting factors include the closeness of the Tory government to majority, their significant lead over the next Party, the ideological similarity of the major Parties, and the agreement on the need to tackle economic issues. Main counterarguments include a single hung parliament in 1974 involving completely different circumstances.

      Had the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats done nothing, Labour would simply have remained in power

      "Done nothing" in the sense of stayed at home in bed or in the sense of trying and failing to come to a coalition agreement? Once the latter had been understood, Brown would probably have given the opportunity for Cameron to form a minority government.

      they had to come to a resolution before the uncertainty caused a total collapse of the economy

      Sorry, that's pathetic. The very idea that "the markets" (i.e. the combination of investors) were going to go on some sort of mission of self-destruction just because it wasn't clear whether Kodos or Kang was going to be sitting in a particular chair in the House of Commons is absurd and without evidence. The same scaremongery was part of the Tory election campaign which also warned against the very backroom deals used to form the current government.

      Since WW2 before 2010 there have been three hung parliaments.

      The relevant context is general elections resulting in hung parliaments (though perhaps I should have made that explicit - sorry). But if you want to add those two examples:

      1. Callaghan formed a pact with the Liberals in early 1977. There was no formal coalition, instead policy delivery in return for support. Despite this, he maintained control until a no-confidence vote (majority of one) forced a general election two years later, only a few months before the five year term limit. To achieve this instability took:
        • The aftershock of the 1974 hung parliament - Labour started off with a majority of three and the Tories had a much closer numbe of seats (see previous post);
        • The not wholly enjoyable Winter of Discontent;
      2. Major's slowly dwindling seats reached minority at the end of '96, near statutory election time and with no sign of disruption to government.

      IOW, one count of government hanging on for years despite a slim to negative majority and the voting public being fairly dissatisfied, with an eventual Parliamentary finger despite a pact. And another count of no-one caring. Both in a political environment with less homogeneity.

      Evidence continues to point to the coalition being unnecessary, the LDs being to the Tories as Britain was to America in Bush's 2003 war, and LD support being being way down low for a long fucking time.

    31. Re:How will you know? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      And there's nothing on any website that allows support for any laws - at least not on any government website.

      Indeed. A working country should be governed first by laws which (i) protect the individual, subordinate to which are laws which (ii) the majority of people support.

      Yet we've reached a stage where even the government wants to consider laws as the enemy of the people, and throwing a bone to the citizen consumer means offering to eliminate (i).

  14. Greens by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1, Redundant

    And thus, clearly demonstrating, the general mindset and intellectual fortitude of those who wildly brandish the new Green technologies.

    It doesn't matter if carbon offset credits are a Ponzi scheme, that alternative fuels and their vehicles are more ecologically destructive than similarly purposed traditional ICE vehicles, that there are no large-scale deployment ready technologies to augment the power grid. As long as we're passing laws which have a Green statement or impose some draconian restrictions on the status quo, we're going in the right direction!

    Or, in this case, passing laws repealing the laws of physics. Awesome, just awesome.

    At this rate, I have little hope for the West surviving another generation. Either we'll move towards a totalitarian regime with the scientists and politicians dictating to the rest of us, or we'll just completely devolve into civil war (shortly before the anarchy, but possibly not before being overrun from the outside).

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:Greens by igb · · Score: 4, Informative

      And they that sarcasm doesn't travel well.

      In case it wasn't entirely obvious, these are jokes. The whole process is a farce, so people are making jokes. I know, I know, I shouldn't have to say.

    2. Re:Greens by cwnannwn · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, it's all fun and games until someone in the legislature thinks that it actually IS a good idea. :)

  15. Looking for a genius or an Ig? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Funny

    When you are caught break a regular law (speeding, larceny, etc.), you can expect to be punished with a fine or worse.

    If you manage to break any of the Laws of Thermodynamics, you can expect to be lauded, copied, co-author a stream of high-impact papers, get offered some cushy sinecures, and eventually receive a Nobel prize.

    The far likelier outcome, of course, is to be given an Ignobel prize, for a fruitless and ill-conceived waste of effort. I suspect the UK government can look forward to at least an honorable mention at the next Ig award ceremonies.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Looking for a genius or an Ig? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      "Lisa! In this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:Looking for a genius or an Ig? by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      If you manage to break any of the Laws of Thermodynamics, you can expect to be lauded, copied, co-author a stream of high-impact papers, get offered some cushy sinecures, and eventually receive a Nobel prize.

      ...which may be some consolation as your body tempreature spontaneously drops to 100 degrees below absolute zero...

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    3. Re:Looking for a genius or an Ig? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      When you are caught break a regular law (speeding, larceny, etc.), you can expect to be punished with a fine or worse.

      Over here, you get a citation for speeding (bad thing), and a citation for catching a large fish (a good thing). Confusing! What if you catch a large fish while speeding? Do the citations offset like in American football?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  16. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    the new Tory UK government has

    It's not a Tory government, it's a coalition government.

  17. Another one: Repeal the British North America Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/repeal-the-british-north-america-act-1867

  18. Just trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a joke, amazed that you guys think these submissions are from idiots that believe this is possible. It's a British site, we enjoy taking the piss out of government crap.

    1. Re:Just trolls by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly. We don't believe for a minute they're going to repeal any laws worth repealing so let's just mock them.

      For more examples see the petitions site: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Just trolls by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      You never know, given that the LibDems say they were against the Digital Economy Bill then we might end up with them at least repealing the Act that it turned into as a "look, we're doing something" action. It'd be better than nothing.

  19. what about... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...rule 34?
    is it a law?

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  20. How is this news? by deblau · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean really, it's not even tagged "Funny". Probably because people trolling what appears to be a legitimate attempt by an oppressive government to actually be, you know, less oppressive, really isn't funny to begin with.

    Same goes for the previous "story", whose title is not just grossly misleading, but plain wrong. Curiously, these two stories have the same editor. And yes, I'm willing to risk my karma to point this out.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    1. Re:How is this news? by mike2R · · Score: 1

      Probably because people trolling what appears to be a legitimate attempt by an oppressive government to actually be, you know, less oppressive, really isn't funny to begin with.

      That's cute. My own interpretation would be: attempt to grab a few headlines and sound like we're listening while continuing to do what we would have done anyway. We've had this kind of shit for 13 years (No 10 petitions anyone?) and if the new government seriously thinks people are going to fall for it just because it's a different party doing it, they deserve to have people taking the piss.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    2. Re:How is this news? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Has anyone ever lost karma for pointing out that kdawson is a bit of an idiot?

    3. Re:How is this news? by delinear · · Score: 1

      There's a long history of oppressive regimes pretending to be listening to the will of the people. This is just more of the same (and as you point out, there's even already a precedent in the UK of a site purporting to allow people to talk directly to the government which then just gets ignored).

  21. Thermodynamics - Glasgow Style by Grumpinuts · · Score: 1

    Regardless of whether the laws of thermodynamics are repealed in the UK, here in Glasgow they will always be respected. See below for an example of how schools in Glasgow teach the subject.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaeLh-h94P0

  22. Reduce disorder by repealing third law... by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    ... politicians had it wrong, reduce law to increase order.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  23. The showed this in Scotland by ed · · Score: 1

    The LDs supported Labour in the Scottish parliament and abandonded most of their principles to do so.

    THey didn't support the SNP because the SNP want a referendum on Independence, despite havign this principle of referenda and indeed havign a history of Home Rule

    IT is what they do

  24. Skateboarding 101 and thermodynamics by atol · · Score: 1

    According to the laws of thermodynamics what is the force that lifts the skateboard into ollie turn? Standing on top of a skateboard and magically it gets lifted from the ground? You been living in a dream world Neo...

  25. Re:Use it to repeal by duguk · · Score: 1

    Probably like everyone else on the site, you didn't bother to look and see the other FIFTY SIX requests for the same thing.

    That's why this site is failing. There's no duplication checks, and each request is specific. I'd have thought a better way is to be able to submit a request, and have others submit 'parts' to that act, which visitors can agree on a one-by-one basis. Still make it open, but better moderated. Now where do I know a decent moderation system?

  26. I found something else by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

    We discussed chemtrails before here. Looks like somebody was ANNOYED: http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/remove-the-chem-trails-over-our-skies

    People sure are idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (is what he/she would say)

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  27. In Soviet Russia... by ivucica · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes, but in Soviet Russia, humans rise against the ROBOTS!

  28. The most worrying thing ... by asc99c · · Score: 1

    The most worrying thing is that I wouldn't put it past the government to pass a law repealing the third law of thermodynamics!

    I was quite impressed with the Monster Raving Loony party's campaign this year. Introduction of a 99p coin to save on change was genius, but this definitely tops it.

  29. Tory government? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Is it that hard yanks to get your head around the idea of a coalition government? For two parties to work together?

    The new UK government is a coalition between the Tories and Liberals. And they should rule the country for the next 5 months... This has been extended from the original estimate of 5 weeks.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  30. Damnit people... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    This is why we can't have nice things.

  31. Re:Tories 306, Lib Dems 57 seats. by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    - Do nothing ensuring status quo and absolutely no chance to get voting system changed, guaranteeing a government that could get nothing done during one of the worst economic crisis in living memory.

    You are spouting Tory election scaremongering rhetoric.

    (1) What do you mean "status quo"? The Tories would have formed a minority government;

    (2) We're already not getting PR, so we've gone from absolutely no chance to absolutely no chance. AV is as bad as or worse than FPTP;

    (3) There have been several Lib-Lab pacts through the last century, some fairly stable, showing that it's quite possible to cooperate without forming a coalition. Regardless:
      (a) Opposition's purpose isn't to just vote against any proposal to be awkward;
      (b) The Tories were only a few seats short of a majority and the Commons isn't full of ideologically opposing MPs in an approximately equal number (as it was in 1974). Support will flow naturally.

    And finally:

    (4) The economic problem has been developing into an economic crisis over the past few years. We didn't just go from joy and surplus to a huge debt overnight. The Tories and LDs had the chance to raise hell over increasing debt at any moment over the past half decade but chose not to. Why do you think this is?

    The only genius in this is Cameron, although self-interested Clegg made his job quite simple.

  32. Subjects of citizens by bobvious · · Score: 1

    Looking at the OP, I wonder do the UK folk consider themselves "subjects" or "citizens"? I never really paid attention until I read http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/03/1935215/Spectral-Imaging-Reveals-Jefferson-Nixed-Subjects-for-Citizens