Slashdot Mirror


London Hacked Its Own Traffic Lights To Make Sure It Got the Olympics

bmsleight writes "Does it count as a hack if you change your own system? Vanity Fair report that during the bidding process for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the London Streets Traffic Control Center followed each vehicle using CCTV, 'and when they came up to traffic lights,' [bid committee CEO Keith] Mills said, 'we turned them green.'"

60 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Reminds me of the Italian Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...except without all the crashes and explosions and mini-coopers with gold bricks in them.

    1. Re:Reminds me of the Italian Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They are talking about the "bidding process". What makes you think there where no mini-coopers with gold bricks involved?

      But personally, i'd prefer a mini-cooper with a Charlise over the gold bricks anyway...

    2. Re:Reminds me of the Italian Job by bmsleight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (Article Submitter)
      The person who wrote the first Italian Job got the idea from London's first traffic control system.

    3. Re:Reminds me of the Italian Job by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The first traffic lights in the world were on Downing St. They were gas powered and later exploded, killing a police officer.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    4. Re:Reminds me of the Italian Job by bmsleight · · Score: 2

      But the _Houses_Of_Parliament_ signals were stand alone. Just working at that junction.

      The first traffic control system - were the signal were co-ordinated in London was ~1960s

    5. Re:Reminds me of the Italian Job by lucm · · Score: 2

      But personally, i'd prefer a mini-cooper with a Charlise over the gold bricks anyway...

      What if someone had made this choice 50 years ago?

      1. Looks of a female star
      2. Price of Gold
      --
      lucm, indeed.
  2. standard operating procedure by Swampash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every Olympic bid since Sydney's bid for the 2000 games has done the same. This isn't anything new.

    1. Re:standard operating procedure by dissy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Standard procedure is to close down the roads and block off the intersections, so it doesn't matter if the lights are green or not since the convoy will be the only ones on that road.

      After the mess that makes out of traffic changing the traffic lights for the few minutes needed is only a minor disrupt to traffic, no more than if an ambulance or police vehicle had their lights/siren running and needed to run light.

      This seems like the least annoying method compared to ones used in the past.

  3. Good reason not to go there... by santax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last thing any sane person would want is being constantly followed. Now we know the Brits are willing to do this if they think they can get something out of it. So far for privacy. Oh and next time you're in the car with your pregnant wife trying to get to an hospital but can't because the lights are red... Well, the police chief is probably on his way home and needed the lights to be green...

    1. Re:Good reason not to go there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Brits? As in we, the people? Do you honestly think we asked to be spied upon? Protip: Nobody here really gives a crap about the Olympic games. It's been made a mockery of all over the media for wasting public money and for the fact that we're hosting the events and nobody actually knows anybody else that's allowed to go. It's going to cause mass disruption to the transport systems for millions of commuters, not to mention the mess the visitors themselves are going to make, and it's also predicited that the majority of new buildings and structures being created for this joke of an event will go to waste as soon as it's over.

      So I ask you again... do you truly believe that the British public volunteered to be spied on, just to increase the odds of having this happen to them? If you're talking specifically about the government, please say so, but I can guarantee ours isn't that much different to anyone elses.

    2. Re:Good reason not to go there... by santax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neh you are right, it's just that we are being told by our personal overlords "yes but in the UK they also have cctv and it's working great". But in no way did I mean the average Brit. I like those!

    3. Re:Good reason not to go there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, You're confusing the UK for the EU, please list one thing the EU has done that smacks of big brother, and no the EU data retention directive doesn't count (Tony BLiar was responsible for that one!) They have rejected ACTA too! The very law that your dumbass president signed! go figure!

    4. Re:Good reason not to go there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're going to do this again?

      I've been lucky enough to do a fair amount of traveling, to nations wealthy and poor. I've sat through little chats with foreign ambassadors, members of parliament, UN representatives, and local political leaders on a few continents (no, I'm nobody special). I've lived with families in four countries with dramatically different ways of life, sleeping in their homes, eating breakfast with them, going grocery shopping, playing soccer, taking the goats out or hanging laundry in old soviet apartment housing... whatever.

      But if my fortunate little opportunities taught me only one thing, it's that we're all only human. And by extension, that there's a strikingly even distribution of clever people and total herp-derp, everywhere.* Also that it's strangely comforting to know that, for all the differences we celebrate or fight over, everyone has a neighbor that's a jackass.

      * It's worth admitting that none of those countries were tied up in violent civil war, open slave trade, eugenics, etc. while I was there. I'm sure that'd change my opinion of humankind for the worse.

    5. Re:Good reason not to go there... by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

      Americans that never venture out of America tend to think a free national health service is a terrible thought. Americans that actually come and live in Britain tend to realise quite quickly how good it is and come to love the NHS like the natives do.

      It's the difference between ignorant and worldly wise.

    6. Re:Good reason not to go there... by bluemonq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, you mean British citizens also don't want to be held accountable for their government's actions, just like American citizens? Who knew?

    7. Re:Good reason not to go there... by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's certainly not ethical, and could be argued as fraud since you're not demonstrating the normal operation of the traffic grid.

      Given the amount of special treatment they've given to Olympic transport (e.g. their own special lanes), this was probably quite representative of what they could expect. Frankly, when they found out the car they were being driven around in wasn't made by one of the officially-permitted Olympic sponsors, the guide probably agreed to have it set on fire and a new £250,000 replacement delivered from the nearest appropriate dealership pronto.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    8. Re:Good reason not to go there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Increasingly, it's the difference actually getting proper healthcare and dying because you can't afford the treatment or preventative care you need.

    9. Re:Good reason not to go there... by bky1701 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're your government, they're your responsibility. Sorry, but those are the breaks. Don't like being embarrassed internationally? Stand up for your's and others' rights. I wish Americans would learn this lesson, but at least we're not as bad as TFA yet....

    10. Re:Good reason not to go there... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Brits? As in we, the people? Do you honestly think we asked to be spied upon?

      Yes, you did it just as we in the USA asked for the TSA... we did nothing when they foist it upon us. We didn't even fucking stop flying, let alone holding some kind of protest. You and we both deserve what we've got in the sense that we have more to do to prevent it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Good reason not to go there... by dbcad7 · · Score: 2

      Its flat out a campaign of misinformation and fear.. The buzz words are "Socialism" which is supposed to be synonymous with "Communism".. Then the efforts at any reform to get costs under control, which actually involves some mandated Capitalism, they still say it's Communism.. The percentage of people who don't actually know what those words mean (along with Fascism and propaganda) must be extremely high.. all they know, is it's bad and if the talk show host of the moment happens to call something one of the buzz words, then it must also be bad.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    12. Re:Good reason not to go there... by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you'll be rejecting any help from the nanny state fire service if your house is burning down. And the nanny state police if you're a victim of crime. After all you're a self reliant human being.

      No, I didn't think so.

      That's right, there is NO difference between providing these 3 public services as state services or private services. Yet you accept two of them and call the third names.

    13. Re:Good reason not to go there... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Americans that never venture out of America tend to think a free national health service is a terrible thought. [...]

      It's the difference between ignorant and worldly wise.

      Calling it a free health care system is ignorant. Those who are worldly wise would call it government-required health insurance funded by taxes.

      I don't really care where people stand on the health care debate. I can see either private or public systems working to a certain extent. But characterizing government-sponsored health care as "free" is self-delusional best case, deliberately deceptive worst-case. It's not free. If you think it is, you're ignorant of how you're paying for it.

    14. Re:Good reason not to go there... by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      In Auckland, New Zealand, the reason your light is red is because there's a late bus coming in the other direction - our buses are GPS equipped and if one is running behind schedule and is approaching a traffic light, the system will either short-phase the other directions to fast-track a green light for it, or hold a green light past the end of a phase for it. Funnily enough, emergency services vehicles do not trip the lights.

      Then again, if you speed enough to attract the attention of a police officer while running a pregnant person to the hospital, you'll end up with a police escort.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    15. Re:Good reason not to go there... by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since we're on Slashdot, and aware that there isn't just one definition of free, lets start with:

      It's free as in beer.

      Somebody is playing for it. Probably some person(s) or company that can easily afford it has paid for it. Maybe in the bigger scheme of things you might have put in a contribution. But at the time you draw the draft of frothy ale, no one is asking you for change. If you don't have your wallet with you, you still get the beer. If you're too poor to afford it, you still get the beer. Everyone gets beer.

      Of course with beer that's a trivial thing. And you might argue that not everyone deserves it.

      But everyone does deserve to be treated if they are seriously ill or have had an accident. It's an uncivilised country which if affluent, yet doesn't give proper medical treatment to the poor. It's an uncivilized country if you can lose your right to be treated if you lose your job.

      But free as in beer is not what we call it. It's "healthcare free at the point of delivery". And it's the sign of more civilized country.

      And what does it cost Americans for their uncivilized approach to healthcare. They pay 2.5 times as much per capita as Britains do. And it's still doesn't treat everyone. It's an uncivilized AND more expensive system. How dumb is that?

    16. Re:Good reason not to go there... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      So your real name is drinkypoo? Not logging in means his beliefs aren't sincere or that he worries about hurting his rep on Slashdot? Really? Drinkypoo?

      drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com>

      reading you fail it

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Good reason not to go there... by squizzar · · Score: 2

      So... get BUPA or some other private health care insurance. No-one will stop you. But imagine for a second you didn't have the cash: In the US you're out on your ear (until the infection becomes life threatening I presume and then requires expensive emergency treatment rather than a cheaper preventative treatment - but hey if you run a business that's the kind of work you want right), in the UK you'd have to sit and wait a bit - the horror! It's a good thing we love a good queue. I guess that in your fully private healthcare in the good old USofA there are never queues/waiting/lists etc. for medical treatment?

      Also, many people waiting may have been there early for a fixed appointment, waiting for test results, waiting for friends/relatives, waiting for a particular doctor/specialist. I've also been treated within 5 minutes of showing up whilst no-one else seems to have moved, and I didn't have to get my wallet out.

    18. Re:Good reason not to go there... by deadweight · · Score: 2

      In the USA, DMV = Department of Motor Vehicles and in most areas the DMV is famously the dumping ground for all the local government employees that hate their jobs and hate their customers. "DMV" or "MVA - motor vehicle administration" is a code word for endless lines, long waits, filling out forms, and slow moving rude employees.

  4. Using CCTV by BeerCat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    using CCTV to change traffic lights (apart from showing just how widespread the coverage in London is) is almost minor compared to some of the other bid stunts - they took the motorcade through the (at that time, not yet opened) railway tunnels from St Pancras to Stratford, as if to demonstrate how easy it was to get to the Olympic site - provided you didn't see any of that "get in the way" stuff. Like the city...

    --
    "She's furniture with a pulse"
    1. Re:Using CCTV by asdf7890 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The bit that gets me riled is that to even be permitted to bid we had to create legislation protecting the commercial interests of the little jamboree we are funding this year.

      Since I learned that I went from keeping my disinterest to myself and just not paying any attention to the proceedings to actively telling people that fact (people tend to either be shocked or simply refuse to believe it) and making sure I know who the sponsors are (aside from us tax payers that it) so when I have a choice between two products I pick the one that isn't involved in the thing.

      (Petty, yes, but in the absence of decent victories to speak of I enjoy my petty little stabs.)

    2. Re:Using CCTV by BeerCat · · Score: 2

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/photo_galleries/4252721.stm

      Olympics 2012 bid: London visit

      Picture 5:
      http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40841000/jpg/_40841379_oly_tunnell300.jpg

      Day two: The team pass through the tunnel that will link Kings Cross and Stratford when the Channel Tunnel link is complete

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    3. Re:Using CCTV by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      New Zealand had to do the same for the Rugby World Cup, and by comparison to the Olympics it's a bake sale. Basically we included laws on the books preventing ticket scalping (but only for major international events - nothing local), preventing the use of even non-trademarked phrases which might be potentially interpreted as endorsement (such as the word "Rugby") in advertising, preventing any local businesses advertising anywhere near the stadiums hosting it (even sausage sizzles by scout groups could have gotten a $10K fine) and all sorts of other scummy stuff that protects noone except the big international event. It was so bad that even sponsors of the teams weren't allowed to have their logos on the team jerseys because it would compete with the event sponsors advertising.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  5. It's not "hacking". by Alex+Belits · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's "Potemkin village".

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  6. Still better than by Hentes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    closing down the whole street for the convoy.

  7. Congestion nightmare without hacking it? by ehiris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It was really difficult to find which cars they allowed through in Vanity Fair for those who don't feel like reading the rest of the article about the most boring subjects on the planet: olympic sports, and London

    "Near the end of the application process, an I.O.C. evaluation committee was permitted to visit London. Bid-committee officials knew that London’s transportation system was a weak spot on the city’s application. “Our nightmare was it would take forever to get to the venues,” Mills recalled. A bid-committee team planned the routes that I.O.C. members would travel around the city, and G.P.S. transmitters were planted in all of the I.O.C. members’ vehicles so they could be tracked. From the London Traffic Control Center, near Victoria Station, where hundreds of monitors display live feeds from London’s comprehensive CCTV surveillance system, each vehicle was followed, from camera to camera, “and when they came up to traffic lights,” Mills said, “we turned them green.”

    1. Re:Congestion nightmare without hacking it? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pick one.

      A. During the Olympics, traffic will be a nightmare
      B. During the Olympics, all traffic lights will be green
      C. Both A and B

    2. Re:Congestion nightmare without hacking it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      D. The Olympics is a nightmare.

      It starts soon after your city has won their bid to host. It sucks the soul out of local culture, as all sponsors start saving up for the event. It makes people super greedy as they think everybody will become mega-rich off the Olympics. It sucks the money out of the city and the country to put into "security..." And after the event, you keep on paying for all those new venues that have little use outside the Olympics, for many many years until they fall apart from disuse.

      If your city wins the bid to host the Olympics, my advice: Move Out.

    3. Re:Congestion nightmare without hacking it? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's...

      D. Traffic for Londoners and visitors will be a nightmare. But olympic athletes, officials and VIPS have designated lanes all over London that will be kept free for them to get around quickly.

      Fines for using these lanes without a permit are £200. Even for cyclists - which will be interesting, as London cyclists mostly disregard traffic laws and ordinarily are not dealt with.

    4. Re:Congestion nightmare without hacking it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Traffic for Londoners and visitors will be a nightmare

      It already is. Last week Tuesday, the A406 was closed for 24 hours because of an accident. This happened very close to the Olympic park. The emergency services have no plan at all for handling traffic accidents which are absolutely certain to happen, however, they have Rapier missiles (what could possibly go wrong?) in case of terrorist attacks! and sonic cannons in case of Somali Pirates (we have a few rivers, and quite a lot of Somali run Internet cafes in East London, so it is not impossible one of them may launch a ship-born act of piracy on the Olympics, but I think the take-away food is probably a bigger risk.

  8. Can you imagine the marketing possibilities? by cellurl · · Score: 2

    Nevada is mulling the concept of paying to drive over the limit.
    While I think thats immoral, I can see legislators drooling over the possibility of allowing drivers to pay to get more green lights.

    I am not surprised that London had to resort to CCTV to achieve that. (The movie Brazil comes to mind).

    Help eliminate speeding tickets

    1. Re:Can you imagine the marketing possibilities? by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can already pay to drive over the limit, it's called a fine :)

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

  9. All's fair by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I consider this fair play.

    fact, this is one of the capabilities that the Olympic Committee should specifically look for. The ability of a city to dynamically change its traffic lights and alter traffic flow to deal with a special situation is an important one in a city hosting an major event like this. It means that if they manage it properly, they can reduce congestion around the site, get atheletes and fans in and out quicker and have a better chance of having everything go on schedule. It's also a safety issue. If there are emergencies (and there always are when you have that many people in one place) you can get emergency vehicles in and out quickly.

    London can probably do this better than most cities in the world because of its Big Brother system of pervasive security cameras. The cameras can be used for good, too, if they use them to reduce traffic congestion, detect that the crowd is starting to leave the event so they can begin adapting the traffic flow before people even leave the parking lot, etc.

    1. Re:All's fair by The+Raven · · Score: 2

      This is only true if they have a system to make systemic alterations like this easy. If it takes a man on the control of every traffic light, it won't work... and from TFA, this was a completely manual and centralized to one person task, so it demonstrates no ability to scale up to managing the lights for the whole city.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
  10. Olympics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cancel it, it sucks.

  11. Good Grief Charlie Brown by stomv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. Giving IOC Observers the lights didn't "Make Sure" that London got the Olympics. A major overstatement to be sure.
    2. While London may have used CCTV, it surely wasn't necessary. A few motorcyclists or taxi drivers with mobile phones and headsets could have just as easily kept tabs on the IOC Observers [so could GPS, though perhaps not as accurately as humans].
    3. The idea of prioritizing traffic in a network should not be novel to /.ers. Not only do we do it with packets, we already to it on roads. Vehicles with sirens and lights have first priority, and at least in tUSA we give funeral parades second priority. Third priority goes to buses which have TSP [traffic signal prioritization] systems, thereby holding a light green or turning it green when a bus approaches. Last priority: us regular users. Giving a higher priority to IOC Observers might not be a great use of taxpayer dollars or appropriate for fairness, but that's a local political decision and certainly not a novel application of technology.

    But hey, the story involves CCTV, traffic lights, and sports which don't always involve a ball or a puck. Perfect fodder for a silly /. article.

  12. It's not hacking... by mschaffer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not hacking...it's optimization.

  13. The Zil Lanes are a repression too far by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Informative

    250 miles of (arguably) the most congested roads in the world being zoned off for use of executives of BMW and McDonalds could finally trigger mass civil disobedience on a scale that's simply too big to suppress. CCTV might ensure that all 'crimes' are detected, but whether they can be punished is another question.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  14. Emergencies and little people by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The little people get to wait for the important people -- like the Olympic committee, or in the future perhaps anyone with enough money -- when the city changes its traffic patterns for them. After all, it is not really equality if the important people have to wait for red lights just like everyone else, right?

    As for emergency vehicles, I live in a small city right now that manages to give them green lights without a special CCTV system. Each traffic light has a sensor that detects sirens/flashers and changes the light appropriately; it may sound surprising, but this is actually a reliable, well-engineered system.

    We have big events here too -- the college football team's games draw big crowds from neighboring towns. CCTV is not needed for that either; police can simply disable traffic lights at appropriate locations and direct traffic as needed. Perhaps this is more than London could be expected to do, given how large of a city they are, but somehow I doubt it -- they have a much larger police force than we have.

    Really, the benefit of the CCTV system for traffic control is overstated here. What London is really showing the world is that when important people are in their city, they can give those people priority as if they were an emergency vehicle, and they can do so discretely. People might complain if police officers started waving through businessmen and politicians, but nobody can complain about the light changing, and there is no need for rich people to attach flashers to their cars.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Emergencies and little people by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      As for emergency vehicles, I live in a small city right now that manages to give them green lights without a special CCTV system. Each traffic light has a sensor that detects sirens/flashers and changes the light appropriately; it may sound surprising, but this is actually a reliable, well-engineered system.

      Man, I love those. I miss them terribly. We used to have them in Santa Cruz, but they took them out because we all figured out you can trigger them with your brights, especially if your headlights are misadjusted.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. Like China by arcite · · Score: 2

    Putting thousands of factories off line to turn the sky back to blue. Talk about false advertising!

  16. Were they driving BMWs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They must have been driving BMWs, they always have green lights - or their driver behaves like they had.

  17. Re:On the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sources that aren't fox news made Obama into their candidate. Why would they report that?

  18. Nice to know by koan · · Score: 2

    A: Traffic system can be hacked (from inside but these days how hard could it be?)
    B: CCTV can be used to track cars and most likely people
    C: CCTV solves and/or prevents almost 0 crime (See Wiki)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television
    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/united-kingdom/090328/living-under-the-cctv-gaze

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  19. Re:On the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So? Its a simple fact that politics across the globe is so fucked up that you can't get anywhere without being corrupt and in the pocket of some well funded group.
    Every person who takes that office will end up screwing you so pointing out "look hes the same as everyone else" is just a waste of time. Why blame the pieces when the rules of the game are broken?

  20. Re:Scary by asdf7890 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Changing traffic lights is small fry. To even be permitted bid, potential host countries must enact laws to protect the commercial interests of the Olympics. I find it quite distasteful that we are paying billions (which could be much better used, especially in the current economic climate) to host their little jamboree and we bent over the barrel and let us dictate tweaks to part of our legal system.

    Big companies like Apple and Google can do similar things of course: governments all over the world tweak employment and tax policies in order to make themselves more attractive ares to invest in, but the difference there is that (IMO at least) the benefits (employment and commercial investment momentum) are likely to hang around for a far longer term.

  21. Hacking? by geogob · · Score: 2

    That word definitely lost all its meaning... since when does manually intervening in an automated process (and that through interfaces there by design for this purpose) can be thought of as "hacking". From all editors in the world, those on Slashdot should know better.

    The goal of this action has nothing to do with whether you can call it hacking or not. In this case, I believe "fraud" would be more appropriate. This is a textbook case of it.

    1. Re:Hacking? by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      Apparently a lot of people have forgotten every other definition of hack besides the most popular one? "In modern computing terminology, a kludge (or often a 'hack') is a solution to a problem, doing a task, or fixing a system that is inefficient, inelegant, or even unfathomable, but which nevertheless (more or less) works."

      What they did most definitely qualifies as a hack. It's an awkward short term solution to a very particular and non-standard problem. I'm not saying it's not _also_ fraud, but it's definitely a hack.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  22. Olympics games are dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Samaranch killed them. Please shut them down for good.
    The IOC and their behaviour are disgusting and should be illegal. (no taxes, influencing and hampering the national sovereignty, monopoly, frivolous law suits, bribery, etc, etc, etc.)

    I hate the "new" IOC (post-Samaranch) and the stupid olympic games. It is completely contrary to the original olympic idea.

  23. Re:On the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because emphasizing specific individual pieces allows one to feel like the flaw doesn't go down to the core of the system. They can then feel better about interacting with it; they feel their participation is worthwhile. They feel like they have some control. It is an emotional defense of sorts.

  24. It's Hackling by ze_jua · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of my favourite definitions of hacking : Using things in a unique way outside their intended purpose is often perceived as having hack value. (It's not me who posted this on WP).

    They did is a hack with their CCTV+green-lights.

  25. At least the Olympics worked by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and some of those silly Americans want Mitt to be President

    I don't particularly want Mitt to be president.

    I just want they guy who took a ton of money from BP and Goldman Sachs to NOT be president.

    Did Mitt bribe anyone to get the olympics? Possibly. But child's play next to the things Obama has done with funds going to "green" energy companies run by large Democratc donors that were doomed to go bankrupt in the end... not to mention Obama using all our money now and in the future to bail out his pals at Goldman.

    You may complain about Mitt's naive political corruption, but you are ignoring the elephant sitting on your face to do so - forgive us if your complaints seem a bit muffled.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley