I follow British-American news. Under normal circumstances, it's illegal for the British media to report on stings-in-progress. Left to themselves, most of the British police would've continued to infiltrate terrorist groups (real or otherwise), gather evidence, arrest suspects and so on, not letting the papers know until it was finished. They'd just let this be another of the umpteen plots the UK gov. claims to be working on but won't discuss.
There was one publicity-seeking cop. He leaked this to an American paper. Since this was obviously of interest to Americans (it was a London-to-NY flight), the American press ran the story. It was over a day between when the American press broke the story and when the British press admitted it.
Yes, someone was going after PR. But we don't know that this leak was the UK government's idea. I personally doubt it: the UK government proudly claims to have foiled hundreds of plots that they refuse to detail, inc. one that they say happened before 9/11. This could've been just one more, and it would've worked for them--just not for America.
"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable."--1 Corinthians 6:12
Supposing you're right, and we humans can eat any livng creature--except other humans, of course. (We're creatures, too--just not the same sort of creature--and yet I'm sure the Bible is against cannibalism.)
Anyway, you still don't want to chow down on, say, a cane toad; that would make for severe indigestion. And if you like eating white dolphins, you probably shouldn't eat the very last two. It's not like humans can create life ex nihilo yet.
Even before 9/11, flying was a headache. Even before 9/11, there was a TSA worried about bombs. They're just a thousand times more worried now.
Proposition: never take an airplane if you can drive to where you want to go in less than 12 hours. Any time a plane would save in the air will be lost waiting in the lobby.
No. There are rabbit-ears for digital signals. I've seen digital TV over public airwaves. It has good picture quality, and I like some of the new (sub)channels.
How could the FCC not want to regulate that?
When you speak of "the set of cirumstances where a blind person shopping could result in someone getting seriously injured," are you remembering to include the blind person's traversing the store's busy parking lot?
I know, you meant someone other than the blind person...
The Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't stop at rational opportunities. I wouldn't be surprised if there were deaf people working emergency-911 lines somewhere in America, reading the computer screens to find out exactly why they are being called. Or they're running the 911 teletype. Someone has to.
This law for blind hunters does unnerve me. But every American does have the "right to shoot stuff"--that's the 2nd Amendment. Add the ADA to the 2nd Amendment, and you probably should get blind hunters--whether you want blind hunters or not.
Almost all urban American viewers can get cable. Many rural American viewers can't because no one provides cable there. (It's like DSL.) The choices for rural American viewers without cable are satellite--which requires a clear southern view--or a strong antenna.
The government might as well make the over-the-air frequencies suit the people who have little choice but to use OTA frequencies.
Thanks for the explanation. Cheaper to make, more expensive to buy: I do understand that business model. (I don't always approve, but I do understand.)
You make good points...
I will add that for some stories--mostly celeb fluff, or so I hope (I read more than my share)--AP and Reuters use stock photos that are years old, even when the story itself is current.
[sigh]
Please forgive me. I cannot be reading this right.
Wireless is priced higher, but it is cheaper?
I am imagining expensive wireless items that, because they are cheap, promptly self-destruct...
I imagine that the FCC will work on cleaning the wi-fi and CB frequencies sometime after they've gotten rid of all the analog TV signals and determined when racy content can air on TV. TV networks, radio stations, and cellphone companies first--right?
Yeah. I think Macca would like to have his songs "back" that way. As a human being, he might secretly be for this. Unfortunately, he has strong ties with a corporation. I doubt the UK will pass a law shortening all copyrights except ones held by "McCartney Publications Limited Communications." (Though you never know.)
Slashdot Mirror
I follow British-American news. Under normal circumstances, it's illegal for the British media to report on stings-in-progress. Left to themselves, most of the British police would've continued to infiltrate terrorist groups (real or otherwise), gather evidence, arrest suspects and so on, not letting the papers know until it was finished. They'd just let this be another of the umpteen plots the UK gov. claims to be working on but won't discuss.
There was one publicity-seeking cop. He leaked this to an American paper. Since this was obviously of interest to Americans (it was a London-to-NY flight), the American press ran the story. It was over a day between when the American press broke the story and when the British press admitted it.
Yes, someone was going after PR. But we don't know that this leak was the UK government's idea. I personally doubt it: the UK government proudly claims to have foiled hundreds of plots that they refuse to detail, inc. one that they say happened before 9/11. This could've been just one more, and it would've worked for them--just not for America.
Did they have to use motorboats?
"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable."--1 Corinthians 6:12
Supposing you're right, and we humans can eat any livng creature--except other humans, of course. (We're creatures, too--just not the same sort of creature--and yet I'm sure the Bible is against cannibalism.)
Anyway, you still don't want to chow down on, say, a cane toad; that would make for severe indigestion. And if you like eating white dolphins, you probably shouldn't eat the very last two. It's not like humans can create life ex nihilo yet.
It's "worth a bit of naval gazing?" (Emphasis mine.)
Well, since one reason these dolphins died out was Chinese shipping through their river...
Even before 9/11, flying was a headache. Even before 9/11, there was a TSA worried about bombs. They're just a thousand times more worried now.
Proposition: never take an airplane if you can drive to where you want to go in less than 12 hours. Any time a plane would save in the air will be lost waiting in the lobby.
The Beatles were unable to read music. Does that mean they weren't skilled musicians?
Using your definitions, I'll take talented over skilled any day.
No. There are rabbit-ears for digital signals. I've seen digital TV over public airwaves. It has good picture quality, and I like some of the new (sub)channels.
How could the FCC not want to regulate that?
They can't. Yoko Ono already used the "just write the ideas down on paper" idea. (Remember Grapefruit?)
When you speak of "the set of cirumstances where a blind person shopping could result in someone getting seriously injured," are you remembering to include the blind person's traversing the store's busy parking lot?
I know, you meant someone other than the blind person...
The Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't stop at rational opportunities. I wouldn't be surprised if there were deaf people working emergency-911 lines somewhere in America, reading the computer screens to find out exactly why they are being called. Or they're running the 911 teletype. Someone has to.
This law for blind hunters does unnerve me. But every American does have the "right to shoot stuff"--that's the 2nd Amendment. Add the ADA to the 2nd Amendment, and you probably should get blind hunters--whether you want blind hunters or not.
Almost all urban American viewers can get cable. Many rural American viewers can't because no one provides cable there. (It's like DSL.) The choices for rural American viewers without cable are satellite--which requires a clear southern view--or a strong antenna.
The government might as well make the over-the-air frequencies suit the people who have little choice but to use OTA frequencies.
Thanks for the explanation. Cheaper to make, more expensive to buy: I do understand that business model. (I don't always approve, but I do understand.)
You make good points...
I will add that for some stories--mostly celeb fluff, or so I hope (I read more than my share)--AP and Reuters use stock photos that are years old, even when the story itself is current.
[sigh]
Please forgive me. I cannot be reading this right.
Wireless is priced higher, but it is cheaper? I am imagining expensive wireless items that, because they are cheap, promptly self-destruct...
I imagine that the FCC will work on cleaning the wi-fi and CB frequencies sometime after they've gotten rid of all the analog TV signals and determined when racy content can air on TV. TV networks, radio stations, and cellphone companies first--right?
I don't think there's a problem with your having Abbey Road on your computer. But if you decide to borrow and install Band on the Run, do it quietly!
Yeah. I think Macca would like to have his songs "back" that way. As a human being, he might secretly be for this.
Unfortunately, he has strong ties with a corporation. I doubt the UK will pass a law shortening all copyrights except ones held by "McCartney Publications Limited Communications." (Though you never know.)