As much as some British people hate "Continental Interference" (some people forget far too easily that there is always a British representative voting as well and also how important European aid has been for poor British regions, facts that of course are barely mentioned by most of the press an media) this is not one of those European rules.
Really? Could you give some examples of useful European aid? I'm a Brit myself and so don't get to hear much praise for the EU.
The guy using only British Imperial measurements is breaking British law only.
Fun fact : The guy in question was told by the Govt. Officials that he had to start trading solely in Metric (he was using both) because "Giving the option of Imperial was giving him an unfair competitive edge".
Oh, and there's also a special joy to watching some University's 20,000 quid 3-year project get ripped up by somethnig put together in a garden shed in 3 weeks for a couple of hundred.
For those of you that have just started watching Robot Wars, watch out for a machine called Mortis. It's built by Cambridge University, cost the afore-mentioned tens of thousands to build, and is clad in some kind of Titantium/Kevlar composite stuff.
It has been in every series of Robot Wars so far and has consistantly failed to get past the first round....
Technogames was shite. Mainly because the average age of the (human) competitors was 13-16. This meant the quality of the machines involved was ludicrously bad.
Example a : The winner of the "high jump" event was essentially a large spring.
Example b: The winners of the "relay" event was a team of three off-the-shelf remote controlled cars.
During a recent trip to England I noticed pornography (including explicit intercourse and lesbian activity) on tv late at night. This was normal tv, not a premium channel such as the Playboy channel. I wonder why, after exposure to this, we don't see epidemics of teenage pregnancy and rape in England?
Seems a shame to mess up such a great comment but here in the UK we do have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe. Then again, IMHO, we also have the crappest, mildest late-night pr0n on TV. So I guess the argument still stands. Yay!
>The parts of the US with the most guns have the lowest violent crime rates. The parts of Canada with the most guns have the lowest violent crime rates.
>Now, the parts of the UK with the most guns have the highest violent crime rates.
Uh... you do know that guns tend to be illegal over here in the UK? If there are a large number of guns around, it would suggest that there would be a large amount of naughtiness being committed with said weapons, yes?
In terms of UK jurisdiction? I don't see why not. The UK government has a tendency to do whatever the US wants. As has been said before, since there is a huge co-operation effort between the two countries as far as Echelon goes, there is already the precedent.
I don't know if US law would allow the FBI to monitor those outside the US boundaries but the UK would almost certainly allow it.
Here's another cheery thought. Does anybody know if the boxes that are to be installed in UK ISPs thanks to the RIP bill will be Carnivore? I guess it would make sense to the UK to use established technology.
Re:I never got that about the Marval Univerce
on
Slashdot Meets X-Men
·
· Score: 1
For an interesting, if truly sick, interpretation of a Marvel Universe where "Gamma Rays Are Not Good For You", I can highly recommend the Ruins series by Warren Ellis.
Well, I guess the opposition has a role in this but, in all honesty, it ain't that effective. (Mainly coz the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr William Hague, is about a charismatic as a slug).
The only real opposition we have left are the newspapers, most of which are owned by one man.
So as long as the PM a) keeps his party in line and b) keeps Rupert Murdoch (owner of the Sun, Times, Mirror(?), most of our TV channels and some other stuff that I've forgotten) happy, he can do whatever he wants.
Hell - the Government has already decided that the European Declaration of Human Rights won't apply to the victims of the RIP bill...
I wonder what the potential for lawsuits is if this thing makes the occasional mistakes? Any lawyers out there that can help? I'd guess that it would be slander at the very least, but then IANAL so could well be talking crap. Wouldn't be the first time.
In all fairness, he was talking about London. And yes, there are hundreds of the damn things all over the place.
Plus, don't forget all the other wonderful legislation we've had recently such as the Criminal Justice Act, which says that a gathering of more than 10 (I think, could be less) people consitutes a potential riot. That affects us all.
What else? How about the proposed Anti-Hooligan act which says that any "citizen" of the UK can be banned from travelling abroad on the say-so of any member of the Police, who suspects (not _proves_ just suspects) that he or she might be a football hooligan.
Need I go on?
Finally, as the guy above said, we have the RIP bill which means that any internet traffic can be intercepted. There was a wonderful news program recently that said that the whole "I've forgot my PGP key" defence would be valid, but only if you weren't suspected of anything. 'Course, if you weren't suspected of anything, your emails shouldn't have been tapped in the first place...
(BTW I'm not gonna touch the gun-control issue itself, that's been done to death many, many times).
What are the current plans for the House of Lords? Last time I heard, they had annoyed Our Glorious PM so much that he wanted to get rid of the few that were left. Only reason he hasn't is that he can't think of anything to replace them. Apparently, he gets very upset when non-obligated people vote with their conscience...
in fact I would argue less than most, we don't have big neo-fascist movements like mainland Europe, or the USs KKK, In all honesty, that's mainly because we're an incredibly apathetic nation. In some ways this is actually good, it means that we just don't have same amount of hatred (except regarding the French) as other nations. Trouble is, it also means we tend not to give a fsck about anything until something "terrible" happens. Then of course, we have the instant knee-jerk reaction, usually involving some badly-though out bit of legislation to appease the Daily Mail. Which often ends up putting us in a worse place than before. when an injustice happens we stand up and fight like fsck, like with the Poll Tax protest Ummm... No we don't. The Poll Tax was an interesting issue, because that affected the Middle Englanders. Ergo, the Daily Mail was against it and there was a reaction. Most of the time, we just turn a blind eye. we had more mercenaries fight in Bosnia than any other country, and they fought for the Bosnians who had no money, but were fighting for freedom, and then there was the Executive Outcomes thing where the government got it right and helped kick out an African dictator and restore a democratic government *cough* Zimbabwe *cough* Kosovo *cough* I think it has a lot to do with pub culture where people sit and have a pint and discuss the latest happenings local, national and international !!! Not down my local. England is generally rubbish. Sure, there are some exceptions, but the majority of the population is envious, unimaginative, reactive and bigotted. Not bitter though. To be bitter, they would have to understand that they could be so much better, but the sad truth is that they are happy living like that. Unfortunately, as other posters have said, it's not like there is any other place to go. And we have terrible weather too. And now I'm depressed.
The deadlier the weapon, the more deaths it will cause (by definition).
Only if it is used. I could build a nuclear weapon, set it on the ground somewhere with all the codes locked safely away, and then just turn around and walk away. Certainly a deadly weapon, but a completely harmless one, because it cannot be used.
Very few schoolkids have access to nuclear weapons tho... I think it is more the case of "The Deadlier The Weapon, The Easier It Is To Kill Someone With It". Sure, you can kill a man with a knife, but you have to be damn sure you want to kill him and you have to get up close and personal. With a gun, you can kill someone by moving a finger and it doesn't need nearly as much mental strength as stabbing someone.
While your conclusion does theoretically make some sense, it is drawn from flawed logic. A weapon does not become more or less deadly simply because there are more instances thereof. If I have a gun, that gun is certainly a deadly weapon. If I have two guns, neither is any deadlier than it would be if it were the only gun I had. If I have ten thousand guns, none of them is any deadlier than it would be if I only had one.
Again, technically true, but you have to agree that the odds of being shot in a country where 10,000 people have a gun is significantly higher than a country where only one guy owns one.
If more guns are available, more deaths will occur, but only if the guns are misused. Likewise, if fewer guns are available, fewer deaths would occur only if the guns removed were ones that would have been misused.
Or in other words "If more guns are available, more deaths will occur unless every single one of the guns that are added is used responsibly. Likewise, if fewer guns are available, less deaths will occur unless every single gun removed is being used responsibly". Fair? The sad fact is that a lot of people who have guns do not use them responsibly, which means, by your definition, that less guns means fewer deaths.But an armed person is in far less danger against an armed opponent than an unarmed person is. Would this be because a person with a gun is a much less threatening target and so you don't want to shoot them? If someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, then they shoot you. If you also have a gun, then they see you as a threat, and they shoot you. Either way, you have to admit, that if those guns were not available, neither person would get shot.Personally, I don't think that humans as a whole are evolved enough to deal with being able to kill from a distance with almost no effort. We're just not mentally equipped to deal with that kind of power. I'd be in favour of a total ban on guns and making carrying knives mandatory, but as the man says, the genie is out of the bottle now.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as some British people hate "Continental Interference" (some people forget far too easily that there is always a British representative voting as well and also how important European aid has been for poor British regions, facts that of course are barely mentioned by most of the press an media) this is not one of those European rules.
Really? Could you give some examples of useful European aid? I'm a Brit myself and so don't get to hear much praise for the EU.
The guy using only British Imperial measurements is breaking British law only.
Fun fact : The guy in question was told by the Govt. Officials that he had to start trading solely in Metric (he was using both) because "Giving the option of Imperial was giving him an unfair competitive edge".
Oh, and there's also a special joy to watching some University's 20,000 quid 3-year project get ripped up by somethnig put together in a garden shed in 3 weeks for a couple of hundred.
....
For those of you that have just started watching Robot Wars, watch out for a machine called Mortis. It's built by Cambridge University, cost the afore-mentioned tens of thousands to build, and is clad in some kind of Titantium/Kevlar composite stuff.
It has been in every series of Robot Wars so far and has consistantly failed to get past the first round
Technogames was shite. Mainly because the average age of the (human) competitors was 13-16. This meant the quality of the machines involved was ludicrously bad.
Example a : The winner of the "high jump" event was essentially a large spring.
Example b: The winners of the "relay" event was a team of three off-the-shelf remote controlled cars.
During a recent trip to England I noticed pornography (including explicit intercourse and lesbian activity) on tv late at night. This was normal tv, not a premium channel such as the Playboy channel. I wonder why, after exposure to this, we don't see epidemics of teenage pregnancy and rape in England?
Seems a shame to mess up such a great comment but here in the UK we do have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe. Then again, IMHO, we also have the crappest, mildest late-night pr0n on TV. So I guess the argument still stands. Yay!
>Wasn't the Constitution and Declaration written by people the British would considered "jerks"?
;-)
Nah, we just consider them "ungrateful"
>The parts of the US with the most guns have the lowest violent crime rates. The parts of Canada with the most guns have the lowest violent crime rates.
>Now, the parts of the UK with the most guns have the highest violent crime rates.
Uh... you do know that guns tend to be illegal over here in the UK? If there are a large number of guns around, it would suggest that there would be a large amount of naughtiness being committed with said weapons, yes?
In terms of UK jurisdiction? I don't see why not. The UK government has a tendency to do whatever the US wants. As has been said before, since there is a huge co-operation effort between the two countries as far as Echelon goes, there is already the precedent.
I don't know if US law would allow the FBI to monitor those outside the US boundaries but the UK would almost certainly allow it.
Here's another cheery thought. Does anybody know if the boxes that are to be installed in UK ISPs thanks to the RIP bill will be Carnivore? I guess it would make sense to the UK to use established technology.
For an interesting, if truly sick, interpretation of a Marvel Universe where "Gamma Rays Are Not Good For You", I can highly recommend the Ruins series by Warren Ellis.
Well, I guess the opposition has a role in this but, in all honesty, it ain't that effective. (Mainly coz the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr William Hague, is about a charismatic as a slug).
The only real opposition we have left are the newspapers, most of which are owned by one man.
So as long as the PM a) keeps his party in line and b) keeps Rupert Murdoch (owner of the Sun, Times, Mirror(?), most of our TV channels and some other stuff that I've forgotten) happy, he can do whatever he wants.
Hell - the Government has already decided that the European Declaration of Human Rights won't apply to the victims of the RIP bill...
Jesus...
I wonder what the potential for lawsuits is if this thing makes the occasional mistakes? Any lawyers out there that can help? I'd guess that it would be slander at the very least, but then IANAL so could well be talking crap. Wouldn't be the first time.
In all fairness, he was talking about London. And yes, there are hundreds of the damn things all over the place.
Plus, don't forget all the other wonderful legislation we've had recently such as the Criminal Justice Act, which says that a gathering of more than 10 (I think, could be less) people consitutes a potential riot. That affects us all.
What else? How about the proposed Anti-Hooligan act which says that any "citizen" of the UK can be banned from travelling abroad on the say-so of any member of the Police, who suspects (not _proves_ just suspects) that he or she might be a football hooligan.
Need I go on?
Finally, as the guy above said, we have the RIP bill which means that any internet traffic can be intercepted. There was a wonderful news program recently that said that the whole "I've forgot my PGP key" defence would be valid, but only if you weren't suspected of anything. 'Course, if you weren't suspected of anything, your emails shouldn't have been tapped in the first place...
(BTW I'm not gonna touch the gun-control issue itself, that's been done to death many, many times).
What are the current plans for the House of Lords? Last time I heard, they had annoyed Our Glorious PM so much that he wanted to get rid of the few that were left.
Only reason he hasn't is that he can't think of anything to replace them.
Apparently, he gets very upset when non-obligated people vote with their conscience...
Uh - not that I know of.
What the hell is a milliard?
in fact I would argue less than most, we don't have big neo-fascist movements like mainland Europe, or the USs KKK,
In all honesty, that's mainly because we're an incredibly apathetic nation. In some ways this is actually good, it means that we just don't have same amount of hatred (except regarding the French) as other nations. Trouble is, it also means we tend not to give a fsck about anything until something "terrible" happens. Then of course, we have the instant knee-jerk reaction, usually involving some badly-though out bit of legislation to appease the Daily Mail. Which often ends up putting us in a worse place than before.
when an injustice happens we stand up and fight like fsck, like with the Poll Tax protest
Ummm... No we don't. The Poll Tax was an interesting issue, because that affected the Middle Englanders. Ergo, the Daily Mail was against it and there was a reaction. Most of the time, we just turn a blind eye.
we had more mercenaries fight in Bosnia than any other country, and they fought for the Bosnians who had no money, but were fighting for freedom, and then there was the Executive Outcomes thing where the government got it right and helped kick out an African dictator and restore a democratic government
*cough* Zimbabwe *cough* Kosovo *cough*
I think it has a lot to do with pub culture where people sit and have a pint and discuss the latest happenings local, national and international
!!! Not down my local.
England is generally rubbish. Sure, there are some exceptions, but the majority of the population is envious, unimaginative, reactive and bigotted. Not bitter though. To be bitter, they would have to understand that they could be so much better, but the sad truth is that they are happy living like that.
Unfortunately, as other posters have said, it's not like there is any other place to go.
And we have terrible weather too. And now I'm depressed.
The deadlier the weapon, the more deaths it will cause (by definition).
Only if it is used. I could build a nuclear weapon, set it on the ground somewhere with all the codes locked safely away, and then just turn around and walk away. Certainly a deadly weapon, but a completely harmless one, because it cannot be used.
Very few schoolkids have access to nuclear weapons tho...
I think it is more the case of "The Deadlier The Weapon, The Easier It Is To Kill Someone With It". Sure, you can kill a man with a knife, but you have to be damn sure you want to kill him and you have to get up close and personal. With a gun, you can kill someone by moving a finger and it doesn't need nearly as much mental strength as stabbing someone.
While your conclusion does theoretically make some sense, it is drawn from flawed logic. A weapon does not become more or less deadly simply because there are more instances thereof. If I have a gun, that gun is certainly a deadly weapon. If I have two guns, neither is any deadlier than it would be if it were the only gun I had. If I have ten thousand guns, none of them is any deadlier than it would be if I only had one.
Again, technically true, but you have to agree that the odds of being shot in a country where 10,000 people have a gun is significantly higher than a country where only one guy owns one.
If more guns are available, more deaths will occur, but only if the guns are misused. Likewise, if fewer guns are available, fewer deaths would occur only if the guns removed were ones that would have been misused.
Or in other words "If more guns are available, more deaths will occur unless every single one of the guns that are added is used responsibly. Likewise, if fewer guns are available, less deaths will occur unless every single gun removed is being used responsibly". Fair? The sad fact is that a lot of people who have guns do not use them responsibly, which means, by your definition, that less guns means fewer deaths. But an armed person is in far less danger against an armed opponent than an unarmed person is. Would this be because a person with a gun is a much less threatening target and so you don't want to shoot them? If someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, then they shoot you. If you also have a gun, then they see you as a threat, and they shoot you. Either way, you have to admit, that if those guns were not available, neither person would get shot. Personally, I don't think that humans as a whole are evolved enough to deal with being able to kill from a distance with almost no effort. We're just not mentally equipped to deal with that kind of power. I'd be in favour of a total ban on guns and making carrying knives mandatory, but as the man says, the genie is out of the bottle now.