Are these security policies causing any one to immigrate?
No, it's things like the social security system, NHS, availability of mostly menial jobs that the locals don't want, and staffing crises in things like teaching and health care that cause people to immigrate; I don't suppose these policies attract anyone to the UK...
(Yes I did know what you meant, I merely responded to what you actually said)
who needs a patriot act when you have camera's everywhere and anti gun laws that don't stop gun crime
Laws don't stop crime, but perhaps you should actually go and look up some statistics on per-capita gun crime in various countries, then decide whether or not the UK has a real problem with it?
We also do not have cameras everywhere - I can't think of a single one in the area of London that I live in. Yes, the centres of the cities and large towns have a lot of cameras, and yes I'm somewhat ambivalent about that, but no they are not "everywhere".
now the only two armed groups in the Uk are the military and the criminals
And the police, and the secret services, and a large number of farmers and other such people who own licensed firearms...
like all crazies, they thought that they were the good guys
I challenge you to find more than a small handful of leaders/regimes throughout history that truly believed that they were evil and in the wrong, and that still did it.
At the very least, people almost always believe that they are making hard decisions and taking action that, while regrettable, is nevertheless necessary and right.
What do you want? To just not watch blu-ray movies?
No, I think most people here want(ed) MS to fight their battle for them, and got pissed when they didn't. Oddly enough MS weighed up a fight they couldn't have won (there's no way the media industry would have let them off with not implementing copy prevention measures and still enable Windows to play HD content) versus their customer's likely desire to play HD stuff on their PCs, and decided the only way they could have.
The BBC is stuffed with ads. The difference is merely that they're ads for BBC programmes and BBC products.
Come off it, every channel "advertises" what programmes are coming up next/soon. The real difference with the BBC is that there are far fewer ads - e.g. absolutely none in the middle of programmes.
most of your output is absolute dross like Eastenders
Which, dross or not (and personally I can't stand it) is very popular and has been running for decades in the face of even longer-running competition from other networks (Coronation Street anyone?).
This is an article on a website claiming that it is better than its (only) competitor. There is no attempt at analysis, no evidence presented other than anecdotal, and the author's bias is clear:
The board also has a private forum that is open to polygraph examiners only. It has some 7,789 posts. They must have a lot to talk about that they don't want the public to know.
Or maybe it's all stuff that simply wouldn't interest the public, like arranging social engagements or talking about last night's game. Point is you don't know, so the implication that it's something they need to hide is disingenuous.
Shame on you CmdrTaco for posting this, and shame on all of us (including me) for taking the time to reply.
This is generally called "The Microsoft Tax", because people who buy computers in order to run other Operating Systems (yes there are others) are forced to pay this tax.
Never mind that - some people will have bought a (retail) copy of Windows separately and will be retiring the old PC (perhaps it's broken beyond cost-effective repair). They are within their rights to install their copy of Windows on whatever they buy, as long as the old install is no longer used. I for one would not be happy paying for the OS twice.
And yet, England is an option for "Country" on every official (i.e. governmental) form I've filled in.
No, England is not a nation (that's Britain), but I am both British (my nationality) and English. (Less officially, I am also a southerner, and some would now call me a Londoner.)
Interesting that you seem to value the privacy of the man over the right of his partner to expect him to be faithful.
Now there *are* potential privacy implications, such as the screen advertising a special offer on medication specifically for you, but let's face it the outcry about actually being named in that sort of ad would kill the idea stone dead. You won't see publicly-visible ads naming you personally; what you might well see is a specific ad triggered by your presence, but unless you're the only one within range the privacy implications are minimal.
Not that I like the idea of that sort of thing, I just don't think it's going to be quite as bad as you seem to think. And besides, as another poster points out; don't want that particular example to come true? Don't cheat.
But if they have the right to search it and you refuse to cooperate, then what choices do they have other than to seize the laptop (arguably you've given them cause by refusing to cooperate) or refuse you entry?
Otherwise what you're saying is that they have the right to search it, you have the right to refuse, and they have no legal powers to try to enforce their right - in other words, they don't have the right at all.
If there is a new 360 then it will be the same as an existing 360 but (hopefully) thinner and quieter.
Personally, I am tempted to get one of the latest-gen consoles from time to time, mostly likely either a 360 or a Wii. Thinking that a thinner, quieter 360 was just a few months from release would make me wait, were I to decide on a 360.
I've not been to a gig or concert in quite a long time, but I distinctly remember most (if not all) tickets having blurb on the back to the effect that you consent to being recorded and the recordings being used commercially, etc.
I don't know if that would hold water, but next time you buy a ticket check it and/or the conditions of sale.
There is no reason whatsoever that such an announcement would be done to the pope first.
Other than the fact that a large number of first-world countries are at least nominally Christian, while some (e.g. the US) are lead by self-proclaimed Christians?
I don't believe it's part of a conspiracy either, but I wouldn't write off the chance that the Pope would get first dibs on the info quite so readily.
Plastic (or "baton") rounds were used quite extensively in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and there were a number of high-profile cases of people being killed by them. They are *usually* non-lethal, but most emphatically not *definitely* non-lethal.
For example, see this BBC news report from 2001 about plastic bullet use, which reports that at that time 17 people had been killed by them.
they have a whole department of people that do nothing but process the checks received in the mail every day
Yes, and if everyone does it and they suddenly start to receive three or four times as many cheques, they'll need to employ more people to process them.
In prison, you have free time when you can think. Well I'm in the UK not the US, but over here kids get breaks to do more or less as they please. That sounds a lot like "free time when you can think" to me.
Re-read the submission - I don't see the word "computer" in it anywhere, it talks only of code.
Now if you'd have pointed out that the cards probably aren't being used any more and thus the programs they encode aren't being run, I'd have agreed with you.
No, they're not redundant, if you implement them as follows:
"allow resizing of chat input area" - checked, the chat input area can be resized, unchecked it is fixed and cannot be changed "automatically control chat input window size" - available if the above option is checked. If checked, program controls size of input area; otherwise user controls it.
Now I'm not saying that you necessarily want to implement it like that, but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Actually the last time I heard, it covered anything where it is difficult or impossible for the affected person to clearly withdraw consent (eg say "stop, I've changed my mind!"). That covers quite a lot of bondage, especially if you start using a gag. (One specific example of something that *would* be covered was using a ballgag)
So the next time you and your partner engage in a little bondage play, make sure you don't film it or take photos, just in case.
Slashdot Mirror
Are these security policies causing any one to immigrate?
No, it's things like the social security system, NHS, availability of mostly menial jobs that the locals don't want, and staffing crises in things like teaching and health care that cause people to immigrate; I don't suppose these policies attract anyone to the UK...
(Yes I did know what you meant, I merely responded to what you actually said)
who needs a patriot act when you have camera's everywhere and anti gun laws that don't stop gun crime
Laws don't stop crime, but perhaps you should actually go and look up some statistics on per-capita gun crime in various countries, then decide whether or not the UK has a real problem with it?
We also do not have cameras everywhere - I can't think of a single one in the area of London that I live in. Yes, the centres of the cities and large towns have a lot of cameras, and yes I'm somewhat ambivalent about that, but no they are not "everywhere".
now the only two armed groups in the Uk are the military and the criminals
And the police, and the secret services, and a large number of farmers and other such people who own licensed firearms...
like all crazies, they thought that they were the good guys
I challenge you to find more than a small handful of leaders/regimes throughout history that truly believed that they were evil and in the wrong, and that still did it.
At the very least, people almost always believe that they are making hard decisions and taking action that, while regrettable, is nevertheless necessary and right.
In Britain we get to choose between 3 suits and in the US they get to choose between 2...
And more to the point, the civil servants that aid and advise the suits remain constant - they are not replaced simply because the government changes.
I don't believe there's some big conspiracy (never attribute to malice and all that), but neither to I believe that they have no effect whatsoever.
Has science education failed that miserably in recent years?
Yes, yes it has. See for example ID vs evolution.
What do you want? To just not watch blu-ray movies?
No, I think most people here want(ed) MS to fight their battle for them, and got pissed when they didn't. Oddly enough MS weighed up a fight they couldn't have won (there's no way the media industry would have let them off with not implementing copy prevention measures and still enable Windows to play HD content) versus their customer's likely desire to play HD stuff on their PCs, and decided the only way they could have.
The majority of the proles will bitch and complain
No, the majority of "proles" won't even notice.
The BBC is stuffed with ads. The difference is merely that they're ads for BBC programmes and BBC products.
Come off it, every channel "advertises" what programmes are coming up next/soon. The real difference with the BBC is that there are far fewer ads - e.g. absolutely none in the middle of programmes.
most of your output is absolute dross like Eastenders
Which, dross or not (and personally I can't stand it) is very popular and has been running for decades in the face of even longer-running competition from other networks (Coronation Street anyone?).
This is an article on a website claiming that it is better than its (only) competitor. There is no attempt at analysis, no evidence presented other than anecdotal, and the author's bias is clear:
The board also has a private forum that is open to polygraph examiners only. It has some 7,789 posts. They must have a lot to talk about that they don't want the public to know.
Or maybe it's all stuff that simply wouldn't interest the public, like arranging social engagements or talking about last night's game. Point is you don't know, so the implication that it's something they need to hide is disingenuous.
Shame on you CmdrTaco for posting this, and shame on all of us (including me) for taking the time to reply.
Having said that, it's probably still prudent to back up your Flickr and del.icio.us accounts, especially if you don't use Windows.
Why anyone would trust any third party company/site with important data that they don't have another copy of themselves I don't know...
This is generally called "The Microsoft Tax", because people who buy computers in order to run other Operating Systems (yes there are others) are forced to pay this tax.
Never mind that - some people will have bought a (retail) copy of Windows separately and will be retiring the old PC (perhaps it's broken beyond cost-effective repair). They are within their rights to install their copy of Windows on whatever they buy, as long as the old install is no longer used. I for one would not be happy paying for the OS twice.
And yet, England is an option for "Country" on every official (i.e. governmental) form I've filled in.
No, England is not a nation (that's Britain), but I am both British (my nationality) and English. (Less officially, I am also a southerner, and some would now call me a Londoner.)
Interesting that you seem to value the privacy of the man over the right of his partner to expect him to be faithful.
Now there *are* potential privacy implications, such as the screen advertising a special offer on medication specifically for you, but let's face it the outcry about actually being named in that sort of ad would kill the idea stone dead. You won't see publicly-visible ads naming you personally; what you might well see is a specific ad triggered by your presence, but unless you're the only one within range the privacy implications are minimal.
Not that I like the idea of that sort of thing, I just don't think it's going to be quite as bad as you seem to think. And besides, as another poster points out; don't want that particular example to come true? Don't cheat.
But if they have the right to search it and you refuse to cooperate, then what choices do they have other than to seize the laptop (arguably you've given them cause by refusing to cooperate) or refuse you entry?
Otherwise what you're saying is that they have the right to search it, you have the right to refuse, and they have no legal powers to try to enforce their right - in other words, they don't have the right at all.
If there is a new 360 then it will be the same as an existing 360 but (hopefully) thinner and quieter.
Personally, I am tempted to get one of the latest-gen consoles from time to time, mostly likely either a 360 or a Wii. Thinking that a thinner, quieter 360 was just a few months from release would make me wait, were I to decide on a 360.
I've not been to a gig or concert in quite a long time, but I distinctly remember most (if not all) tickets having blurb on the back to the effect that you consent to being recorded and the recordings being used commercially, etc.
I don't know if that would hold water, but next time you buy a ticket check it and/or the conditions of sale.
There is no reason whatsoever that such an announcement would be done to the pope first.
Other than the fact that a large number of first-world countries are at least nominally Christian, while some (e.g. the US) are lead by self-proclaimed Christians?
I don't believe it's part of a conspiracy either, but I wouldn't write off the chance that the Pope would get first dibs on the info quite so readily.
Yes, the supernova occurred roughly 28140 years ago. However, what we can *see* is the supernova as it was aged 140 years.
The actual age is entirely irrelevant to us, the data we are gathering is all that matters and that is of a supernova that is 140 years old.
Plastic (or "baton") rounds were used quite extensively in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and there were a number of high-profile cases of people being killed by them. They are *usually* non-lethal, but most emphatically not *definitely* non-lethal.
For example, see this BBC news report from 2001 about plastic bullet use, which reports that at that time 17 people had been killed by them.
they have a whole department of people that do nothing but process the checks received in the mail every day
Yes, and if everyone does it and they suddenly start to receive three or four times as many cheques, they'll need to employ more people to process them.
Do they not have the same rights as the rest of us?
Assuming that by "us" you mean adults, then no, they do not.
Re-read the submission - I don't see the word "computer" in it anywhere, it talks only of code.
Now if you'd have pointed out that the cards probably aren't being used any more and thus the programs they encode aren't being run, I'd have agreed with you.
No, they're not redundant, if you implement them as follows:
"allow resizing of chat input area" - checked, the chat input area can be resized, unchecked it is fixed and cannot be changed
"automatically control chat input window size" - available if the above option is checked. If checked, program controls size of input area; otherwise user controls it.
Now I'm not saying that you necessarily want to implement it like that, but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
This law dosent affect soft stuff like bondage
Actually the last time I heard, it covered anything where it is difficult or impossible for the affected person to clearly withdraw consent (eg say "stop, I've changed my mind!"). That covers quite a lot of bondage, especially if you start using a gag. (One specific example of something that *would* be covered was using a ballgag)
So the next time you and your partner engage in a little bondage play, make sure you don't film it or take photos, just in case.