> Isn't the distinction that tax cameras take pictures of the front (where they can see both the tax disk, and the license plate), whereas speed cameras take pictures of the rear No. The A14 is a high-speed (70mph limit) dual carriageway - which is where speed cameras are located. There are several cameras on that road over a period of a few miles. Oh, and they're truvelo cameras, which are used for speed enforcement. Trust me, those cameras are there to raise revenue from speeding fines. The "tax enforcement" cameras currently in use are usually hand-held units connected to laptop PCs in patrol cars. (Of course, most of those cars are unmarked). These systems don't check for the existence/validity (or otherwise) of a tax disc - they just scan the registration and if the DVLA's computer says it's untaxed, then it's untaxed. (They also check for things like vehicles reported stolen or involved in crimes)
> because of the way that the speed measurement works In the case of the cameras I mentioned (Truvelos installed on the A14) the camera isn't used in the speed measurement process at all, the speed is measured by piezo-electric transducers under the road.
> So the chances are that the camera you wheelied past I never said I wheelied past a camera! I didn't (though I wish I had:-)
> (but was no doubt impressed anyway:) I dunno about the camera, but I was impressed:D
> the system hasn't had time to adapt The system's had plenty of time (as you point out - parts of it are over a century old). But the government (either local or national) has never invested the funds it needs. Since that would entail spending some of the revenue raised from taxpayers of fulfilling the taxpayers' needs - which would clearly never do when John Prescott needs a new Jag.
> type of car (or cars) you own, The government has no record of vehicle ownership. They have a record of who is the vehicle's keeper - they are not neccessarily the same thing.
> Even if you own one, but don't keep it registered, you must register it as out of use You're confusing taxation with registration here. A vehicle remains registered until it is scrapped - regardless of whether its in use or not. And if, by "registering it as out of use" you're referring to SORN that only applies to vehicle which have been taxed at any point since Jan 1999. I own (and am registered keeper of) several vehicles to which this does not apply.
> So, what DO we have number plates for exactly? I thought it was to identify cars. Yeah - it's so I can tell MY Evo VI from all the others in the carpark:-)
> All cameras in the UK are positioned in such a way that they take a picture of the car from behind Not true. Go and drive down the A14 - there are a huge number of cameras which take pictures of the front of the vehicle. Which is great if you're riding a bike. I suspect that somewhere there's a copper trying to identify the underside of a Yamaha R1 that recently wheelied past one of those cameras at an outrageous speed:)
I also have a photograph (I asked to see the evidence) of the FRONT of my car taken by a police tax enforcement camera a couple of years ago. So no, not all cameras in the UK take a picture of the rear of the vehicle.
> The bill is sent to the owner of the car Actually, no. It's sent to "the registered keeper" which may or may not be the owner. There is no centralised registery of ownership in the UK.
> This has been used a number of times, and has been upheld in a court of law on several occasions (due to the UKs abysmal online record keeping, i cant find a link). The reason you can't find a link is because this defence has not, in fact, been upheld. Indeed, a magistrate's court cannot aquit based on this (due to a decision in a higher court). There is, however, a possibility that you may _at a later date_ be able to get such a conviction overturned. Try Association of British Drivers for more info on this. It turns out that if the registered keeper fails to provide the requested information, they can get prosecuted for the offence anyway.
> only the Police and Military have access to that at the moment You really believe that? Wanna buy a bridge?
> The underground is overcrowded and badly run, Yes, but if you think that's bad go live somewhere like Birmingham for six months. Sad fact of it is that the London Undergound is one of the best mass-transit systems in the UK. (Scary, I know!)
> London has too much traffic and an underused public transport system so why not subsidize busses and trains? or bicycles? Unfortunatly, the reason people avoid public transport in the UK isn't (directly) financial. Remember, we pay UK£4 (about AU$11) a gallon for petrol. The reason we avod public transport is because its unreliable, unpuntual and unsafe.
> but the real reason behind this plan is probably to raise revenue through indirect taxation You think:-)
> My state government (Queensland, Australia) does exactly the same thing with speeding/red-light cameras. I've driven in Queensland (and NSW and WA for that matter) and beleive me that the UK gov't could teach all of those wonderful places a few lessons on generating revenue from motorists.
You're right. Public transport in the UK is a bad joke. And succesive UK governments have tried to use a "carrot & stick" approach to get motorists out of their cars and into public transport - only they always forget the carrot.
Here's an example of how bad the system is. I live about 1/2 a mile from a train station. Later this afternoon I have to attend a meeting in London - the building I will be visiting is literally right above an underground station (for anybody who's in the area, it's the BSI building in Chiswick High St - which is on top of Gunnersby tube station) Estimated time to drive: 1hr 45mins (depending on traffic, it can take as long as 2hr 15 - but not this time of day) Estimated time by train: 3hr 20mins (according to the timetable - last time I did the same journey it was almost 5 hours). Oh, and even though my car isn't particularly frugal (maybe 20-22mpg) It's still way cheaper for me to drive than catch the train. *IF* we had cheap, reliable, punctual safe public transport I'd use it. But whilst railway companies are increasing prices and killing passengers I'll stick with my car - even with fuel at £4 a gallon
> everyone has to pay some kind of raod tax to drive a car Not if the vehicle does less than 8 miles a year on the public highway. Not if the vehicle is over a certain age (ISTR it's 25 years, but may be wrong) Not if the vehicle is a certain class of invalid carriage. So no, not everyone has to pay some kind of road tax to drive a car.
> you dont have cameras all over the place scanning plates for that Actually, they do. There are several systems in use by the police in the UK which scan registration plates as they pass and then cross-index with the PNC and licencing computers and alert the tax collectors (sorry, "Police Officers") to vehicles which are not taxed (amongst other things). That's one of the reasons why the legislation was recently changed to require a specific font for the number plate.
> most lawabiding citizens wont try to get away without paying if they have to show a permit in their window Uhh...by definition, that should read "all lawabiding". If they're lawabiding they're not going to break the law. And lawabiding citizens are going to pay the road fund licence regardless of the presence of a permit or not (since, if they don't pay they cease to be lawabiding), On the other hand, there are plenty of people out there who drive untaxed/unmot'd/uninsured vehicles on British roads - I know, one of them drove into the back of my car when I was stationary earlier in the year. I estimate the direct cost to me to be in excess of £6000 _so far_. (I lost my NCB, I lost my policy excess, I lost use of my vehicle whilst it was being repaired etc. etc.) But then again, he wasn't a "lawabiding" citizen. And he did have a tax disc - it just wasn't valid (at least, not for the vehicle he was driving).
> allot of f*cking money. Well, at least they'd be able to claim that some of the revenue raised from motorists was being spent on "transport" for a change...
> Issuing peices of paper and those little plastic sleave things to put them in - f*cking jack. As I've already pointed out, there really isn't a need to issue the disc (since the final arbiter of whether your vehicle is taxed or not is the DVLAs computer records, not the presence or otherwise of a tax disc). Of course, failure to display that disc is an offence seperate from failing to tax the vehicle, so it is another way of raising revenue from motorists.
Sure, but his spam filter is a little overaggresive. And it's filetering out non-spam as if it were spam. As to whether his girlfriend solicits or not, I can't say:)
> No, time travelers just don't speak English. Or any language that we currently know about. Grammar is pretty important in the expression of temporal ideas, and if you're going to travel in time I'd take a guess (and it's nothing more than that - my time machine is in the shop right now) that you're going to need to express temporal ideas.
Re:"just a computer programmer"
on
The Chronoliths
·
· Score: 1
I fulfil all of your requirements. (Although I consider aeembly a tool for the feeble minded that can't deal with raw hex or binary - depending on the platform). And it was JUST A JOKE. At least three people have found it funny enough to mod it +1 (and somebody with no sense of humour has modded it down -1 "overrated". Which, IIRC, means they're safe from M2)
Re:Review is confusing
on
The Chronoliths
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> Sounds like 2001 to me. Except those monoliths somehow sparked great changes in humanity And didn't come from the future. But you're right, they both have monoliths.
So what you're saying is that certain religious groups have certain ideas which are so ill-founded as to be laughable, yet they will take every opportunity to use those ideas to embarass themselves in public? Fortunatly for them, stupidy is not the obstacle to survival that it once was:-)
> The plausibility of these scenarios _actually happening_ is slim to none
So, earth creature, we have succeeded in lulling you into a false sense of security. You will kneel before the might Kr'a,nuth when he comes to take your pathetic little planet. All your chronoliths are belong to us.
Re:Good book, read it recently.
on
The Chronoliths
·
· Score: 1
> If you suddenly had a big monument materialize obliterating your city, would you be prone to distrust the writing on it? If it said "we come in peace", probably.
Re:"just a computer programmer"
on
The Chronoliths
·
· Score: 1
> I've never met a meek geek in my life. What does meekness have to do anything? After the overture to 2112, Geddy Lee quite clearly says "And the geek shall inherit the earth". (It's amazing what you can do with digital audio...)
"just a computer programmer"
on
The Chronoliths
·
· Score: 5, Funny
> He's just a computer programmer Whaddya mean, JUST a computer programmer. Didn't you know that the geeks will inherit the earth?
Re:Er... This doesn't sound right...
on
The Chronoliths
·
· Score: 1
> "and each lauds another victory by a leader who does not currently exist."
> So, teenagers are winning the wars fought in the future? Not having read the book, I don't know. But I'd take a guess that the leaders don't exist at the point in the fictional-future that the monument appears. At least, that's how I read it.
> I knew the dexterity I had built up with a gamepad would come in handy some day If, on the other hand, your interpretation is the correct one, you don't exist and therefore should be vaninshing in a puff of logic about....now:)
Slashdot Mirror
> Isn't the distinction that tax cameras take pictures of the front (where they can see both the tax disk, and the license plate), whereas speed cameras take pictures of the rear
:-)
:) :D
No. The A14 is a high-speed (70mph limit) dual carriageway - which is where speed cameras are located. There are several cameras on that road over a period of a few miles. Oh, and they're truvelo cameras, which are used for speed enforcement. Trust me, those cameras are there to raise revenue from speeding fines. The "tax enforcement" cameras currently in use are usually hand-held units connected to laptop PCs in patrol cars. (Of course, most of those cars are unmarked). These systems don't check for the existence/validity (or otherwise) of a tax disc - they just scan the registration and if the DVLA's computer says it's untaxed, then it's untaxed. (They also check for things like vehicles reported stolen or involved in crimes)
> because of the way that the speed measurement works
In the case of the cameras I mentioned (Truvelos installed on the A14) the camera isn't used in the speed measurement process at all, the speed is measured by piezo-electric transducers under the road.
> So the chances are that the camera you wheelied past
I never said I wheelied past a camera! I didn't (though I wish I had
> (but was no doubt impressed anyway
I dunno about the camera, but I was impressed
> the system hasn't had time to adapt
The system's had plenty of time (as you point out - parts of it are over a century old). But the government (either local or national) has never invested the funds it needs. Since that would entail spending some of the revenue raised from taxpayers of fulfilling the taxpayers' needs - which would clearly never do when John Prescott needs a new Jag.
> type of car (or cars) you own,
The government has no record of vehicle ownership. They have a record of who is the vehicle's keeper - they are not neccessarily the same thing.
> Even if you own one, but don't keep it registered, you must register it as out of use
You're confusing taxation with registration here. A vehicle remains registered until it is scrapped - regardless of whether its in use or not. And if, by "registering it as out of use" you're referring to SORN that only applies to vehicle which have been taxed at any point since Jan 1999. I own (and am registered keeper of) several vehicles to which this does not apply.
> So, what DO we have number plates for exactly? I thought it was to identify cars. :-)
Yeah - it's so I can tell MY Evo VI from all the others in the carpark
> All cameras in the UK are positioned in such a way that they take a picture of the car from behind :)
Not true. Go and drive down the A14 - there are a huge number of cameras which take pictures of the front of the vehicle. Which is great if you're riding a bike. I suspect that somewhere there's a copper trying to identify the underside of a Yamaha R1 that recently wheelied past one of those cameras at an outrageous speed
I also have a photograph (I asked to see the evidence) of the FRONT of my car taken by a police tax enforcement camera a couple of years ago. So no, not all cameras in the UK take a picture of the rear of the vehicle.
> The bill is sent to the owner of the car
Actually, no. It's sent to "the registered keeper" which may or may not be the owner. There is no centralised registery of ownership in the UK.
> This has been used a number of times, and has been upheld in a court of law on several occasions (due to the UKs abysmal online record keeping, i cant find a link).
The reason you can't find a link is because this defence has not, in fact, been upheld. Indeed, a magistrate's court cannot aquit based on this (due to a decision in a higher court). There is, however, a possibility that you may _at a later date_ be able to get such a conviction overturned. Try Association of British Drivers for more info on this. It turns out that if the registered keeper fails to provide the requested information, they can get prosecuted for the offence anyway.
> only the Police and Military have access to that at the moment
You really believe that? Wanna buy a bridge?
> The underground is overcrowded and badly run,
Yes, but if you think that's bad go live somewhere like Birmingham for six months. Sad fact of it is that the London Undergound is one of the best mass-transit systems in the UK. (Scary, I know!)
> London has too much traffic and an underused public transport system so why not subsidize busses and trains? or bicycles?
:-)
Unfortunatly, the reason people avoid public transport in the UK isn't (directly) financial. Remember, we pay UK£4 (about AU$11) a gallon for petrol. The reason we avod public transport is because its unreliable, unpuntual and unsafe.
> but the real reason behind this plan is probably to raise revenue through indirect taxation
You think
> My state government (Queensland, Australia) does exactly the same thing with speeding/red-light cameras.
I've driven in Queensland (and NSW and WA for that matter) and beleive me that the UK gov't could teach all of those wonderful places a few lessons on generating revenue from motorists.
You're right. Public transport in the UK is a bad joke. And succesive UK governments have tried to use a "carrot & stick" approach to get motorists out of their cars and into public transport - only they always forget the carrot.
Here's an example of how bad the system is. I live about 1/2 a mile from a train station. Later this afternoon I have to attend a meeting in London - the building I will be visiting is literally right above an underground station (for anybody who's in the area, it's the BSI building in Chiswick High St - which is on top of Gunnersby tube station)
Estimated time to drive: 1hr 45mins (depending on traffic, it can take as long as 2hr 15 - but not this time of day)
Estimated time by train: 3hr 20mins (according to the timetable - last time I did the same journey it was almost 5 hours).
Oh, and even though my car isn't particularly frugal (maybe 20-22mpg) It's still way cheaper for me to drive than catch the train.
*IF* we had cheap, reliable, punctual safe public transport I'd use it. But whilst railway companies are increasing prices and killing passengers I'll stick with my car - even with fuel at £4 a gallon
> everyone has to pay some kind of raod tax to drive a car
Not if the vehicle does less than 8 miles a year on the public highway.
Not if the vehicle is over a certain age (ISTR it's 25 years, but may be wrong)
Not if the vehicle is a certain class of invalid carriage.
So no, not everyone has to pay some kind of road tax to drive a car.
> you dont have cameras all over the place scanning plates for that
Actually, they do. There are several systems in use by the police in the UK which scan registration plates as they pass and then cross-index with the PNC and licencing computers and alert the tax collectors (sorry, "Police Officers") to vehicles which are not taxed (amongst other things). That's one of the reasons why the legislation was recently changed to require a specific font for the number plate.
> most lawabiding citizens wont try to get away without paying if they have to show a permit in their window
Uhh...by definition, that should read "all lawabiding". If they're lawabiding they're not going to break the law. And lawabiding citizens are going to pay the road fund licence regardless of the presence of a permit or not (since, if they don't pay they cease to be lawabiding), On the other hand, there are plenty of people out there who drive untaxed/unmot'd/uninsured vehicles on British roads - I know, one of them drove into the back of my car when I was stationary earlier in the year. I estimate the direct cost to me to be in excess of £6000 _so far_. (I lost my NCB, I lost my policy excess, I lost use of my vehicle whilst it was being repaired etc. etc.) But then again, he wasn't a "lawabiding" citizen. And he did have a tax disc - it just wasn't valid (at least, not for the vehicle he was driving).
> allot of f*cking money.
Well, at least they'd be able to claim that some of the revenue raised from motorists was being spent on "transport" for a change...
> Issuing peices of paper and those little plastic sleave things to put them in - f*cking jack.
As I've already pointed out, there really isn't a need to issue the disc (since the final arbiter of whether your vehicle is taxed or not is the DVLAs computer records, not the presence or otherwise of a tax disc).
Of course, failure to display that disc is an offence seperate from failing to tax the vehicle, so it is another way of raising revenue from motorists.
Sure, but his spam filter is a little overaggresive. And it's filetering out non-spam as if it were spam. :)
As to whether his girlfriend solicits or not, I can't say
> Now, why haven't I heard from my girlfriend while she's been away at school.
Because you've filtered her out as spam?
> Unless of course the bible had a misprint... :D
The bible IS a misprint
> No, time travelers just don't speak English.
Or any language that we currently know about. Grammar is pretty important in the expression of temporal ideas, and if you're going to travel in time I'd take a guess (and it's nothing more than that - my time machine is in the shop right now) that you're going to need to express temporal ideas.
I fulfil all of your requirements. (Although I consider aeembly a tool for the feeble minded that can't deal with raw hex or binary - depending on the platform). And it was JUST A JOKE. At least three people have found it funny enough to mod it +1 (and somebody with no sense of humour has modded it down -1 "overrated". Which, IIRC, means they're safe from M2)
> Sounds like 2001 to me. Except those monoliths somehow sparked great changes in humanity
And didn't come from the future. But you're right, they both have monoliths.
> Uncertainty can be reduced by using better measurement methods
Not according to Heisenberg.
> "unknowableness" is a.k.a. uncertainty.
Heisenberg unknowableness principle doesn't have the same ring to it though, does it?
So what you're saying is that certain religious groups have certain ideas which are so ill-founded as to be laughable, yet they will take every opportunity to use those ideas to embarass themselves in public? Fortunatly for them, stupidy is not the obstacle to survival that it once was :-)
Proof positive that time travel is impossible - the grammar is WAY too complex.
> The plausibility of these scenarios _actually happening_ is slim to none
So, earth creature, we have succeeded in lulling you into a false sense of security. You will kneel before the might Kr'a,nuth when he comes to take your pathetic little planet. All your chronoliths are belong to us.
> If you suddenly had a big monument materialize obliterating your city, would you be prone to distrust the writing on it?
If it said "we come in peace", probably.
> I've never met a meek geek in my life.
What does meekness have to do anything? After the overture to 2112, Geddy Lee quite clearly says "And the geek shall inherit the earth". (It's amazing what you can do with digital audio...)
> He's just a computer programmer
Whaddya mean, JUST a computer programmer. Didn't you know that the geeks will inherit the earth?
> "and each lauds another victory by a leader who does not currently exist."
:)
> So, teenagers are winning the wars fought in the future?
Not having read the book, I don't know. But I'd take a guess that the leaders don't exist at the point in the fictional-future that the monument appears. At least, that's how I read it.
> I knew the dexterity I had built up with a gamepad would come in handy some day
If, on the other hand, your interpretation is the correct one, you don't exist and therefore should be vaninshing in a puff of logic about....now