...or is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?
Considering that he was a serial offender, and had received an official caution from the police in 2009 for a similar offence, it seems unlikely that he didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken.
If he'd done a similar thing by post, he'd still be going to prison.
Mr Cameron said: “What happened on our streets was absolutely appalling behaviour and to send a very clear message that it’s wrong and won’t be tolerated is what the criminal justice system should be doing.
Mr Cameron is no stranger to appalling behaviour, being a former member of the Bullingdon Club, "notorious for its members' wealth and destructive binges". The club song apparently goes: "Buller, Buller, Buller! Buller, Buller, Buller! We are the famous Bullingdon Club, and we don't give a fuck!"
Cameron has no intention of following through with this: he's just playing up to the hard-of-thinking Daily Mail-reading reactionaries. Any such law would be smacked down by Strasbourg immediately.
Just as he had no intention of using rubber bullets or water cannon on looters, nor any intention of bringing back hanging.
The man is a despicable mountebank of the lowest order.
I despair for UK politics: the Labour party has been eviscerated by its own class enemy, the Liberal party has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, and the Tory party has nothing to offer but greenwash and moronic rabble-rousing.
Now it's just a case of voting for your lizard to stop the wrong lizard getting in.
Also interesting is that the senior policeman in charge of the original investigation (Andy Hayman) found only a 'handful' of victims, and was asked by parliament to reinvestigate the case. He replied *the same day* that after reinvestigation that no evidence of more victims was found.
We now know that the Met police in fact had evidence of a large number of victims.
Hayman left the force and - by mere coincidence - got a job as a columnist at the Times: another News Corp paper.
Still, not to worry: he was replaced as the investigator in the case by John Yates, who also appeared to misled parliament by claiming that there were only 8 - 12 victims when must have had evidence of many more.
By mere coincidence, senior Met officers dined 13 times with News Corp executives during the short period of the original investigation. Yates himself dined with the News of the World's editor Colin Myler during the 2009 investigation when Myler should almost certainly have been considered a suspect.
Rebekah Wade admitted to a Commons Select Committee that her paper had paid police for information in the past. The Met police refused to investigate this clear admission of a crime.
The UK reprocesses spent fuel so there's a lot less waste to start off with.
Well, we did for a while. Now we're just storing it again.
THORP was closed in 'temporarily' 2005 after a big leak, and due to various problems isn't up and running again yet.
The idea was that it would reprocess spent fuel for other countries for cash, but lost its biggest client (Japan) when it was found that BNFL was faking safety data. So with that and the leak, THORP turned out to be a huge white elephant. It's a shame, but about par for the course for the UK's nuclear power industry.
France have the COGEMA plant in Normandy (they're now reprocessing Japan's spent fuel), but they don't reprocess the UK's spent fuel.
Is hinting at the news agency's website any less an endorsement of a commercial service (of the webhoster, in this case) than hinting at the news agency's Twitter feed is an endorsement of Twitter?
Isn't it obvious that that is completely different?
If they say "more information and breaking stories on our website - hosted by soosmabeet web hosting" then it would be equivalent. Otherwise no, because they're not advertising their hosting service.
On the other hand, to say "follow us on twitter" suggests you that should use twitter, furthers twitter's brand recognition, and promotes twitter as *the* micro-blogging service. This is all great publicity for twitter, and surely you concede that this gives them a commercial advantage over other companies? This is clandestine advertising -- giving commercial services undue prominence in otherwise non-commercial broadcasts.
To me the distinction is clear, and I'm puzzled why it's not to others. Is it just because twitter is so entrenched in popular culture?
Or is it because clandestine adverts are so commonplace that they have become like fnords?
Imagine you have ever heard of twitter, but you watch the news and every day they say "follow us on twitter!". Do you concede that this is more likely to make you go and find out what twitter is -- and possibly open a twitter account -- than if you stayed blissfully unaware of the existence of twitter?
If the TV channel want to promote twitter *on their own website*, then [maybe] they are free to do so, because [perhaps] the law only covers what they *broadcast*, and not what they put on their website. [I can't really say, as I'm not going to spend my Sunday wading through a metric shit-load of French legalese.]
do I as a viewer have any advantage by this?
Yes, your news broadcasts are free from clandestine advertisements.
I cannot consider the restriction as it was imposed as beneficial
Perhaps you should think of it as a ban on spam, or slashvertisements. Does that help?
Would you mod me down if I included a link in this post to my fake rolex site?
Which of your questions encourage viewers to become customers of a particular commercial service? Not one.
If you really think that saying "Check out our website!" is a clandestine advert for a web host/ISP/wifi chipset manufacturer then you must be seriously hard of thinking.
Any objective person can see that saying "Follow us on twitter!" is an endorsement of a commercial service, and it's not legal in France to pepper news programs with adverts like this.
The blogtards and upcoming posters who say "Stupid bans like these don't work" and "Next they will be after McDonalds and Disney" are either missing the point due to a lack of thought, or don't care about the point and just like to criticize France anyway.
Personally, I'm amazed that CSA have finally pulled their finger out and have reminded the broadcasters of their responsibilities.
Hey whatever it takes to make you happy that you bought a cheap copy.
Funny, as I've got an iPhone (3GS) and an Android phone (HTC Desire). I need both for testing mobile websites.
The iPhone now gets used *solely* for testing websites.
The Android phone is just better in most respects; gmaps/navigation, ability to play *any* video format, better reception (GSM and wifi), faster to navigate the UI (it's got a 'back' button!), vastly superior home screens and widgets, better battery life (and the option of a spare battery), better camera, bluetooth that's not intentionally crippled, SDcard support, hotspot that works out-of-the-box... Just better.
All that goes to make me 'happy that I bought a cheap copy'.
The iPhone wins hands-down on style and sound quality (holy shit the sound on the HTC is crap) but nothing else I can think of.
I'm not an Apple-hater; I'm typing this on my MacBook and I've owned Macs for 20 years (SE/30 FTW!)
I can watch iPlayer/Hulu, download movies and ISOs, I use it for work and listening to pandora and BBC Radio.
I honestly can't think of any time I have thought 'I wish I had faster broadband'. In fact, I could upgrade to fibre for not much extra but I don't feel the need.
I'd worry more about the relatively large number of unfortunate Americans who can't get broadband at all due to being out in the sticks.
(They also taught al-Qaeda and similar groups a lot of their skills. Apparently, many of the roadside IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan are based on IRA designs that they used against British troops during the Troubles.)
Kinda true, but according to Andy McNab the IRA-developed techniques were taught to the Mujahidin by the British Army when they were our 'allies' against the Russians. The British Army had learned the techniques in Northern Ireland.
The Silly and Disorganised Crime Agency were hoping to make a proposal involving rotating bow-ties and fart cushions, but the meeting never really got past the custard-pie-throwing stage.
Interesting that Paul Chambers gets arrested and fined while Abu Hamza gets to say whatever he likes and gets a passport.
In fact Hamza was prosecuted and jailed for three charges of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" and has had a British passport since 1983.
Hamza is undoubtedly an arsehole, but any insinuation that he's been treated softly is wide of the mark.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really enjoying working with the Solar framework. It's well engineered and cleanly constructed.
Certainly worth a look if you're sticking to (or stuck with) PHP.
Considering that he was a serial offender, and had received an official caution from the police in 2009 for a similar offence, it seems unlikely that he didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken.
If he'd done a similar thing by post, he'd still be going to prison.
Subjects? Can't imagine there are many rioter-identifying subjects; it's a corner-case of British nationality law.
I expect they mean citizens, which is something else entirely.
If you're eligible for a British passport you're a British citizen. British passports say: "Nationality: British Citizen".
Prime Minister David Cameron said:
Mr Cameron is no stranger to appalling behaviour, being a former member of the Bullingdon Club, "notorious for its members' wealth and destructive binges". The club song apparently goes: "Buller, Buller, Buller! Buller, Buller, Buller! We are the famous Bullingdon Club, and we don't give a fuck!"
Cameron's 'Buller' escapades include running from the police through the streets of Oxford after a heavy flowerpot was thrown through a restaurant window.
Cameron has no intention of following through with this: he's just playing up to the hard-of-thinking Daily Mail-reading reactionaries. Any such law would be smacked down by Strasbourg immediately.
Just as he had no intention of using rubber bullets or water cannon on looters, nor any intention of bringing back hanging.
The man is a despicable mountebank of the lowest order.
I despair for UK politics: the Labour party has been eviscerated by its own class enemy, the Liberal party has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, and the Tory party has nothing to offer but greenwash and moronic rabble-rousing.
Now it's just a case of voting for your lizard to stop the wrong lizard getting in.
By far the most common of the three languages in Belgium is Dutch.
The German-speaking community in Belgium is tiny by comparison.
Where does it say in the article that they were added to the 'terrorism watch list'?
In fact the Israelis told the airlines that the people on the list would not be allowed to enter Israel, so the airlines prevented them from flying.
There's no mention of terrorism: the submitter made that bit up.
Also interesting is that the senior policeman in charge of the original investigation (Andy Hayman) found only a 'handful' of victims, and was asked by parliament to reinvestigate the case. He replied *the same day* that after reinvestigation that no evidence of more victims was found.
We now know that the Met police in fact had evidence of a large number of victims.
Hayman left the force and - by mere coincidence - got a job as a columnist at the Times: another News Corp paper.
Still, not to worry: he was replaced as the investigator in the case by John Yates, who also appeared to misled parliament by claiming that there were only 8 - 12 victims when must have had evidence of many more.
By mere coincidence, senior Met officers dined 13 times with News Corp executives during the short period of the original investigation. Yates himself dined with the News of the World's editor Colin Myler during the 2009 investigation when Myler should almost certainly have been considered a suspect.
Rebekah Wade admitted to a Commons Select Committee that her paper had paid police for information in the past. The Met police refused to investigate this clear admission of a crime.
The UK reprocesses spent fuel so there's a lot less waste to start off with.
Well, we did for a while. Now we're just storing it again.
THORP was closed in 'temporarily' 2005 after a big leak, and due to various problems isn't up and running again yet.
The idea was that it would reprocess spent fuel for other countries for cash, but lost its biggest client (Japan) when it was found that BNFL was faking safety data. So with that and the leak, THORP turned out to be a huge white elephant. It's a shame, but about par for the course for the UK's nuclear power industry.
France have the COGEMA plant in Normandy (they're now reprocessing Japan's spent fuel), but they don't reprocess the UK's spent fuel.
I consider this hacking group no more than simple vandals and criminals at this stage. There is no "honour" in it
Indeed, they admit that they are just in it for the lulz, and don't claim to have an honorable motive.
But there may be unintended benefits if companies actually start to take security seriously and start to actually *budget* for it.
Is hinting at the news agency's website any less an endorsement of a commercial service (of the webhoster, in this case) than hinting at the news agency's Twitter feed is an endorsement of Twitter?
Isn't it obvious that that is completely different?
If they say "more information and breaking stories on our website - hosted by soosmabeet web hosting" then it would be equivalent. Otherwise no, because they're not advertising their hosting service.
On the other hand, to say "follow us on twitter" suggests you that should use twitter, furthers twitter's brand recognition, and promotes twitter as *the* micro-blogging service. This is all great publicity for twitter, and surely you concede that this gives them a commercial advantage over other companies? This is clandestine advertising -- giving commercial services undue prominence in otherwise non-commercial broadcasts.
To me the distinction is clear, and I'm puzzled why it's not to others. Is it just because twitter is so entrenched in popular culture?
Or is it because clandestine adverts are so commonplace that they have become like fnords?
Imagine you have ever heard of twitter, but you watch the news and every day they say "follow us on twitter!". Do you concede that this is more likely to make you go and find out what twitter is -- and possibly open a twitter account -- than if you stayed blissfully unaware of the existence of twitter?
If the TV channel want to promote twitter *on their own website*, then [maybe] they are free to do so, because [perhaps] the law only covers what they *broadcast*, and not what they put on their website. [I can't really say, as I'm not going to spend my Sunday wading through a metric shit-load of French legalese.]
do I as a viewer have any advantage by this?
Yes, your news broadcasts are free from clandestine advertisements.
I cannot consider the restriction as it was imposed as beneficial
Perhaps you should think of it as a ban on spam, or slashvertisements. Does that help?
Would you mod me down if I included a link in this post to my fake rolex site?
All of your points are specious.
Which of your questions encourage viewers to become customers of a particular commercial service? Not one.
If you really think that saying "Check out our website!" is a clandestine advert for a web host/ISP/wifi chipset manufacturer then you must be seriously hard of thinking.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
Any objective person can see that saying "Follow us on twitter!" is an endorsement of a commercial service, and it's not legal in France to pepper news programs with adverts like this.
The blogtards and upcoming posters who say "Stupid bans like these don't work" and "Next they will be after McDonalds and Disney" are either missing the point due to a lack of thought, or don't care about the point and just like to criticize France anyway.
Personally, I'm amazed that CSA have finally pulled their finger out and have reminded the broadcasters of their responsibilities.
Hey whatever it takes to make you happy that you bought a cheap copy.
Funny, as I've got an iPhone (3GS) and an Android phone (HTC Desire). I need both for testing mobile websites.
The iPhone now gets used *solely* for testing websites.
The Android phone is just better in most respects; gmaps/navigation, ability to play *any* video format, better reception (GSM and wifi), faster to navigate the UI (it's got a 'back' button!), vastly superior home screens and widgets, better battery life (and the option of a spare battery), better camera, bluetooth that's not intentionally crippled, SDcard support, hotspot that works out-of-the-box... Just better.
All that goes to make me 'happy that I bought a cheap copy'.
The iPhone wins hands-down on style and sound quality (holy shit the sound on the HTC is crap) but nothing else I can think of.
I'm not an Apple-hater; I'm typing this on my MacBook and I've owned Macs for 20 years (SE/30 FTW!)
FFS. It's not the government, it's the judiciary. There is a difference, you know.
The judiciary is one of the three branches of government, you know.
I'm on 5Mb and it's fine for me.
I can watch iPlayer/Hulu, download movies and ISOs, I use it for work and listening to pandora and BBC Radio.
I honestly can't think of any time I have thought 'I wish I had faster broadband'. In fact, I could upgrade to fibre for not much extra but I don't feel the need.
I'd worry more about the relatively large number of unfortunate Americans who can't get broadband at all due to being out in the sticks.
Bradley Manning? When is his execution?
Presumably not before his trial.
Or are you one of those America-haters who don't respect the constitution?
And to be honest, I frankly don't give a fuck if 'psychological torture' is being performed.
And what of the eighth amendment?
Why do you hate America so much?
Do your team work in good conditions...
The sentence fragment is "correct" in countries like England where English escapes them, and they don't understand that a team is a singular entity
In over 30 years of living in England, I never saw or heard this solecism committed by an English person.
It is a mistake — not a local variation — and is never correct.
"WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals."
/tea-spit
Wikileaks expose corruption, torture, war crimes etc, but it's *wikileaks* who don't respect the rule of law or honor the rights of individuals?
Consider my gast flabbered.
(They also taught al-Qaeda and similar groups a lot of their skills. Apparently, many of the roadside IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan are based on IRA designs that they used against British troops during the Troubles.)
Kinda true, but according to Andy McNab the IRA-developed techniques were taught to the Mujahidin by the British Army when they were our 'allies' against the Russians. The British Army had learned the techniques in Northern Ireland.
Why release 49,000 documents of political gossip when 1,000 of them have actual evidence in them?
Wow. Could this be the same slashdot user peragrin who was criticizing Wikileaks for selectively editing the 'Collateral Murder' video?
That movie was edited to only show the parts that were bad, when the full clip was shown it shows just how hard troops try to miss civilians.
Once you start lying you can't stop. Julian started to cover up the truth with 10 seconds slides that only show his side.
The Silly and Disorganised Crime Agency were hoping to make a proposal involving rotating bow-ties and fart cushions, but the meeting never really got past the custard-pie-throwing stage.
Feynman's excellent book 'Lectures on Computation' has a fantastic explanation of Hamming codes and distance, error correction etc.
If you're even remotely interested in information theory you *must* read this book! No prior knowledge required.
If you're a cheap bastard I'm sure you can find a pdf, but it's well worth the asking price.
Interesting that Paul Chambers gets arrested and fined while Abu Hamza gets to say whatever he likes and gets a passport.
In fact Hamza was prosecuted and jailed for three charges of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" and has had a British passport since 1983.
Hamza is undoubtedly an arsehole, but any insinuation that he's been treated softly is wide of the mark.